Ugh 

> On Nov 15, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Mark Stobbe <markstobb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I also noticed that it adds t0.id = NULL conditions. However, id is a
> primary key so it doesn't really make sense to check for NULL.
> Example query:
> 
> SELECT t0.*
> FROM   djem_account t0
> WHERE  ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id = 208 )
>        OR ( t0.id = 208 )
>        OR ( t0.id = 208 )
>        OR ( t0.id = 208 )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id = 208 )
>        OR ( t0.id = 208 )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id = 208 )
>        OR ( t0.id = 208 )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL )
>        OR ( t0.id IS NULL );
> 
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Could be a bug. I just opened a Jira [1] to investigate. From what I am
>> seeing the current behavior is correct in respect to the returned result,
>> but is certainly suboptimal.
>> 
>> Andrus
>> 
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-2141
>> 
>>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 11:25 PM, Mark Stobbe <markstobb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Andrus,
>>> 
>>> Version 3.2M1. Relationship would be a normal to-one yes. I am executing
>> a
>>> query for the first 25 records of "djem_user".
>>> Configuration is the following:
>>> 
>>> <db-entity name="djem_account">
>>> <db-attribute name="id" type="BIGINT" isMandatory="true"
>>> isPrimaryKey="true" />
>>> </db-entity>
>>> 
>>> <db-entity name="djem_user">
>>> <db-attribute name="id" type="BIGINT" isMandatory="true"
>>> isPrimaryKey="true" />
>>> <db-attribute name="fk_acco" type="BIGINT" />
>>> </db-entity>
>>> 
>>> <db-relationship name="user_acco" source="djem_user"
>> target="djem_account"
>>> toMany="false">
>>> <db-attribute-pair source="fk_acco" target="id" />
>>> </db-relationship>
>>> 
>>> <db-relationship name="acco_user" source="djem_account"
>> target="djem_user"
>>> toMany="true">
>>> <db-attribute-pair source="id" target="fk_acco" />
>>> </db-relationship>
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, doesn't look right. What version of Cayenne is this? And what is
>> the
>>>> relationship semantics? Is this a regular to-one?
>>>> 
>>>> Andrus
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Mark Stobbe <markstobb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was wondering if this is correct:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am using an fetch limit for some queries, though I also need to make
>>>> sure
>>>>> I add the prefetch rules to refresh the data. I read in the
>> documentation
>>>>> that i should use DISJOINT_BY_ID_PREFETCH_SEMANTICS, so I did. Now
>> when
>>>> I
>>>>> look at the queries I am a little bit surprised because I see the same
>> id
>>>>> occur many times. Shouldn't this be purged before building the query?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Example query would be:
>>>>> 
>>>>> SELECT t0.*
>>>>> FROM   djem_account t0
>>>>> WHERE  ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 217 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 )
>>>>>      OR ( t0.id = 219 );
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Mark Stobbe
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to