Hello, yes, your understanding is correct.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 6:46 PM Peter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Do I understand correctly, that each BinaryObject that is returned by
> IgniteCache.get() and IgniteCache.getAll() method calls on a local node
> contains an internal on-
Hello,
Do I understand correctly, that each BinaryObject that is returned by
IgniteCache.get() and IgniteCache.getAll() method calls on a local node
contains an internal on-heap byte array, and object unmarshalling occurs
from that array, and not from off-heap memory?
22 г., y :
Hi ,
When using binary to insert data, I need to get an exist
BinaryObject/BinaryObjectBuilder from the database, similar to the code below.
442062c6$3$1803c222cba$Coremail$hty1994712$163.com
If I create a BinaryObjectBuilder directly, inserting binary data does not map
to table data
s, build and put in the cache. The builder on the step 3 seems to be the same as the one on the cluent node. Hope that helps,Vladimir 13:06, 18 апреля 2022 г., y <hty1994...@163.com>:Hi ,When using binary to insert data, I need to get an exist BinaryObject/BinaryObjectBuilder from the databas
nd get its builder
(obj.toBuilder());
4. set some fields, build and put in the cache.
The builder on the step 3 seems to be the same as the one on the cluent node.
Hope that helps,
Vladimir
13:06, 18 апреля 2022 г., y :
Hi ,
When using binary to insert data, I need to get an exist
Bi
.toBuilder());
4. set some fields, build and put in the cache.
The builder on the step 3 seems to be the same as the one on the cluent node.
Hope that helps,
Vladimir
13:06, 18 апреля 2022 г., y :
Hi ,
When using binary to insert data, I need to get an exist
BinaryObject/BinaryObjectBui
uent
> node.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Vladimir
>
> 13:06, 18 апреля 2022 г., y :
>
> Hi ,
> When using binary to insert data, I need to get *an
> exist BinaryObject/BinaryObjectBuilder* from the database, similar to
> the code below.
> 442062c6$3$1803c222
e cluent node.
>
>Hope that helps,
>Vladimir
> 13:06, 18 апреля 2022 г., y < hty1994...@163.com >:
>>Hi ,
>>When using binary to insert data, I need to get an exist
>>BinaryObject/BinaryObjectBuilder from the database, similar to the code
апреля 2022 г., y :
Hi ,
When using binary to insert data, I need to get an exist
BinaryObject/BinaryObjectBuilder from the database, similar to the code below.
442062c6$3$1803c222cba$Coremail$hty1994712$163.com
If I create a BinaryObjectBuilder directly, inserting binary data does not map
, 18 апреля 2022 г., y :Hi ,When using binary to insert data, I need to get an exist BinaryObject/BinaryObjectBuilder from the database, similar to the code below. 442062c6$3$1803c222cba$Coremail$hty1994712$163.comIf I create a BinaryObjectBuilder directly, inserting binary data does not map to table
Hi ,
When using binary to insert data, I need to get an exist
BinaryObject/BinaryObjectBuilder from the database, similar to the code below.
If I create a BinaryObjectBuilder directly, inserting binary data does not map
to table data. The following code will not throw error, but the data
Hello everyone.
I'm creating a partitioned cache with persistence enabled.
I use java's thin client to connect my app to ignite.
I have a pool of reusable connections, as suggested in the documentation
since IgniteClient isn't thread safe.
After the cache is created, I'm using SQL "ALTER TABLE"
Hello Scott,
Unfortunately, there is no workaround available to safely use dot within
BinaryObject field name.
I am not aware of any other things, dot seems to be the only one symbol that
affects how BinaryObject is aligned.
Best regards,
Anton
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518
Thanks Anton.
We can deal with it by using a placeholder for the dot when interacting with
ignite. (Since in our notation we already have dots)
Going back to the questions,
1. It sounds like we cannot work around this limitation since it is a
reserved character, is that correct?
2. Are there
bject
"org" that is missing in this object (the field should be a BinaryObject
field named "org" with 3 nested fields), thus, the returned data will be
evaluated as nulls.
