i.e. is it a join with a bridge table or not (1:M or M:N)?
Regardless, I wonder if a recursive result map would work....It might. <resultMap id="Node" ... > <result name="children" ... resultMap="Node"/> ... I don't see any reason why that would cause any problems...perhaps try it and let us know. Cheers, Clinton On 2/19/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh...is it a self join? Clinton On 2/19/07, Brad Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess I'll have to take a different approach. The depth isn't set to > be a defined level; so if I go more than two levels below the grandparent, > it won't work. > > On 2/19/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You'll need one query with 3 result maps. The result maps will be > > chained together with collection properties using the resultMap attribute. > > > > > > <resultMap id="Child"> > > ... > > <resultMap id="Parent"> > > <result ... resultMap="Child"/> > > ... > > <resultMap id="GrandParent"> > > <result ... resultMap="Parent"/> > > ... > > <select ... resultMap="GrandParent"> > > ... > > > > The select statement should join the tables together and you may need > > to be very explicit with the column names. > > > > Clinton > > > > On 2/19/07, Brad Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I have a table which has all of the parent/child relationships in > > > the same table. I would like to avoid the N+1 selects with this construct, > > > but it's unclear from the documentation if this can be done. > > > > > > Let's say I have the following relationships defined in the table: > > > > > > Grand Parent > > > Parent 1 > > > Child 1 > > > Child 2 > > > Parent 2 > > > Parent 3 > > > Child 3 > > > Child 4 > > > > > > > > > When creating the child objects for "Grand Parent", will the same > > > "Parent*" objects be used to add the children "Child*" objects to the > > > appropriate parents? > > > > > > > > > > > > Brad > > > > > > > >
