Thanks Robert,
I will look at writing a patch. SQL Server syntax is a little
different from other databases in that the limit is set after the
select.
select TOP 20 customer_id, first_name from customer;
regards Malcolm Edgar
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Robert
Zeigler wrote:
> setFetchLi
setFetchLimit has been around for awhile, you're right. But the 2.0
behavior was, for all adapters, if I'm not mistaken, to do an in-
memory fetch. 3.0 added the ability to set the offset, and with it,
added the option to set the fetch limit at the database level. But,
as mentioned, this be
Fetch limit has been around since Cayenne 2.0, and its not working as
I expected.
Stepping through the code its performing the limit operation after the
query has been performed. For example a table with 100,000 rows will
be read into memory even with a fetch limit of 100. Then Cayenne
provides a
I don't think the behavior changed, per se. Rather, setFetchLimit is a
relatively new feature, and may not be properly supported by all of
the db adaptors yet.
Robert
On Jun 16, 2009, at 6/167:28 PM , Malcolm Edgar wrote:
Hi Guys,
On SQL Server we are finding that the setting the Fetch Li
Hi Guys,
On SQL Server we are finding that the setting the Fetch Limit on a
SelectQuery does not modify the SQL query, to set TOP or SET ROWCOUNT,
so the database is not limiting the number of rows returned, and it
appears that Cayenne is limiting the number of rows returned in
memory?
This is ki
How about renaming both classes? If they are different databases, I assume that
they are different kinds of users. So XxxxUser and YyyyUser seems appropriate.
Just "User" would be a bit ambiguous, I think.
Tony
-Original Message-
From: Borut Bolčina [mailto:borut.bolc...@gmail.com]
Sen
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Joe Baldwin wrote:
> That sounds logical. So if I limit my sort ordering to the initial query
> then the objects in pages 2-n will remain hollow?
>
> (I have a few instances in which there is sort ordering by the client (which
> is post query - resultset ordering).
2009/6/16 Joe Baldwin
> That sounds logical. So if I limit my sort ordering to the initial query
> then the objects in pages 2-n will remain hollow?
>
Yes. Adding an ordering leads to ORDER BY statements in generated SQL, so
all the processing remains the same.
That sounds logical. So if I limit my sort ordering to the initial
query then the objects in pages 2-n will remain hollow?
(I have a few instances in which there is sort ordering by the client
(which is post query - resultset ordering). I will have to take a
look at this design to impleme
The trick of paginated query is that all objects returned are HOLLOW, thus
having only identifier. Ordering.orderList will surely resolve *all*
records, how else would it know parameters of each object. To order a long
list properly you need to set ordering to a query:
query.setPageSize(RowsPerPag
This is a question concerning making performance enhancements with
Cayenne directives.
Lets say you use the following SelectQuery method
query.setPageSize(RowsPerPage);
But then you decide to sort order the result list using
Ordering order = new Ordering(._PROPERTY, true);
Hi everyone,
i'm tryng to upgrade my projects from Cayenne 2.0.4 to Ceyenne
3.0.M5 (M6)
Underlyng DB id Oracle 10 Express Edition.
In a project i have an extremely ugly looking, long SQLTemplate query that
worked fine under Cayenne 2.0.4:
SELECT DISTINCT
#result('t0.CODENTE' 'String' 'codic
Hi Borut, you may want to look at my copying DataMaps example:
http://cwiki.apache.org/CAY/copying-datamaps.html
It is old (still references "objectstyle" instead of "apache", but
might work fine with minor changes (like changing the package name).
(I haven't tried it on Cayenne 2.x+ yet.)
I was
Yeah, it is usage patterns that I miss in the documentation. Luckily for me,
this list is very responsive! Thanks.
2009/6/16 Andrus Adamchik
> Isn't this a better scenario?
>>
>
>
> It all depends on your app I guess.
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Borut Bolčina wrote:
>
> OK,
Isn't this a better scenario?
It all depends on your app I guess.
Andrus
On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Borut Bolčina wrote:
OK, I will try to use two different data domains, after all, the
databases
are completely unrelated. Isn't this a better scenario?
-Borut
2009/6/16 Andrus Adamchi
OK, I will try to use two different data domains, after all, the databases
are completely unrelated. Isn't this a better scenario?
-Borut
2009/6/16 Andrus Adamchik
> You have to place them in different DataDomains and use separate contexts
> to access them. Or call your class UserSomething (whi
You have to place them in different DataDomains and use separate
contexts to access them. Or call your class UserSomething (which looks
like a more sensible way to me to resolve a naming conflict).
Andrus
On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Borut Bolčina wrote:
Hi,
is it somehow possible to have
Hi,
is it somehow possible to have two DomainNodes (2 different independent
databases) with the same entity/class name? Both databases have table
(entity) "user" and I don't want to rename one class to UserSomething.
Regards,
Borut
18 matches
Mail list logo