Best regards,
Anton
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Type("java.lang.String");
queryEntity.setValueType("deployment");
queryEntity.setFields(fields);
cfg.setQueryEntities(Collections.singleton(queryEntity));
IgniteCache deployment =
ignite.getOrCreateCache(cfg).withKeepBinary();BinaryObject
binar
: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:04 PMTo: user@ignite.apache.orgSubject: Re: Unable to read fields value from BinaryObject Hi, Yes, I can reproduce the behavior. It could be an issue with the custombinary mappers. The weird thing is that the CustomBinaryIdMapper works fine with a singlenode, i.e
Hi,
Yes, I can reproduce the behavior. It could be an issue with the custom
binary mappers.
The weird thing is that the CustomBinaryIdMapper works fine with a single
node, i.e. if it reads and writes the value from a cache, then the mapper is
working. But fails on the other node.
Meanwhile,
We are facing issue while retrieving values from binary objects if we use
custom id mapper.
We have two ignite clients.
1) Producer--> Creates cache and add entries to it.
2) Consumer--> Consumes cache entries created by producer. Reads data in
BinaryObject form and extracts values from it
am in trouble, please help me.
>
> I use Java ThinClient and Ignite Cache Server.
> In client code, I update BinaryObject by BinaryObjectBuilder API.
> ex) BinaryObject bo = clientCache.get(KEY);
> clientCache.put(KEY, bo.toBuilder().setField("
Hi,
See:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/examples/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/examples/binary/datagrid/CacheClientBinaryPutGetExample.java
and:
https://ignite.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/ignite/binary/BinaryObject.html
Hello. As I am in trouble, please help me.
I use Java ThinClient and Ignite Cache Server.
In client code, I update BinaryObject by BinaryObjectBuilder API.
ex) BinaryObject bo = clientCache.get(KEY);
clientCache.put(KEY, bo.toBuilder().setField("AddField",
Hello!
I have added comment to this ticket describing why does it happen and how
to fix it.
In Ignite, when you get key from your value binary object, it's actually a
wrapper pointing at some position in its parent (value) binary object. When
you try to put it to cache, indexing cannot process
; BinaryObjectBuilder builder1 = ignite.binary().builder("keys");
>
> BinaryObjectBuilder builder2 = ignite.binary().builder("fields");
>
> BinaryObject b1 = null;
>
> BinaryObject b2 = null;
>
> builder1.setField(&qu
?
IgniteDataStreamer streamer =
grid.dataStreamer("Customer");
streamer.keepBinary(true);
BinaryObjectBuilder builder1 = ignite.binary().builder("keys");
BinaryObjectBuilder builder2 = ignite.binary().builder("fields");
BinaryObject b1 = null;
Hi,
>How do I do streamer.addData to add the binary objects?
If you want to work without classes, you can use binary object builder,
just take it for these types:
ignite.binary().builder(CustomKey);
ignite.binary().builder(Customer);
And set fields in it:
builder.setField("Client_ID",
Hi All,
If I have a query entity defined with composite CustomKey, how do I insert
to the cache,here, Customer, via the DataStreamer, using binary object
builder? Do I need to define an object for the composite CustomKey? I am
trying to define all the tables/caches via the configuration file. How
Maxim,
I've an appropriate ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12911
Thanks, Alex
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Thank you, Alex!
Yes, I figured that this line indeed causes this crash. And yes, I'm using
queries and I need this line.
For now, I'm using the workaround I've described (of rebuilding the key
BinaryObject). But it's quite expensive operation and I would like to avoid
it.
This looks like a bug
Thank you, Alex!
Yes, I figured that this line indeed causes this crash. And yes, I'm using
queries and I need this line.
For now, I'm using the workaround I've described (of rebuilding the key
BinaryObject). But it's quite expensive operation and I would like to avoid
it.
This looks like a bug
Hi,
I was able to reproduce your use-case.
This line causes the issues you describe:
cacheConfig.setIndexedTypes(EmployeeId.class, Employee.class);
Comment it out, and everything works.
