Sorry, no idea. Max or Andy probably know.
Peter Recore wrote: >> Not really. > Yeah, I was afraid of the "relations" part. In the use case I'm > dealing with, there are no relations, but maybe the JDO layer can't > infer that. For now I won't worry about it. If it turns out the > fetches related to these deletes are a bottleneck, I will use the low > level API. Besides relations, I suppose, another advantage might be > that JDO can run whatever hooks or extra things it needs to do, like > maybe removing it from memcached, etc? > > Luai: Thanks, I know about the low level API, I was asking for a JDO > solution specifically :) > > Esteban and Rusty - do you have reason to believe the delete by query > method does not first fetch the object to be deleted? My impression > is that you save a few lines of code that way, but don't necessarily > save actual datastore fetches. > > -peter > > On Nov 8, 6:49 am, datanucleus <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Is there a way todeletean entity without having to fetch it from the >>> datastore first? >> Not really. The issue is that an object can have relations and so, >> since these can cause cascade of operations, it typically has to be >> loaded into memory first. The only situation where it wouldn't need to >> be loaded into memory was if the class of the object to be deleted had >> no relations. >> >> Going into the low level API and blasting away objects may or may not >> have an impact on related objects ... perhaps someone responsible for >> it could comment on that. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
