[odb-users] Lazy Relationships?

Christian Sell christian at gsvitec.com
Mon Sep 21 11:48:29 EDT 2015


Hello Boris,

> See object loading views (Section 10.2) for the "duh" part.
 
the duh refers to the fact that a standard load operation which pulls data from
multiple related tables does not use the obvious SQL optimization meachnisms.
There may be ways to get the optimized SQL, but I see no reason why they
shouldn't be employed transparently in the standard case as well. As an aside: I
have spent roughly a decade of my worklife writing and using object/relational
mapping tools for other languages (Smalltalk and Java), and that was the
behaviour I got used to.
 
> No kidding. How come we never thought about it..? Oh, wait a second,
> there is this Section 6.4, "Lazy Pointers" in Chapter 6, "Relatioships".
> Sounds almost exactly like the subject of this email...
 
no, not kidding. I have of course read that chapter, and even after re-reading
it I don't see how it (directly) relates to my request. I am talking about a
to-N relationship which is lazily resolved, not a pointer (which, in my book,
points to one object). Let me know if I overlooked something
 
Christian


More information about the odb-users mailing list