[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipselink-dev] questions while running JPA JUnit tests
|
Just an FYI Dies,
I'm not sure the behavior on Symfoware, but on most databases the benefit in putting limit/offset in the SQL is for the offset, not the limit.
For the limit EclipseLink uses the JDBC maxRows API by default, which seems to have equivalent or better performance on most databases I have tested.
If Symfoware does not support the offset, there may be little point adding the custom pagination support.
----- Original Message -----
From: tom.ware@xxxxxxxxxx
To: eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:32:18 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [eclipselink-dev] questions while running JPA JUnit tests
Hi Dies,
To check this in, the setting will have to be completely split. i.e. remove
the methods that affect both settings (setIgnoreFirstResultsMaxRowsSettings and
shouldIgnoreFirstResultsMaxRowsSettings). Instead, have separate getters and
setters for each setting, and make the appropriate changes to classes depending
on those methods.
-Tom
Dies Koper wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>> I have started looking at your patch. I have a quick question:
>>
>> - In DatabaseAccessor, what is the goal of splitting the
>> ignoreFirstRowSettings and the ignoreMaxResultsSettings
>
> Symfoware supports LIMIT, but has no equivalent for OFFSET.
>
> Currently, the flag setIgnoreFirstRowMaxResultsSettings toggles both, so
> either both JDBC absolute and setMaxRows are called, or both are not.
>
> To support pagination using SQL I override printSQLSelectStatement like
> the other platforms do, but as I only have a LIMIT in the query I need
> EclipseLink to only call the JDBC absolute method when FirstRow is set.
>
> So my implementation method looks like:
>
> public void printSQLSelectStatement(DatabaseCall call,
> ExpressionSQLPrinter printer, SQLSelectStatement statement) {
> int max = 0;
> int firstRow = 0;
>
> statement.setMaximumAliasLength(getMaxFieldNameSize());
> if (statement.getQuery() != null) {
> max = statement.getQuery().getMaxRows();
> firstRow = statement.getQuery().getFirstResult();
> }
>
> // only MaxRows can be worked into the statement
> if (max > 0 && this.shouldUseRownumFiltering()) {
> statement.setUseUniqueFieldAliases(true);
> call.setFields(statement.printSQL(printer));
> printer.printString(" WITH OPTION LIMIT (");
> printer.printParameter(DatabaseCall.MAXROW_FIELD);
> printer.printString(")");
>
> call.setIgnoreMaxResultsSettings(true);
> } else {
> // use JDBC absolute and setMaxRows methods for pagination
> super.printSQLSelectStatement(call, printer, statement);
> }
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Dies
>
>
>> Dies Koper wrote:
>>> Hi Tom, all
>>>
>>> Congrats on the 2.0 release!
>>>
>>> I've been continuing running the test sets on the Symfoware platform.
>>> May I ask you for you help with the following three issues?
>>>
>>> 1. Review of patch
>>>
>>> I've added a patch with changes required for a number of tests to
>>> run. Could you review them, and if okay, commit them?
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=288715
>>>
>>> 2. Where is table name "SEQUENCE" defined?
>>>
>>> I tried renaming all occurrences of the word "SEQUENCE" in the code I
>>> could find but still some tests try to create a sequence table with
>>> table name SEQUENCE.
>>> It starts with the 8th test in the JPA test set:
>>> testTransitionToDeferedFailure
>>>
>>> which tries a UPDATE SEQUENCE (...).
>>>
>>> In the log I see even more:
>>>
>>> [junit] [EL Config]:
>>> ServerSession(1006920425)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--The table
>>> generator name defined within [class
>>> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.models.jpa.inherited.Alpine] is being
>>> defaulted to: SEQUENCE.
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> [junit] [EL Fine]:
>>> ServerSession(1006920425)--Connection(753758527)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--CREATE
>>> TABLE SEQUENCE (SEQ_NAME VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL, SEQ_COUNT DECIMAL(18),
>>> PRIMARY KEY (SEQ_NAME))
>>> [junit] java.sql.SQLException: [SymfoWARE ODBC Driver][SymfoWARE
>>> [...]
>>> [junit] at
>>> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.tests.jpa.advanced.concurrency.LifecycleJUnitTest.testSetup(LifecycleJUnitTest.java:76)
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe these might be from the CONCURRENCYA, B and C tables, or
>>> ConcurrencyA, B and C entities. Each of them has
>>> fieldID.setIsIdentity(true) resp. @GeneratedValue specified but the
>>> details of the sequence generators are omitted.
>>>
>>> I though it would default to what the platform's
>>> createPlatformDefaultSequence() method returns but apparently not.
>>>
>>> Many tests fail because of this issue.
>>>
>>> 3. Table locks during DROP TABLE
>>>
>>> In the SymfowarePlatform wiki page you suggested that we should start
>>> by trying to get the Core SRG running first. Most are passing now.
>>>
>>> Only a few (the ReadAllTest tests, which rely on
>>> AutoTableGeneratorBasicTestModel.java) failed I think because of the
>>> table lock issue.
>>>
>>> The error message is:
>>>
>>> Exception Description: 24 objects were read from the database, but
>>> originially there were, 12.
>>>
>>> When I run it by itself through the test browser it passes without
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> Some messages in the finest log let me believe this is because a problem
>>> occurred while recreating the tables: they should have been dropped and
>>> recreated, thereby clearing those old 12 object, but because of the
>>> locking issue they were not.
