I think I could use a row handler to arrange the objects in a situation like this. One question I have: Do the results of a query with a custom RowHandler still get cached when using OSCache?
Brad On 2/22/07, Brad Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
iBatis came back with an error message indicating too many objects were being returned for executeQueryForObject. Brad On 2/20/07, Brad Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
