btw, i don't really get what is the problem with subselect, as it lets you efficiently fetch a whole object graph for the N fathers that were fetched in some query, in the most efficient way possible
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:46 PM, nadav s <[email protected]> wrote: > i don't think its thats low priority, because it is actually a thing people > expect to happen when they set a fetch mode to Eager, at least i've seen > alot of situations when people really thought that thats whats going to > happen (later finding out it killed their query with CP) > > about when it is helpful - exactly in the situations diego described. two > use cases, > in one of them you query the fathers and gonna need only one of the > father's collection, and for the other > you're gonna need all of their collections. > it gets more complicated when there are grandchildren involved, and in one > of the situations you want the grand children of one of the childs, and in > the other situation, because you load an object graph, you're gonna need all > of them. > > now, either you implement (similar to what diego said) the loading of the > collections yourself, or you gonna have to live with the batch size slowing > down the first situation, where you would have prefered lazy loading without > batching > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Diego Mijelshon <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I have entities where batch loading helps in some use cases but it loads >> lots of unneeded entities/collections in other complex use cases, where I >> have many proxies but only use a few. >> My current workaround is doing "manual batch loading" (i.e. dummy query) >> in the cases where I need it. >> >> It would be definitely a low-priority but nice-to-have feature. >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:12, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It is possible for batcher (INSERT, UPDATE,DELETE). >>> I don't understand where it is useful for collection/relations >>> batch-size. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Diego Mijelshon >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Being able to override batch-size would be useful. Implementing it >>>> requires messing with more than one part of the infrastructure, though. >>>> >>>> Diego >>>> >>>> >
