[odb-users] Is there a way to persist an object to a specific table?

Boris Kolpackov boris at codesynthesis.com
Mon Oct 31 07:43:31 EDT 2011

Hi Narayanan,

In the future please keep your replies CC'ed to the odb-users mailing
list as discussed in the posting guidelines:


SS Narayanan <nara at bvinetworks.com> writes:

> Thanks for your prompt response. We are indeed looking for option 3 in your
> reply. We would like to create tables at runtime and then add/delete objects
> into the newly created tables. We know the object details at compile time.
> We want to be able to add these objects to dynamically created tables at
> runtime for easily dropping the table at a later time, instead of running a
> query on millions of records and deleting only those records that are needed
> at runtime.
> Do you have any plans of adding this support?

It is unlikely we will add support for this in foreseeable future.
It will complicate ODB significantly and make the mapping much less
efficient while being a fairly unusual requirement.

> Or is there an alternate way to do the same?

I think your best bet is to look for database-specific features that
would allow you to implement this (like the CREATE ALIAS in DB2) or
overcome the need for it (e.g., find a way to use a single table to
store all objects). For example, instead of storing objects in
different tables, you could store them in the same tables but in
different databases.


More information about the odb-users mailing list