You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ojb-user@db.apache.org by Ashish Rangole <as...@vexcel.com> on 2005/09/28 18:29:21 UTC
OJB 1.0.1 ODMJ: weird update behaviour
Hi!
I am using ODMJ API in OJB 1.0.1 with:
<object-cache class="org.apache.ojb.broker.cache.ObjectCacheEmptyImpl">
<attribute attribute-name="timeout" attribute-value="900"/>
<attribute attribute-name="autoSync" attribute-value="true"/>
</object-cache>
ImplicitLocking=false
This is what I do:
1. Open database, start a transaction
2. Retrieve a list of objects from database (approx 200)
using PB API
3. Lock each object one by one
4. Modify a certain field in each of them
5. commit the transaction
I observe that not all objects get updated in the database
and for them an "UPDATE" sql statement is not shown in spy log.
Please let me know if somebody has seen this behaviour and if it
is a bug or what I might be doing wrong.
Thanks in advance for your time and help.
Ashish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
Re: OJB 1.0.1 ODMJ: weird update behaviour
Posted by Ashish Rangole <as...@vexcel.com>.
Armin,
Yes, it is mostly the same objects. It is reproducible at one of
our customer's installation and for now we have a workaround by
updating one object at a time in separate transactions. We can live with
this workaround for now because it is not a frequent operation and also
not very time critical. I have to simulate the same environment
here to reproduce it.
Pseudo code:
Get a OJB instance
Open Database connection READ_WRITE
Open Transaction odmg.newTransaction()
Begin Transaction
Retrieve all objects of class A by PB QueryByCriteria
CRITERIA_SELECT_ALL
For each object retrieved
do
Write-Lock each object for update Transaction.UPGRADE
Change value of attribute X
done
Commit Transaction
Close Database
I can not see the problem when the number of objects of class A
is small. Currently the problem is seen when the number objects is ~250.
For some objects, spy.log doesn't show the UPDATE sql statements.
Thanks for your help.
Regards
Ashish
Armin Waibel wrote:
> Ashish Rangole wrote:
>
>> Armin,
>>
>> batch mode = false in my configuration.
>>
>
> Really strange, never perceived such a behavior in OJB. Is it
> reproduceable, did you lost always the same objects?
> Could you send me a test or some pseudo code describing the problem?
>
> regards,
> Armin
>
>
>> Thanks
>> Ashish
>>
>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>
>>> Ashish Rangole wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Is the field type the same for all modified classes? Maybe OJB has
>>>>> problems to detect the changed field. You could try to change the
>>>>> object state by yourself using OJB's odmg extensions via
>>>>> TransactionExt#markDirty.
>>>>> http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/guides/odmg-guide.html#OJB+Extensions+of+ODMG
>>>>>
>>>>> (this link is for >=1.0.3 but #markDirty exists in 1.0.1 too - AFAIK)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes the field is same for all modified objects which are of same
>>>> class.
>>>> From your suggestion above I get the impression that this is a known
>>>> bug in version 1.0.1. Please confirm. I wonder why does it behave
>>>> correctly for some of the objects in the transaction, then does not
>>>> for
>>>> some other. For eg if there are 200 objects retrieved and write locked
>>>> in the transaction, it will correctly persist the changes in ,say,
>>>> first 120, then miss the next 10 objects, then correctly persist the
>>>> remaining.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is not a known bug, but I can't rule out that your problem is a
>>> bug in 1.0.1.
>>> Is the batch mode enabled (batch-mode="true" in
>>> jdbc-connection-descriptor)? If yes, did you run the test with
>>> disabled batch-mode? Do you get the same result with 1.0.4rc from CVS
>>> (OJB_1_0_RELEASE branch)?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Armin
>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for your time and help.
>>>> Ashish
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------
Ashish Rangole
Vexcel Corporation - Image Information Engineering
1690 38th Street, Boulder CO 80301, USA
phone: 303-583-0286 fax: 303-583-0246
Vexcel's home page: http://www.vexcel.com
--------------------------------------------------
"What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs,
documenting his product and distribute for free?"
-- Bill Gates, An Open Letter to Hobbyists, 1976
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
Re: OJB 1.0.1 ODMJ: weird update behaviour
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Ashish Rangole wrote:
> Armin,
>
> batch mode = false in my configuration.
