Wouldn't I have to give unique column names for those identifying the child data?
For example table parentChild some_foreign_key int id int description varchar(64) parent_id int rows id description parent_id 0 grandparent null 1 parent 1 0 2 child 1 1 3 child 2 1 4 parent 2 0 5 child 3 4 6 parent 3 0 7 child 4 6 8 child 5 6 select p.id as parentId , p.description as parentDesc , p.parent_id as parentAncestorId , c.id as childId , c.description as childDesc , c.parent_id as childAncestorId from parentChild p , parentChild c where p.some_foreign_key = c.some_foreign_key and p.id = c.parent_id and p.id <> c.id order by p.id , c.id should return parentId parentDesc parentAncestorId childId childDesc childAncestorId 0 grandparent null 1 parent 1 0 0 grandparent null 4 parent 2 0 0 grandparent null 6 parent 3 0 1 parent 1 0 2 child 1 1 1 parent 1 0 3 child 2 1 4 parent 2 0 5 child 3 4 6 parent 3 0 7 child 4 6 6 parent 3 0 8 child 5 6 On 2/20/07, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