If you need Indexes, define them as need be, but remove these lines:
employeeCache.put(key2,
s.getName());
key1Builder.setField("employeeNumber", 65348765, Integer.class);
key1Builder.setField("departmentNumber", 123, Integer.class);
BinaryObject key1 = key1Builder.build();
BinaryObjectBuilder emp1Builder =
ignite.binary().builder(Employee.class.getName());
Hi,
When running your code I created the cache as follows:
IgniteCache employeeCache =
ignite.getOrCreateCache("employeeCache").withKeepBinary();
With the ".WithKeepBinary()" flag set code works, otherwise there are
serialization errors.
If you still get errors w/this flag set,
Ignite crashes when I use composite BinaryObject as a key and also include it
into the value object.
Here is the BinaryObject scenario:
// create a new composite key
BinaryObjectBuilder key1Builder =
Ignition.ignite().binary().builder(EmployeeId.class.getName());
key1Builder.setField
; Nap
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:37 AM Ilya Kasnacheev
> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> It is actually hard to say without debugging. I expect that it is
>> BinaryObject or primitive type or byte[].
>>
>> It is possible to enable onheap caching, in this c
a
NearCache, but if the data in NearCache are still serialized, this method
does not work for my application.
Thanks,
Nap
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:37 AM Ilya Kasnacheev
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> It is actually hard to say without debugging. I expect that it is
> BinaryObject or primitive
Hello!
It is actually hard to say without debugging. I expect that it is
BinaryObject or primitive type or byte[].
It is possible to enable onheap caching, in this case objects will be held
as is, and also sed copyOnRead=false, in this case objects will not even be
copied.
However, I'm not sure
Hi,
Are the entries stored in local NearCache on my client node in the format
of deserialized java objects or BinaryObject? Will the entry in local
on-heap NearCache be deserialized from BinaryObject when I call the get
function?
Thanks,
Nap
Hello!
You can do cache.invoke() with a callback that will update a single field
in an object. It will be sent to a specific node in cluster and object in
question will not be transferred via network, but processed locally.
Note that UPDATE will probably only send request to node containing
Besides the question above, I have another question.
If I use a composed key like this:
public class DpKey implements Serializable {
//key=devId + "_" + dpId
private String key;
@AffinityKeyMapped
private String devId;
//getter setter
}
Now I need to add records like this,
Hi Igniters -
As far as I am known, igniteCache.put(K, V) will replace the value of K with V,
but sometimes I just would like to update a specific field of V instead of the
whole object.
I know that I can update the specific field via
igniteCache.query(SqlFieldsQuery), but
t Types value to specify the type to use.
>
> at
> org.apache.hive.jdbc.HivePreparedStatement.setObject(HivePreparedStatement.java:624)
>
> at
> org.apache.ignite.cache.store.jdbc.CacheAbstractJdbcStore.fillParameter(CacheAbstractJdbcStore.java:1385)
>
> ... 10 more
&
events BIGINT, result_code BIGINT,
> result_code_events BIGINT, result_code_imsi VARCHAR(16),
> result_code_imsi_vector_item_count BIGINT, termination_cause BIGINT,
> termination_cause_event BIGINT) clustered by (id) into 2 buckets STORED AS
> orc TBLPROPERTIES('transactional
,
result_code_events BIGINT, result_code_imsi VARCHAR(16),
result_code_imsi_vector_item_count BIGINT, termination_cause BIGINT,
termination_cause_event BIGINT) clustered by (id) into 2 buckets STORED AS orc
TBLPROPERTIES('transactional'='true');
I am populating a BinaryObject using
ith the client.
>
>
>
> Mahesh
>
>
>
> *From:* Ilya Kasnacheev
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2019 6:43 PM
> *To:* user@ignite.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Error while persisting from Ignite to Hive for a
> BinaryObject
>
>
>
> Hello!
>
>
>
> I
PM
To: user@ignite.apache.org
Subject: Re: Error while persisting from Ignite to Hive for a BinaryObject
Hello!
