Hi, since you are calling this "perform" would there also be a possibility to somehow incorporate my copy by query feature request? http://www.nabble.com/Feature-request-3A-copy-by-query-to13855888.html
As a side and practical note, I am working in a domain where many objects are involved, so for performance and memory issues it would really benefit from these "bulk" operations. The delete-by-query was a real must have in that regard. However, in the field I am working, I doubt whether update-by-query would be of the same added value for two reasons: 1) updating in our domain often involves some complex logic, eg. values should be updated based on values in other (children) objects and other factors. Could this be expressed in the closure? (and if it is, wouldn't that be too much going against the OO paradigm) 2) our experience is that these update operations can be done really quick within reasonable memory usage due to fetchgroups (you only load what you need) and fetchsize (having the right value really speeds up iterating). On the other hand, as mentioned in the copy-by-query request, copying can be a very time and memory consuming task, since both original and copy need to be completely in memory, while most of the time there is no need to load them into memory. kind regards, Christiaan -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Query-closures-for-JDO-2.2-tp14107531p14282910.html Sent from the JDO - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
