What is the second save? I only see one save in the original code? Mark
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:38 AM, whostheJBoss <[email protected]>wrote: > > Before calling getTagsArray(): > false - getIsDirty() > false - getTagsIsLoaded() > > After calling getTagsArray(): > true - getIsDirty() > true - getTagsIsLoaded() > > Immediately after first save (save works): > false - getIsDirty() > true - getTagsIsLoaded() > > Before second save: > true - getIsDirty() > true - getTagsIsLoaded() > > After second save (save fails): > false - getIsDirty() > false - getTagsIsLoaded() > > > > On Nov 2, 2:27 pm, Mark Mandel <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, whostheJBoss <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Performance is horrid with that many objects. I have since switched to > > > using a query for the large collections (which also fixes the original > > > issue of this post). I had a 2900% increase in performance. I hadn't > > > noticed the performance problems originally, since the objects were > > > still in memory after creation, so they were loading instantly on the > > > view page. After reinitializing my application and then trying to load > > > the objects, the problem is apparent. I was only testing with 5 or 10 > > > in the beginning so the problem floated by unnoticed, so I'm glad I > > > switch to a query anyway. Still, the original many-to-many add / get > > > array problem persists in the cases where I only have a few objects. I > > > have been using a query for those as well, but would still like it to > > > work through Transfer if possible, as I would like to use some of the > > > objects. > > > > Generally speaking setting up relationships so that they have a huge > number > > of objects is a bad idea... > > > > > > > > > To answer your question, yes, this is only happening when the objects > > > are proxied. I will check the results of getIsDirty() and > > > getTagsIsLoaded(), but I should let you know that I have tried > > > running .loadTags(); before calling getTagsArray(), but the issue is > > > unaffected. What results should I have for those two? > > > > Dirty should be 'true', and isLoaded() should also be true. > > > > > > > > > Oh, a sort of side-note, but having run these queries via TQL to patch > > > the problem, I notice that they are run each time and are not cached. > > > I have taken to copying the generated SQL from Transfer out into a > > > normal <cfquery> so that I can enable caching when I need to. Is there > > > a way to turn on caching for TQL queries? > > > > There isn't a way to cache TQL results as of yet. > > > > Mark > > > > -- > > E: [email protected] > > T:http://www.twitter.com/neurotic > > W:www.compoundtheory.com > > > -- E: [email protected] T: http://www.twitter.com/neurotic W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