>>>
>>> [junit] Internal Exception: java.sql.SQLException: [SymfoWARE ODBC
>>> Driver][SymfoWARE Server] JYP3913E : Table "PHONE" being used
>>> exclusively by another user.
>>> [junit] Error Code: -3913
>>> [junit] Call: drop table PHONE
>>> [junit] Query: DataModifyQuery(sql="drop table PHONE")
>>> [junit] at
>>> org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException.sqlException(DatabaseException.java:324)
>>>
>>> [..]
>>> [junit] at
>>> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.models.employee.relational.EmployeeSystem.dropTableConstraints(EmployeeSystem.java:86)
>>>
>>> [junit] at
>>> org.eclipse.persistence.testing.tests.schemaframework.AutoTableGeneratorEmployeeSystem.createTables(AutoTableGeneratorEmployeeSystem.java:32)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This table was created and accessed as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. drop (index) and table (outside transaction)
>>> DROP TABLE PHONE
>>>
>>> 2. create table (and index) (in transaction), same connection
>>> CREATE TABLE PHONE (EMP_ID NUMERIC(15) NOT NULL, TYPE VARCHAR(15)
>>> NOT NULL, AREA_CODE VARCHAR(3), P_NUMBER VARCHAR(7), PRIMARY KEY
>>> (EMP_ID, TYPE))
>>>
>>> 3. insert 30 rows (in single transaction), same connection
>>> INSERT INTO PHONE (TYPE, AREA_CODE, P_NUMBER, EMP_ID) VALUES (?, ?,
>>> ?, ?)
>>> [junit] bind => [Home, 613, 5551234, 105]
>>>
>>> 4. drop (index) and table (outside transaction), different connection
>>> DROP TABLE PHONE
>>> -> SQLException saying PHONE is locked.
>>>
>>> I can reproduce this in a simple JDBC application. If I close the
>>> connection used in steps 1-3 before step 4 it works fine.
>>>
>>> I can see some session swapping is done in
>>> AutoTableGeneratorBasicTestModel#addForcedRequiredSystems() so I
>>> tried adding a reset() invocation at the start of its
>>> addForcedRequiredSystems() method but that did not help.
>>> How can I make it close the physical connection?
>>> (You mentioned adding logic into TestSystem?)
>>>
>>> The lock issue occurs much more often in the JPA test set. The first
>>> failing test however is because of the reserved SEQUENCE keyword used
>>> as table name, so if you could help me in the right direction with
>>> the above three issues I can try move forward with this test set again.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Dies
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Ware wrote:
>>>> Hi Dies,
>>>>
>>>> FYI: I am working on integrating your initial patch. There are a
>>>> couple of items I will not be integrating at the moment:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Specific references to SymfowarePlatform and
>>>> isSymfowarePlatform(). These will be left until SymfowarePlatform
>>>> becomes part of the full product
>>>>
>>>> 2. Changes to default SEQUENCE table name to "\"SEQUENCE\"" for our
>>>> Sessions and project XML (in XMLSessionConfigProject,
>>>> ObjectPersistenceRuntimeXMLProject and SequencingConfig). This is
>>>> simply to big a backward compatibility risk since I cannot test
>>>> these changes on every database platform that EclipseLink is run on
>>>> by our customers. I am looking for some way of having this
>>>> information stored on the DatabasePlatform, but at the moment, it is
>>>> not looking good. Assuming I do not find a good solution, Symfoware
>>>> users will simply have to explicitly set these items when using our
>>>> proprietary configuration code (sessions.xml and deployment.xml) We
>>>> will also have to address anywhere in the tests we choose to run
>>>> where this is an issue.
>>>>
>>>> I am in the process of running testing on the other changes and I'll
>>>> let you know when it gets checked in.
>>>>
>>>> -Tom
>>>>
>>>> Dies Koper wrote:
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have added the outstanding issues with SQL keywords in
>>>>> table/columns names, and maximum precision. The biggest open issue
>>>>> is of course the drop table restriction. I'm looking forward to
>>>>> hearing what solution(s) you can come up with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Dies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Ware wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Dies,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am moving some of the main points of this discussion to the
>>>>>> wiki page so I can more easily keep track of where we are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink/Development/Incubator/Extensions/SymfowarePlatform#Open_Issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started by just adding some basics about the main issues that
>>>>>> are getting in the way at the moment. I plan to add more detail
>>>>>> next week. Please feel free to add other issues I have missed, or
>>>>>> more detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for some of the other things you were wondering about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Your initial patch (including sequencing fixes etc.). I hope
>>>>>> to find some time to start integrating it next week
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. EclipseLink bug 286907 (not related to Symfoware platform)-
>>>>>> this bug is in the queue and will be addressed in sequence with
>>>>>> the other bugs. The fact that you have submitted a patch means it
>>>>>> will potentially jump other bugs in the queue. At the moment I am
>>>>>> going to focus on the Symfoware Platform issues with my free time,
>>>>>> so I can't make any promises about when it will be included.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. GlassFish bug 9179 (not related to Symfoware platform) - same
>>>>>> thing as above, but additionally: we cannot legally make use of
>>>>>> the submitted patch until it is attached to EclipseLink bug by
>>>>>> someone with IP rights
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll get started looking for some solutions next week.
>>>>>> -Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eclipselink-dev mailing list
>>> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> eclipselink-dev mailing list
>> eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
eclipselink-dev mailing list
eclipselink-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-dev
