Well only update and delete work the way I described wrt a temporary table. inserts are handled completely differently.
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 19:53 +0100, 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 > > > -- Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> Hibernate.org _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
