Hi, If that is the case (I do not get this result with the OJB testsuite and my patch and testcase, or don't you guys use hsql anymore for the tests?), then probably some modification has to be made to RsIterator class. The next and hasNext methods must make sure that you do NOT get a duplicate object in the resultset. For the next-method (return the next not-yet-returned object), this would not be problem, I have my doubts about the hasNext method (hasNext should be true if there is a next object AND it has not been returned yet). This implies that paging (pagination) will also work again, because this is also affected by the duplicate-records bug.
The problem is though, that with these appearent contraints by some databases, I do not know how the paging implementation using native SQL is going to work, since I can limit the returned records to say 10, but if there are 5 duplicates in there, it is not the result expected (By the way, is the paging implementation using native SQL on the roadmap for OJB 1.1? We really need it because performance with queries on large resultsets are killing our apps.). Another alternative is that the SQL query generation implementation regarding this issue could be db platform specific, and just accept the fact that with some platforms you get duplicate objects. Roger Janssen iBanx -----Original Message----- From: Jakob Braeuchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:13 PM To: OJB Users List Subject: Re: Bug : duplicate objects in resultset : Why add orderby columns to resultset? hi all, this is what hsql says when the orderby column is not in the select :( Caused by: java.sql.SQLException: ORDER BY item should be in the SELECT DISTINCT list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] in statement [SELECT DISTINCT A0.ID,A0.TITLE,A0.DESCRIPTION FROM PROJECT A0 INNER JOIN PERSON_PROJECT A1 ON A0.ID=A1.PROJECT_ID INNER JOIN PERSON A2 ON A1.PERSON_ID=A2.ID ORDER BY A2.LASTNAME] hth jakob Thomas Dudziak schrieb: > On 6/19/06, Janssen, Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Diving deeper into the OJB code I see that the ensureColumns method in >> fact does two things: >> (1) add the columns to the returnable set of columns in the resultset >> (2) adds the columns to a list of columns to be used in force a join >> >> (2) is okay for orderby's, but (1) is not. If for orderby's (1) was left >> out, would that be a problem? > > As far as I remember, there was a problem a couple of months ago that > for one database all orderby columns had to be selected columns as > well (though I don't remember offhand which database it was, though). > > Tom > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *************************************************************************T he information contained in this communication is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.You should not copy, disclose or distribute this communication without the authority of iBanx bv. iBanx bv is neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information has been maintainedn or that the communication is free of viruses, interceptions or interference. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please returnt he communication to the sender and delete and destroy all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
