Re: How to avoid expensive fetches in database when setting to-one-relationship

Hi Jeremy, I highly doubt that all toMany relationships are fetched without something that triggers the fetch. You can read this article if you want to optimize the requests: https://wiki.wocommunity.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=12943886

Re: How to avoid expensive fetches in database when setting to-one-relationship

Jérémy, You can keep a cache of the results inside your EO. As the EO is specific to an EOEditingContext, it will be refreshed often if you use the pattern of creating a new EOEditingContext per main WOComponent. BTW, the toMany is triggered by the fact we ask EOF to update the reverse relatio

Question about jdbc connection pool

Hello, How does one set the jdbc connection pool size? Is there a default if this isn't specifically set? Thanks, Leigh Kivenko | VP, Technology PortfolioAid t. 416-479-0523 | e. lei...@portfolioaid.com This e-mail may be privileged and confidential. If you recei

Re: How to avoid expensive fetches in database when setting to-one-relationship

According to yours posts, it seems that for performance reasons, we have to think twice (or more) before adding a reverse to Many relationship. Before removing all the non-usefull to Many relationships and add the associated delete controls, I have one more question (sic) : - What’s the differen

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

The ObjectStoreCoordinator opens one connection which everything shares by default. If you want multiple connections, you have to create multiple OSCs. There’s an OSC pool built into Wonder, but it leaks memory. On Jun 6, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Leigh Kivenko wrote: > Hello, > How does one set the j

Re: How to avoid expensive fetches in database when setting to-one-relationship

Hi Jeremy, The real issue is that you used “addObjectsToBothSidesOfRelationship()” Had you added to only one side of the relationship… If you only set the to-one, then the “to-many back relationship” would not have been tripped. This is why NeXT gave you the option to choose. If you don’t need

RE: Question about jdbc connection pool

Thanks Ramsey. Does that mean there is only 1 database connection shared by all end-users of an app? So if a user hits a query that runs for 3+ seconds all other application users are stuck waiting for that query to complete? Leigh Kivenko | VP, Technology PortfolioAid t. 416-479-0523 | e. lei..

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

Yes, one connection per application instance is the default. On Jun 6, 2016, at 9:47 AM, Leigh Kivenko wrote: > Thanks Ramsey. Does that mean there is only 1 database connection shared by > all end-users of an app? So if a user hits a query that runs for 3+ seconds > all other application user

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

Yes, that is correct. So it is good not have not 3 second queries :-) and if you do have them and can identify them in advance, run them in a separate EOF stack to avoid impacting the other users. Chuck From: on behalf of Leigh Kivenko Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:47 AM To: Ramsey Gurley

Re: How to avoid expensive fetches in database when setting to-one-relationship

Relationships that are a class property are fetched and maintained by EOF. Relationships that are not a class property are just names that you can use in a fetch specification – it tells EOF how to navigate the joins but EOF will not fetch or manage them. Chuck From: Jérémy DE ROYER Date: M

Re: How to avoid expensive fetches in database when setting to-one-relationship

One other reason - non class property relationships help EOF resolve abstract entity relationships when prefetching. Without the non-class property back pointing relationships, the prefetched sub-entities don’t get connected properly. > On Jun 6, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: > > Rela

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

Off the top of my head, not sure. It’s probably specified in java monitor help. But it has nothing to do with database connections AFAIK. On Jun 6, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Leigh Kivenko wrote: > Thanks again. What is the “Connection pool size” in the JavaMonitor then? > Something else? > > > >

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

I am pretty sure that maps to the ServerSocket’s backlog: “requested maximum length of the queue of incoming connections” From: on behalf of Ramsey Gurley Date: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 10:44 AM To: Leigh Kivenko Cc: WebObjects-Dev Subject: Re: Question about jdbc connection pool Off the to

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

Huh. Never knew this (serial DB access). Is there a recommended way of scaling out a WebObjects/Wonder application that doesn’t involve many, many JVMs? Or should I really be using another application framework? Tarun > On Jun 6, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Chuck Hill wrote: > > I am pretty sure tha

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

On Jun 6, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Tarun Reddy wrote: > Huh. Never knew this (serial DB access). Is there a recommended way of > scaling out a WebObjects/Wonder application that doesn’t involve many, many > JVMs? You don’t need multiple VMs to run multiple WO app instances. monitor is not like tomc

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

> Le 6 juin 2016 à 20:04, Ramsey Gurley a écrit : > > On Jun 6, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Tarun Reddy wrote: > >> Huh. Never knew this (serial DB access). Is there a recommended way of >> scaling out a WebObjects/Wonder application that doesn’t involve many, many >> JVMs? > > > You don’t need mult

Re: Question about jdbc connection pool

I've built apps that handled millions of transactions a day with only a few instances. It's not always the best situation, but if you tune your DB well, it works. > On Jun 6, 2016, at 7:21 PM, Tarun Reddy wrote: > > Huh. Never knew this (serial DB access). Is there a recommended way of > scal

Re: Deployment on CentOS 7 [Was: Re: Modern Deployment presentation]

On 7 Jun 2016, at 9:25 AM, Theodore Petrosky wrote: > I want to thank everyone for the help getting my ESXi Centos VM a beautiful > thing. I confirmed it this afternoon by starting fresh. > > I created a new VM and installed a WO deployment that works beautifully. > Start to finish, which inc

Re: Deployment on CentOS 7 [Was: Re: Modern Deployment presentation]

> Le 6 juin 2016 à 22:18, Paul Hoadley a écrit : > > On 7 Jun 2016, at 9:25 AM, Theodore Petrosky wrote: > >> I want to thank everyone for the help getting my ESXi Centos VM a beautiful >> thing. I confirmed it this afternoon by starting fresh. >> >> I created a new VM and installed a WO de

Re: How to avoid expensive fetches in database when setting to-one-relationship

Thank’s. I will keep my model with the to-Many relationship, remove the class property… …and (re)ceate all the methods to fetch objects, check when deleting et optimize the access to such a lists. I'll start with the customers class and keep you informed, Jérémy Le 6 juin 2016 à 19:21, Ken And