>
Really strange, never perceived such a behavior in OJB. Is it
reproduceable, did you lost always the same objects?
Could you send me a test or some pseudo code describing the problem?
regards,
Armin
> Thanks
> Ashish
>
> Armin Waibel wrote:
>
>> Ashish Rangole wrote:
>>
>>>> Is the field type the same for all modified classes? Maybe OJB has
>>>> problems to detect the changed field. You could try to change the
>>>> object state by yourself using OJB's odmg extensions via
>>>> TransactionExt#markDirty.
>>>> http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/guides/odmg-guide.html#OJB+Extensions+of+ODMG
>>>>
>>>> (this link is for >=1.0.3 but #markDirty exists in 1.0.1 too - AFAIK)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes the field is same for all modified objects which are of same class.
>>> From your suggestion above I get the impression that this is a known
>>> bug in version 1.0.1. Please confirm. I wonder why does it behave
>>> correctly for some of the objects in the transaction, then does not for
>>> some other. For eg if there are 200 objects retrieved and write locked
>>> in the transaction, it will correctly persist the changes in ,say,
>>> first 120, then miss the next 10 objects, then correctly persist the
>>> remaining.
>>>
>>
>> This is not a known bug, but I can't rule out that your problem is a
>> bug in 1.0.1.
>> Is the batch mode enabled (batch-mode="true" in
>> jdbc-connection-descriptor)? If yes, did you run the test with
>> disabled batch-mode? Do you get the same result with 1.0.4rc from CVS
>> (OJB_1_0_RELEASE branch)?
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your time and help.
>>> Ashish
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
Re: OJB 1.0.1 ODMJ: weird update behaviour
Posted by Ashish Rangole <as...@vexcel.com>.
Armin,
batch mode = false in my configuration.
Thanks
Ashish
Armin Waibel wrote:
> Ashish Rangole wrote:
>
>>> Is the field type the same for all modified classes? Maybe OJB has
>>> problems to detect the changed field. You could try to change the
>>> object state by yourself using OJB's odmg extensions via
>>> TransactionExt#markDirty.
>>> http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/guides/odmg-guide.html#OJB+Extensions+of+ODMG
>>>
>>> (this link is for >=1.0.3 but #markDirty exists in 1.0.1 too - AFAIK)
>>
>>
>> Yes the field is same for all modified objects which are of same class.
>> From your suggestion above I get the impression that this is a known
>> bug in version 1.0.1. Please confirm. I wonder why does it behave
>> correctly for some of the objects in the transaction, then does not for
>> some other. For eg if there are 200 objects retrieved and write locked
>> in the transaction, it will correctly persist the changes in ,say,
>> first 120, then miss the next 10 objects, then correctly persist the
>> remaining.
>>
>
> This is not a known bug, but I can't rule out that your problem is a bug
> in 1.0.1.
> Is the batch mode enabled (batch-mode="true" in
> jdbc-connection-descriptor)? If yes, did you run the test with disabled
> batch-mode? Do you get the same result with 1.0.4rc from CVS
> (OJB_1_0_RELEASE branch)?
>
> regards,
> Armin
>
>> Thanks a lot for your time and help.
>> Ashish
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------
Ashish Rangole
Vexcel Corporation - Image Information Engineering
1690 38th Street, Boulder CO 80301, USA
phone: 303-583-0286 fax: 303-583-0246
Vexcel's home page: http://www.vexcel.com
--------------------------------------------------
"What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs,
documenting his product and distribute for free?"
-- Bill Gates, An Open Letter to Hobbyists, 1976
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
Re: OJB 1.0.1 ODMJ: weird update behaviour
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Ashish Rangole wrote:
>> Is the field type the same for all modified classes? Maybe OJB has
>> problems to detect the changed field. You could try to change the
>> object state by yourself using OJB's odmg extensions via
>> TransactionExt#markDirty.
>> http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/guides/odmg-guide.html#OJB+Extensions+of+ODMG
>>
>> (this link is for >=1.0.3 but #markDirty exists in 1.0.1 too - AFAIK)
>
> Yes the field is same for all modified objects which are of same class.
