path: root/reference
diff options
authorBoris Kolpackov <>2015-02-04 17:23:54 +0200
committerBoris Kolpackov <>2015-02-04 17:23:54 +0200
commitd6bf93ae12d0a8cffcdb405392921583b420d8b4 (patch)
treee36a12fb61be6613d84a5a574cf0851c35d007da /reference
parent99cb130912baa9bf068c8b05bc99e86c542e115d (diff)
Implement object loading views
See section 10.2 in the manual for details.
Diffstat (limited to 'reference')
1 files changed, 53 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/reference/feature/view/object-loading b/reference/feature/view/object-loading
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..95014e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/reference/feature/view/object-loading
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
++ Object loading views
+- The joined object can be joined just to be used in the query condition or
+ to load the data. How to distinguish the two cases and what should be the
+ default?
+- All the non-lazy object pointers, containers, and sections should probably
+ be loaded one way or another (if the user wants an "incomplete" load, then
+ he should use the normal view and specify the data members). This can all
+ be controlled via lazy pointers/sections on the user side.
+ So the behavior seems to be load all the non-lazy pointed-to object
+ either with a single SELECT, if it were joined by the view, or by
+ issuing a separate SELECT otherwise.
+ The only uncertain case is a JOIN'ed lazy pointed-to object. Here
+ the user will have to specify whether to load the object (within
+ a single SELECT) or it was JOIN'ed only for the query condition.
+ Since this is a performance feature, the defaul should probably
+ not to load. The mechanism used to specify this should probably
+ also be used to specify whether to SELECT FOR UPDATE joined objects.
+- Support both object pointer and direct member as an object (similar
+ to the load() signature). Might have to rely on delay loading. E.g.,
+ first load all the JOIN'ed objects (and enter them in object cache).
+ At the same time prevent nested object load by locking the statements.
+ Then load all the delayed objects which will be resolved via the cache.
+ That's probably the only way to support a pointer to the same object
+ in both another object and the view itself.
+- Can ask the user to use a session to help resolve the object pointers,
+ if, for example, the same object is used to initialize another object
+ member and a view member.
+- Can/should this be used to implement SELECT FOR UPDATE? What about JOIN'ed
+ objects?
+- Need to think also how this is related to containers. E.g., container
+ loading queries?
+- Implementation-wise, we probably want to create a combined image out
+ of inidividual object images and to delegate to the object code as
+ soon as possible.
+- Interraction with other features:
+ - Polymorphism will be tricky. Probably ok not to support this initially
+ since often there will be a followup SELECT to load the dynamic part
+ of the object.
+- See also:
+ See email from <>/30-Oct-2014.