Hi Luis, 2013/11/12 Luis Festas Matos <[email protected]>
> Hi Lukas :) > > Happy to see you again after our brief acquaintance at stackoverflow ( > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19553405/using-sql92-syntax-for-joining-table-to-itself-moving-from-ingres-specific-to-j) > Aha, that was you! Nice to see you again. You're in the exclusive jOOQ / Ingres club with only few members. It's interesting to see this combination in the wild. I'd actually be very interested in hearing more about this integration. How does working with Ingres work out for you? Which of the Actian licenses are you using? Do you blog about your project? > So basically for me to get it right: when the cache in memory is exhausted > by doing fetches on the cursor, a new fetch on the database is done? > > eg: table with 1000 records > > fetchLazy(100) sets the jdbc to retrieve 100 records at a time; > first fetch(30) provokes first 100 records to be read from the database > and go to jooq cache; > Yes, 100 records should be consumed by the JDBC driver. No, only 30 records would be consumed by jOOQ. > second fetch(30) doesn't provoke any database activity (since it goes to > 60 out of 100 still on cache) > third fetch(30) idem; > fourth fetch(30) provokes next 100 records to be read from the database; > rinse and repeat? > That's how I would understand the JDBC API, yes. I know that not all JDBC drivers correctly implement the fetchSize property, e.g. MySQL: http://stackoverflow.com/a/9953311/521799 Cheers Lukas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
