Hi Reuben,
regarding your first problem: Have you tried to give a comma separated list for the groupBy criteria? Just an
idea, until now I was only grouping for one element not multiple ones as it can get quite expensive to do n+1
joins on several tables on the database level.
regarding your second problem: I've used subselects in such cases that limit the number record returned. This
may be not the fastest solution for all usescases but it works. In your case it could look like this:
select * from book_table, other_join_tables where book_table.id =
other_join_tables.book_id and
book_table.id in (select id from book_table order by sort_crit desc limit 100
offset 10)
Regards
Kai
--- Original Nachricht ---
Absender: Clinton Begin
Datum: 03.09.2008 16:20
The second problem is a limitation that we cannot do anything about,
which makes the rest of the conversation somewhat FYI only.
The first problem does sound like a bug, but strangely I have unit
tests confirming that this works. I'll try writing a few more to see
if I can reproduce the problem. It very well might be the combination
of keys being used in the groupBy attribute or something, but I'll
check it out to see.
Clinton
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Reuben Firmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anybody have any feedback on this?
Thanks
Reuben
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Reuben Firmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Subject: GroupBy issues (multiple child lists, Postgres limit/offset)
To: [email protected]
We are trying to resolve some N+1 query situations in our application, and
are finding a couple of features of our appliation that seem to limit our
ability to use the "groupBy" solution. I'm wondering if there are aspects of
the issues we aren't seeing.
The problems are these:
1. In places where we have an object structure that has a parent with
multiple child lists, it appears that we can't use groupBy to get all of the
results with one query. For example,
class Book {
...
List<Author> authors;
List<Comment> comments;
List<Subject> subjects;
...
For this type of situation, it seems like our choices are to (a) use groupBy
for one of the child lists, and selects in the resultMap for the other
children (doesn't completely solve N+1 problem, just reduces it), or (b)
using a cross-product join of all tables and a custom RowHandler to manage
it all with one query.
2. We are using Postgresql, and taking advantage of the "limit" and "offset"
keywords to help implement paging of the results we display - the "limit"
and "offset" values correspond to the "Results (offset) - (offset + limit)
of (n)" message we can display to users. It seems that these aren't going to
be compatible with a "groupBy" approach since "limit" and "offset" work at
the resultSet level, and "groupBy" works by having a resultSet that's a
cross product of at least a couple of tables. That is, we want to rely on
the limit and offset ability at the database level (makes queries and
resultset handling simpler), but the values refer to domain entities and not
resultset rows. We can use the keywords if we aren't worried about N+1
selects, but the values will lose their domain entity meaning if we do cross
product queries with groupBy. Is there any way that people have found around
this?
Thanks for any advice,
Reuben