I think that your CacheStore implementation is confused by nested fields or
binary object values (what is the type of apn_id?). Consider using
CacheJdbcBlobStoreFactory instead which
Hello!
I think that your CacheStore implementation is confused by nested fields or
binary object values (what is the type of apn_id?). Consider using
CacheJdbcBlobStoreFactory instead which will serialize value to one big
field in BinaryObject formar.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 23 янв
Hi all,
I am trying to stream some data from Kafka to Ignite using IgniteDataStreamer
and use 3rd party persistence to move it to HIVE. The data on Kafka is in avro
format, which I am deserailising, populating an Ignite BinaryObject using the
binary builder and pushing it to Ignite. It works
Hi,
In this case, customer should be also a BinaryObject, so, you have to
access it at first and only after get a certain field.
Evgenii
сб, 24 нояб. 2018 г. в 00:38, joseheitor :
> Given the following model data structure for a given document record:
>
> {
> "tran
rform a ScanQuery:
String date = "2017-12-01";
int amount = 1000;
String lastname = "Klebes";
IgniteCache cache =
database.getCache().withKeepBinary();
ScanQuery filter = new ScanQuery<>(
new IgniteBiPredicate() {
@Override
public boolean apply(Inte
nn.createStatement().execute("INSERT INTO Person (id, name,
city_id) VALUES (6, 'John Doe6', 3);");
conn.createStatement().execute("INSERT INTO Person (id, name,
city_id) VALUES (7, 'John Doe7', 3);");
conn.close();
Binar
|
++++
How can I query this table using BinaryObject Cache API?
I tried the code below, but it returns null for object o.
public class TestKey {
private String a;
private String b
Hello!
This is the first time such problem is observed, so maybe your case is very
uncommon for some reason.
Ignite has a thing called "free list" which helps plug holes in Durable
Memory pages normally.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
пт, 28 сент. 2018 г. в 18:40, Serg :
> Hi,
>
> I have
Hello!
You cannot avoid deserialization since data is stored in off-heap in
serialized form and also perhaps sent over network.
If you have a lot of different types, using HashMap will be preferred (with
primitive keys/values).
You could also try storing byte[] values to have precise control
Hi!
Is there some meta data storage overhead for binary object "types" ? I
need a cache where the value is pretty much a small key value store
(5-10 keys and values, all strings, every value different) and with that
few values maybe just two arrays with keys and values or a hash map, but
as
Hi,
I have changed my data model and the problem is gone.
But look like I should be care with data which I upload and will be nice to
know which data I can use, maybe I missed smth in docs about data
preparation?
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Hello!
It is still a problem for you? I can see slight decrease of fill factor on
your chart coupled with slight increase of data region usage. With regards
to fragmentation it is to be expected.
I have tried your test:
15:04:54,356 INFO [grid-timeout-worker-#23]
Metrics for local node (to
Hello Ilya,
I have found that cause of problem the objects which have different size of
data.
As result I have situation where pageFillFactor increased and offHeapSize is
decreased and this trend never end.
Grafana screen:
reproduce-grow-memory
>
> Differents in this tests only is data which inserted to cache.
> I have previously suppose that problem caused with BinaryObject only but I
> reproduced this problem without BinaryObject too.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
>
Hi Ilya,
I created reproducer with two tests
https://github.com/SergeyMagid/ignite-reproduce-grow-memory
Differents in this tests only is data which inserted to cache.
I have previously suppose that problem caused with BinaryObject only but I
reproduced this problem without BinaryObject too
Hello!
There's a WAL reader somewhere in the code, it could help if you have
persistence. Note that both invocation and output of this tool is confusing.
It would be nice if you had a reproducer which would show this behavior.
The snippet that you have posted previously isn't very clear on
Hi Ilya,
Yes growing not so quick but in production we lost near 1GB every day with
15GB of data on each node.
I had simplify data classes by remove annotations and this does not help.
Is it possible debug off-heap memory? How I can understand where memory
goes?
