I don't need this in Search, in that context I agre with Emmanuel about "user use case is not compelling enough." Don't know however how important this is for Envers? And how is the support for eventlisteners with Criteria/JPA2? Is the spec stating that no events are fired after an HQL/whatever query?
just wondering, Sanne 2009/11/28 Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org>: > Two difficulties I just realized: > > First is that we actually only use the temporary table approach in the > case of update/delete against 'multi-table structures'. In a basic or > table-per-hierarchy entity structure the temporary table is currently > not used. If this is something y'all agree is needed, what I can do is > to look at making the listeners influence the decision whether or not to > use temporary tables (currently that decision is solely based on the > entity structure). > > Second is the fact that the 'id table' rows are cleaned up immediately > afterwards. The Query#executeUpdate() process goes something like: > 1) populate 'id table' > 2) execute update/delete utilizing 'id table' > (fire this new event) > 3) clean up the 'id table' > > > On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 14:46 +0100, Adam Warski wrote: >> Either a "lazy structure" or the table name + utility method to read content >> of the table, as that's the operation all users of such listeners would need. >> >> Adam >> >> On Nov 24, 2009, at 9:09 PM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> >> > If you return a "lazy structure", we could avoid the overhead unless the >> > data is needed :) >> > >> > On 24 nov. 09, at 20:52, Steve Ebersole wrote: >> > >> >> I think it will just pass the table name. Too much overhead to >> >> materialize all the ids when the event may not even be used. >> >> >> >> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 20:21 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >> -- >> >> 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 > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
