I don't know which is the problem... you said that there is a problem and you want change it using the same tech used by batch-size (using uploaded ids) because subselect seems inefficient in some cases.
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:48 PM, nadav s <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >> > -- Fabio Maulo
