Also I am not sure about the history of the term, but while spec calls
it EJBQL, most implementors call it JPQL, so google may turn out more
info on the later term.
Andrus
On May 6, 2010, at 1:54 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I am using JSR-220 PDF, section 4 as a reference. Not very user
> friendly, but that's ultimate reference:
>
> http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/final/jsr220/index.html
>
> Hmm, the issue with EJBQL prefetching was fixed some time ago per https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1366
> .. (and we should have unit tests for it somewhere) Maybe you
> stumbled on a bug?
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 6, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Andrew Lindesay wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrus;
>>
>> Thanks for that –– is there a resource book/web-site/cheat-sheet on
>> EJBQL which you might be able to recommend? My Googling has only
>> really dredged up poor material thus far. I am a new to EJBQL so
>> am not sure on the significance of the "c" in this old query I was
>> running, but adding "FETCH" seems to not be able to parse it;
>>
>> ...JOIN u.someToMany c WHE...
>>
>> For this reason, I have removed the "c". I tried both;
>>
>> SELECT u FROM FooBar u LEFT OUTER JOIN FETCH u.someToMany WHERE
>> u.userType = :userType ORDER BY u.username
>> SELECT u FROM FooBar u LEFT JOIN FETCH u.someToMany WHERE
>> u.userType = :userType ORDER BY u.username
>>
>> I guess the latter "LEFT JOIN FETCH" makes more sense to me in this
>> case. In both cases I find that the to-many relationship is
>> loaded, but is empty. If I remove the JOIN FETCH and restart the
>> application server it will produce the correct result.
>>
>> The SQL it runs seems to gather all the columns for "u" (above) and
>> then additional rows from the to-many. The data is there when I
>> run the query in a console, but the to-many seems to be empty in
>> the java environment when I get the "u" objects back from Cayenne.
>>
>> Maybe I am doing something wrong?
>>
>> cheers.
>>
>>> Yes, the syntax is something like this:
>>> [LEFT[OUTER]|INNER]JOIN FETCH
>>> So you are looking for "LEFT JOIN FETCH", not just "LEFT JOIN".
>>> I.e. "FETCH" is what does the prefetching of a relationship, and
>>> the rest is specifying the join semantics and can be used with or
>>> without prefetching.
>> ...
>>>> Thanks for the suggestion. I did try that with this;
>>>> SELECT u FROM FooBar u OUTER JOIN u.someToMany c WHERE
>>>> u.userType = :userType ORDER BY u.username
>>>> I get the following exception;
>> ...
>>>> I also tried a LEFT JOIN which I think would do what I want and
>>>> it certainly picks up the rows as I would anticipate from the SQL
>>>> log, but the to-many doesn't seem to freshen.
>> ...
>>>>> IIRC there's also an OUTER fetch join that handles this case.
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> yeah, you can use fetch joins (since 3.0). something like
>>>>>>> select f FROM FooBar f inner join fetch f.bars b ...
>>>> ...
>>>>>> I tried that and it produces a query which excludes objects
>>>>>> from the result-set where there is nothing in the join. The
>>>>>> behaviour of "query.addPrefetch(..)" would be to run two SELECT
>>>>>> database queries to get the additional data and freshen-up the
>>>>>> relationship if my thinking is correct.
>>
>> ___
>> Andrew Lindesay
>> www.silvereye.co.nz
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu May 06 2010 - 06:57:39 EDT