--
Sent from:
tomFields;
> }
>
> @Data
> private class CustomInfo {
>
> private Date updateTime;
> private boolean deleted;
>
> }
>
> /if we do not use BinaryObject in Contact all works as expected./
>
> *Problem*
> Off-heap memory allocate
ate boolean deleted;
}
/if we do not use BinaryObject in Contact all works as expected./
*Problem*
Off-heap memory allocate time to time for the same key new memory pages.
As a result, memory is constantly growing, but the data size is not
increasing.
If we stop ignite and load data again off-h
I had stopped at BinaryObject, and didn't follow the indirection though
type() to BinaryType. I think I assumed that this had only information at
the higher level, and wouldn't drill down into the fields.
This also answers a question about how to enumerate the fields.
Thanks.
-DH
On Wed, Mar 28
Dave,
There is one way to delete meta data.
You could find typeId using ignite.binary().type("package.Employeee").typeId()
and remove .bin files in all *binary_meta* subfolders.
y we get the data out of a different
> database returns a TIMESTAMP, but our binary object wants a DATE. In
> this test case, I could figure out that, but in the general case, I have a
> BinaryObject type name, and a field name, and an exception if I try to put
> the wrong type in
a TIMESTAMP, but our binary object wants a DATE. In
this test case, I could figure out that, but in the general case, I have a
BinaryObject type name, and a field name, and an exception if I try to put
the wrong type in that field.
The hokey general solutions I have come up with are:
1) Parse
configuration's query entity. If not
> supplied, by default it is equal to value type name, e.g. BinaryObject :)
>
> Also, note that SQL tables have fixed schemas. This means you won't be
> able to add a random set of fields in BinaryObject and be able to do SQL
> queries on them a
When you create a table via SQL, you already fully describe its schema, so
there is no need for QueryEntity. Can you clarify what you're trying to
achieve?
-Val
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Is it possible to create a table by SQL and then add the QueryEntity
(probably when creating the table) so later we are able to search with
SqlFieldsQuery property?
I mean without creating first a POJO first and defined in the cache
configuration.
--
Sent from:
Hi,
In your case, you, most possibly use Id as key, and it could be Long or Int.
So, you just need to get it by this key. The example you provided describes
the case with complex primary key.
Evgenii
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Hi
I have created a table with three columns which I populated using sql.
The table is called descriptor and the columns are id,name,description
Now I wonder, how can I query this table to get a list of BinaryObjects?
In the documentation I found this example:
BinaryObject key = ignite.binary
Denis
> On Jan 22, 2018, at 5:44 AM, Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Rajesh!
>
> Table name can be specified in cache configuration's query entity. If not
> supplied, by default it is equal to value type name, e.g. BinaryObject :)
>
Hello Rajesh!
Table name can be specified in cache configuration's query entity. If not
supplied, by default it is equal to value type name, e.g. BinaryObject :)
Also, note that SQL tables have fixed schemas. This means you won't be able
to add a random set of fields in BinaryObject and be able
Hi Denis,
This is my code:
CacheConfiguration<Long, BinaryObject> cacheCfg =
new CacheConfiguration<>(ORG_CACHE);
cacheCfg.setAtomicityMode(CacheAtomicityMode.TRANSACTIONAL);
cacheCfg.setBackups(1);
cacheCfg
.setWriteSynchro
> On Jan 20, 2018, at 7:20 PM, Rajesh Kishore <rajesh10si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have requirement that my schema is not fixed , so I have to use the
> BinaryObject approach instead of fixed POJO
>
> I am relying on OOTB file system persisten
Hi,
I have requirement that my schema is not fixed , so I have to use the
BinaryObject approach instead of fixed POJO
I am relying on OOTB file system persistence mechanism
My questions are:
- How can I specify the indexes on BinaryObject?
- If I have to use sql query for retrieving objects
Hi Val,
thank you for confirmation.
>> What is the purpose of this?
Purpose of that was to prepare object prototype (object with the same
structure layout to ensure the same schema version for all updates) without
having access to Ignite.
