Hi, On 2015-02-15, 12:19 AM, "OC" wrote:
Chuck, On 15. 2. 2015, at 1:56, Chuck Hill <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: === my EO code === public NSArray orderedPriceOffers { NSArray offers=priceOffers() // this is a modelled relationship if (offers==null || offers.count<2) return offers try { offers=offers.sortedArrayUsingComparator(new OCSDateComparator()) } catch (Exception exc) { ... never happens anyway, no need to show ... } return offers } public DBPriceOffer lastValidPriceOffer { NSArray a=orderedPriceOffers() if (a==null || a.count==0) return null for (int n=a.count-1;n>=0;n--) { DBPriceOffer po=(DBPriceOffer)a.objectAtIndex(n) if (po.validOffer()) // this is a modelled boolean attribute return po } return null } ... @OCStandard class OCSDateComparator extends NSComparator { public int compare(Object left,Object right) { DBPriceOffer l=(DBPriceOffer)left,r=(DBPriceOffer)right return l.creationDate().compare(r.creationDate()) // modelled timestamp attribute, always set creation-time } } === It would be very beneficial to speed up orderedPriceOffers, To speed up lastValidPriceOffer or for some other reason? It is used elsewhere too, and although it is not that pressing as lastValidPriceOffer (which is used at more places), it would help to speed it up, too. I am assuming this is a large list. Alas, it is. When written and tested years ago, there used be tens of items max; today they use the code with thousands of items, and that's a big problem which I have to solve ASAP :) You could sort and cache on the EO and invalidate the cache if the relationship changes. Sorting at the database is usually faster, especially if there is a usable index. This is precisely what I don't know howto, can you help? I found no way to force the SELECT caused by firing a relationship fault to use any ORDER BY. You can’t. Stop thinking about it. :-) Unless you are prepared to perform major surgery on EOF. Or do you suggest that I don't use a modelled relationship at all, implementing something like === [*] private cache def orderedPriceOffers { if (cache) return cache cache=this.editingContext.objectsWithFetchSpecification( yadda yadda incl sort orderings ) } def addPriceOffer { cache=nil ... } === Yes, that is more what I had in mind. Or fetch the sorted list as needed. If you only need the single, most recent valid price, then fetch that. Why fetch in what you will never need? Do you often need the details of those thousand of items in the relationship? Just because you can model it, does not mean that you have to model it. I thought caching objects this way was an extremely big no-no? Besides even at the first look I can see lots of possible catches and gotchas, with different ECs, with objects inserted but not-yet-saved, etc... I was thinking more of fetch exactly what you need on demand than of caching. You can cache, but at you note it gets very complicated quickly. and it is a must to speed up lastValidPriceOffer -- very considerably, preferrably to O(1) if possible. I’d model a to-one and update this when the priceOffers relationship changes. Hmmm... actually, does this differ anyhow from caching the GID? (Save for the first access, for cached GID is not stored in the DB, and thus forces search once.) A to-one is simply cached PK, stored in DB, or am I overlooking something? EOF handles a lot of the complexities for you. Note that the price offers are always sorted by their creation date -- never otherwise --, which effectively means new objects are always added to the end of the sorted array, never ever inserted. Also, price offers are not editable; once stored, they never change, both validOffer and creationDate attributes stay unchanged forever (other ones too, which is irrelevant here). It seems to me, given this business logic, it would be best - to fetch the fault using a sort ordering, to ensure it fetches appropriately ordered - whenever a new object is added to an already fetched relationship, to add it to the end of the array the EO stack maintains. Except that, as you note below, relationships in EOF are unordered sets. EOF makes no guarantees about maintain an ordering in the relationship. Well there must be _some_ reason they used NSArrays instead of NSSets I guess. Either it was a design error, or they intended to make them ordered. In either case, there is no support for ordered relationships. Don’t fight EOF. Un-ordered set are un-ordered sets. Anyway, I don't really want to fight EOF; rather I would co-operate with it to get the best result. In this case the best result would be (a) to fetch sorted with ORDER BY into an array (b) to add newly created objects to the end of the array “Not gonna happen” :-) Seems to me somewhat too far at the ubiquitous side for EOF/Wonder not to support anything remotely similar and leaving me completely on me own with something like [*]? But perhaps it's just the way the things are :) It gets complicated quickly. It is not an easy thing to bolt onto EOF. I think that most people just found a different way to achieve their goals. As for lastValidPriceOffer, I tried to cache the object's permanentGlobalID when found or added new valid one (caching the object itself failed with different ECs), but it still does not work well, and is terribly ugly and error-prone. Why not just model it? It is a real thing. Well I sort of never thought of that :) :-) Chuck That aside, for this app it is somewhat inconvenient to change the DB schema. For the next release I will do that. Thanks a lot, OC _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40gevityinc.com This email sent to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
