Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> You are right. It looks much worse than I thought.
> Given that "getUpdateCount" result is correct, or we can make it correct
> (I don't completely understand the problems you are having with it),
just a nasty bug. If you call getUpdateCount twice, you get
a "-1" - and this is not resetted by "executeBatch". So if
you do:
executeBatch()
getUpdateCount()
addBatch()
addBatch
executeBatch()
getUpdateCount()
then this second getUpdateCount yields -1
> In the worst case scenario, if a batch consists of
> thousands of rows, and a primary key is compound
> (so that IN() can't be used), WHERE clause is gonna
> be *very* long.
thats precicly what we do in the "PrefetchHelper"
and the batch sizes are chosen such that the
queries are not too long...
regards,
Arndt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon May 26 2003 - 02:39:52 EDT