I have been reading thru the documentation on the hibernate query language
regarding joins and other 'sql' queries.
I noticed that in every case of a join the 2 tables have an association.
(constraint)
I was wondering if it is still possible to do the join without the relation.
This example is t
Sorry everyone - I didn't realize you could use straight sql in the
createQuery() method.
Anyway for those who might not know:
Query q = session.createQuery(
"select count(x.name) from Table_1 x, Table_2 y "+
" where length (x.name) > 11 and x.name= y.name(+) and
No, where clause (theta-style) joins are only supported for inner joins.
HQL has no "ON" (yet).
Troy McKinnon wrote:
I have been reading thru the documentation on the hibernate query language
regarding joins and other 'sql' queries.
I noticed that in every case of a join the 2 tables have an ass
Actually you can't. Did this work? I wouldn't rely upon it...
Troy McKinnon wrote:
Sorry everyone - I didn't realize you could use straight sql in the
createQuery() method.
Anyway for those who might not know:
Query q = session.createQuery(
"select count(x.name) from Table_1
Yes it did.
Is there a best practice instead? I can do it via straight jdbc, but I would
really like to use Hibernate for everything if there is a valid way to do
so.
It didn't work however when I tried to do 'and y.auditInfo.lastUpdated is
null'
Got:
net.sf.hibernate.QueryException: dereferenc
I meant to reply to this email a looong time ago, but never found a
chance. So, for the record:
I've been looking at the ReadWriteCache and NonStrictReadWrite cache
implementations. I find them to be a little unsatisfying in the way that
they lock objects out of the cache during transactions. For
yes - for the single object that is correct...buuut for Set's you got something like this:
"Note: Great care must be exercised if mutable objects are used as set elements.
The behavior of a set is not specified if the value of an object is changed in
a manner that affects equals comparisons while
