Good idea, If we could have an event listener that indeed does provide the information lazily, we could definitely benefit from it. But that has a cost so I think I would still keep it optional on the HSearch side.
On 24 nov. 09, at 19:53, Adam Warski wrote: > Hello, > > I don't exactly know how bulk operations work, and I didn't know > that there's a temporary table with the affected ids available. > But if so, then yes, such an event would solve the problem, in the > way Steve described. (And I got asked about bulk operations quite a > lot of times, always answered that it isn't possible :) ). I think > that both Envers and Search would need the ids affected + the entity > type + the type of the operation (delete, insert, update). > > If it's possible, it would be great to have that :) > > Adam > > On Nov 24, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > >> How about a new event right at the moment after we have just >> collected >> all the ids into the temp table? >> >> For envers, this would allow you to save off the current state >> prior to >> the update/delete. >> >> For search, this would allow you to "circle back" after the operation >> and re-index those matching ids. >> >> wdyt? >> >> >> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 08:20 +0100, Adam Warski wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>>> a user on forums is posting about an HQL like >>>> "delete from product where id = 4" >>>> which - in case of Hibernate Search - is not going to remove the >>>> relevant document from the index. >>>> >>>> Another interesting case would be >>>> "delete from product" >>>> >>>> Any thoughts about this? Should we always use API when making >>>> changes? >>>> (https://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1001076) >>> >>> In general listeners for any bulk operations aren't fired (in case >>> of a bulk update the indexes won't be updated either). This is a >>> problem also in Envers - where doing bulk operations doesn't cause >>> any historical data to be written in the audit tables. What I >>> normally advise users on the forum is to: >>> 1) run a hql which updates the historical tables (bascially >>> inserting new rows for each id affected by the hql to be executed) >>> 2) run the original hql >>> >>> For HSearch, I guess a solution would be to provide an API to tell >>> HSearch that some range of ids of some entity changed. So the user >>> would: >>> 1) get the ids affected by the query (this usually means replacing >>> delete/update by select) >>> 2) run the original hql >>> 3) pass the ids to hsearch so that it could update the indexes >>> >>> However, I'm not sure if there would be much performance gain >>> comparing using a bulk operation to a for-loop with >>> entityManager.delete in that case (HSearch would have to handle >>> each entity separately anyway; maybe not in case of a delete, but >>> certainly in case of an update). >>> >> -- >> Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> >> Hibernate.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