But as it turned out I managed to obtain the reference to
zbyszek,
Generally, the answer is no. Binary format depends on internal Ignite
context, so there is no clean way to create a binary object without starting
Ignite. The code that was provided in the referenced thread is a hacky
workaround which could probably worked in one of the previous
Hello Igniters,
Is it possible to create BinaryObject without starting Ignite?
I was trying the following:
private static BinaryObject createPrototype() throws
IgniteCheckedException {
// based on
http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Working-Directly-with-Binary-objects
Thanks Evgenii,It does work!
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Check QueryEntity class, it contains tableName property.
Evgenii
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Thanks, Evgenii. I removed the indexedTypes configuration according to your
suggestion. But it still doesn't work. The ignite throws a exception:"Failed
to find SQL table for type: com.example.Foo". (There is a error in the
configuration of my previous post, i change the valType from "com.Foo.Bar"
If you're configuring QueryEntity, you don't need to add to the
configuration indexedTypes too. It's just different ways to configure
Indexes and queryable fields.
Evgenii
2017-09-20 10:10 GMT+03:00 Savagearts <eisen.zh...@huawei.com>:
> I failed to configure the binaryobject ignite
I failed to configure the binaryobject ignitecache. My cache configuration as
following
Thanks，I'll give it a try
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Hi,
Yes, you can do this with, just provide the field name and its type in the
QueryEntity#fields map. Is there anything in particular that doesn't work?
-Val
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Hi All:
I'm trying to build a cache with type IgniteCache<String,BinaryObject> .
I've checked all examples in document are just for a POJO definitions with
query entity configuration. Can i configure a binary object with query
entities configuration? For an instance, I have a Binary
l a ticket for this.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:50 AM, saikiran939 <saikiran...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Team,
>>>
>>> Our team on working on a usecase in which we don't want to have any
>>> classes
>>&g
m> wrote:
>
>> Hi Team,
>>
>> Our team on working on a usecase in which we don't want to have any
>> classes
>> on Ignite Server node's classpath. To achieve this we are making use of
>> BinaryObject based querying and putting/replacing values into cache.
&
ur team on working on a usecase in which we don't want to have any classes
> on Ignite Server node's classpath. To achieve this we are making use of
> BinaryObject based querying and putting/replacing values into cache.
>
> We are also using Optimistic Locking to replace the values into c
team on working on a usecase in which we don't want to have any classes
> on Ignite Server node's classpath. To achieve this we are making use of
> BinaryObject based querying and putting/replacing values into cache.
>
> We are also using Optimistic Locking to replace
Hi Team,
Our team on working on a usecase in which we don't want to have any classes
on Ignite Server node's classpath. To achieve this we are making use of
BinaryObject based querying and putting/replacing values into cache.
We are also using Optimistic Locking to replace the values into cache
Hi,
FYI. Created tickets related to the subject:
1) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6265
2) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6266
3) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6268
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
Hi,
Actually, flattening the nested properties with aliases works only for one
level as for now.
Looks like it's a bug. I'll file a JIRA ticket for this.
Kind regards,
Alex
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
addQueryField("attribute.prop2", String.class.getName(), "prop4");
> qe.addQueryField("attribute.prop.prop1", Double.class.getName(),
> "prop5");
> qe.addQueryField("attribute.prop.prop2", String.class.getName(),
> "prop6")
qe.addQueryField("attribute.prop2", String.class.getName(), "prop4");
qe.addQueryField("attribute.prop.prop1", Double.class.getName(), "prop5");
qe.addQueryField("attribute.prop.prop2", String.class.getName(), "prop6");
Hi,
Currently referencing nested object's fields from SQL isn't supported for
both regular Java objects and for BinaryObject-s.
In other words, having
class B {
private String field1;
}
class A {
private B bField;
}
you cannot update it like `update A set bField.field1=?`
Kind
Does this work for regular objects?
BWT: looks like a type when you set a builder to field instead of binary
object itself "bb.build()"
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:32 PM, takumi <bla...@kss.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
> I use SqlQuery for nested BinaryObject.
> The BinaryObject
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
