That is really really strange and should be changed IMO. Dain, is that a side effect of another behaviour or is that really the wanted behaviour. I suspect that this behaviour is inherited from the "single-pk finders" behaviour that must go to the db anyway.
Is that also the case when you simply have a proxy to a given entity? Will this generate a DB access or will it use the one from cache directly? Cheers, sacha > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]De la part de > Meyer-Willner, Bernhard > Envoy� : mardi, 10 d�cembre 2002 14:47 > � : '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Objet : AW: [JBoss-user] Another Commit Option A Cache Question :) > > > JBoss 3.x is doing the same, that is doing a SELECT COUNT before > the actual > SELECT for findByPrimaryKey. > > My question also is: is this intended behavior? > > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Lennart Petersson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2002 14:11 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: [JBoss-user] Another Commit Option A Cache Question :) > > > JBoss 2.4.x > > Why does findByPrimaryKey() always result in a 'select > count()....'-query on the database? Is it really needed due to the spec? > > I mean, I've told the app server (by using commit option A) that no one > else but the app server is touching the database. So... if the app > server has an entity with say the primary key xyz and I'm doing a > findByPrimaryKey("xyz") then the app server should be able to look in > cache __first__ to see if it is there. If it is it also must be in > database (since commit option A). If it is not in cache, then execute > the exists-query against database and the normal stuff... > > I've just enlighten a couple of java developers to use the > findByPrimaryKey() __as_much_as_possible__ to avoid db-access to start > using the cache at max. They where often using other findByXXX's > querying on non-pk but still unique fields. And then they tested it and > asked me - 'why is it still doing all those select count() stuff?'. And > I didn't actually know what to say... > > Am I wrong? Or perhaps this is handled different in JBoss 3 serie > (actually don't tested it - shame on me)? > > /Lennart > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > JBoss-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user > > This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the > intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, > confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. > It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any > other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please > promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and > inform the sender. Thank you. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > JBoss-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
