Okay, many thanks to everyone for their help! ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:17:32 -0600
>You would use groupBy="customerID,contactTypeID" in that case. > >On 6/23/05, Aaron Craven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Wonderful! >> >> So, using the example below, I would simply add a groupBy to my resultMap >> for Customer (say groupBy="customerID"), and one to my resultMap for Contact >> (say groupBy="contactID"), correct? >> >> One more question: what if Contact used a compound key? That is, suppose the >> key for a Contact in the DB is [customerID, contactTypeID]. What would I >> use for my groupBy setting on Contact? >> >> Thanks! >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >> From: Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:41:50 -0600 >> >> >There's no limit. You can go as wide or deep as you like. You can load any >> >graph of practical limit (i.e. ridiculous graphs won't likely perform well). >> >But certainly this is possible. The unit test actually uses a three tier >> >nesting. >> > >> >Cheers, >> >Clinton >> > >> > >> >On 6/22/05, Aaron Craven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I cannot decide if I've missed something in the documentation, or if I'm >> >> just plain old confused, but either way I need some help. With iBATIS 2, I >> >> realize the N+1 selects problem has been solved by the addition of the >> >> groupBy property. However, I'm a bit confused as to how this would be done >> >> with a deeper object graph. For example, suppose I have: >> >> >> >> - A Mapping that retrieves a number (M) of customers. Each customer has, >> >> in turn >> >> - A number (N) of contacts. Each contact, then has >> >> - A number (P) of addresses. >> >> >> >> Which would represent a M:N:P relationship :) >> >> >> >> If I want this all in one mapping (something like CUSTOMER INNER JOIN >> >> CONTACTS ON ( ) INNER JOIN ADDRESSES ON ( )), would it be possible, or is >> >> the depth of the join limited to one level of nesting? >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________ >> >> Sent via the WebMail system at vickerscraven.net<http://vickerscraven.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________ >> Sent via the WebMail system at vickerscraven.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMail system at vickerscraven.net