> From your suggestion above I get the impression that this is a known
> bug in version 1.0.1. Please confirm. I wonder why does it behave
> correctly for some of the objects in the transaction, then does not for
> some other. For eg if there are 200 objects retrieved and write locked
> in the transaction, it will correctly persist the changes in ,say,
> first 120, then miss the next 10 objects, then correctly persist the
> remaining.
>
This is not a known bug, but I can't rule out that your problem is a bug
in 1.0.1.
Is the batch mode enabled (batch-mode="true" in
jdbc-connection-descriptor)? If yes, did you run the test with disabled
batch-mode? Do you get the same result with 1.0.4rc from CVS
(OJB_1_0_RELEASE branch)?
regards,
Armin
> Thanks a lot for your time and help.
> Ashish
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
Re: OJB 1.0.1 ODMJ: weird update behaviour
Posted by Ashish Rangole <as...@vexcel.com>.
Hi Armin!
Armin Waibel wrote:
> Hi Ashish,
>
> Ashish Rangole wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I am using ODMJ API in OJB 1.0.1 with:
>>
>> <object-cache class="org.apache.ojb.broker.cache.ObjectCacheEmptyImpl">
>> <attribute attribute-name="timeout" attribute-value="900"/>
>> <attribute attribute-name="autoSync" attribute-value="true"/>
>> </object-cache>
>> ImplicitLocking=false
>>
>> This is what I do:
>> 1. Open database, start a transaction
>> 2. Retrieve a list of objects from database (approx 200)
>> using PB API
>> 3. Lock each object one by one
>> 4. Modify a certain field in each of them
>> 5. commit the transaction
>>
>> I observe that not all objects get updated in the database
>> and for them an "UPDATE" sql statement is not shown in spy log.
>>
>> Please let me know if somebody has seen this behaviour and if it
>> is a bug or what I might be doing wrong.
>>
>
> Is the field type the same for all modified classes? Maybe OJB has
> problems to detect the changed field. You could try to change the object
> state by yourself using OJB's odmg extensions via TransactionExt#markDirty.
> http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/guides/odmg-guide.html#OJB+Extensions+of+ODMG
> (this link is for >=1.0.3 but #markDirty exists in 1.0.1 too - AFAIK)
Yes the field is same for all modified objects which are of same class.
From your suggestion above I get the impression that this is a known
bug in version 1.0.1. Please confirm. I wonder why does it behave
correctly for some of the objects in the transaction, then does not for
some other. For eg if there are 200 objects retrieved and write locked
in the transaction, it will correctly persist the changes in ,say,
first 120, then miss the next 10 objects, then correctly persist the
remaining.
Thanks a lot for your time and help.
Ashish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
Re: OJB 1.0.1 ODMJ: weird update behaviour
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Ashish,
Ashish Rangole wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am using ODMJ API in OJB 1.0.1 with:
>
> <object-cache class="org.apache.ojb.broker.cache.ObjectCacheEmptyImpl">
> <attribute attribute-name="timeout" attribute-value="900"/>
> <attribute attribute-name="autoSync" attribute-value="true"/>
> </object-cache>
> ImplicitLocking=false
>
> This is what I do:
> 1. Open database, start a transaction
> 2. Retrieve a list of objects from database (approx 200)
> using PB API
> 3. Lock each object one by one
> 4. Modify a certain field in each of them
> 5. commit the transaction
>
> I observe that not all objects get updated in the database
> and for them an "UPDATE" sql statement is not shown in spy log.
>
> Please let me know if somebody has seen this behaviour and if it
> is a bug or what I might be doing wrong.
>
Is the field type the same for all modified classes? Maybe OJB has
problems to detect the changed field. You could try to change the object
state by yourself using OJB's odmg extensions via TransactionExt#markDirty.
http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/guides/odmg-guide.html#OJB+Extensions+of+ODMG
(this link is for >=1.0.3 but #markDirty exists in 1.0.1 too - AFAIK)
Between OJB 1.0.1 and 1.0.3 we did a refactoring of the odmg stuff and I
hope this bug is fixed in current version of OJB. You could also try the
upcoming version 1.0.4 from CVS OJB_1_0_RELEASE branch (this include
some odmg implementation specific bug fixes).
regards,
Armin
> Thanks in advance for your time and help.
>
> Ashish
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org