Home » Modeling » EMF "Technology" (Ecore Tools, EMFatic, etc) » [CDO 0.8.0] Performance
| [CDO 0.8.0] Performance [message #122918] |
Fri, 23 May 2008 07:18  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Eike,
In EMF, everythings is somehow attached from a resource.
However, in our production system, our IStore never update objects
Resources.
Now, that I need to follow the standard, I developped my IStore to update
every objects correctly. However, when we create thousands of objects and
add it to the resource.contents... it starting to get very slow. Also it
needs to go through the list to find out if we already have the items..
etc..etc..
Here my questions:
Can we persist objects without adding it to the resource ?
Could we persist object in a way where objectA.resourceID == resourceA but
resourceA.content will not contains objectA ?
This is in Fact how the result of never updating a Resource.(My previous
IStore)
We could have something like.
CDOTransaction.persist(CDOResource, object);
Do you think it will go against something ?
Thank you.
|
|
|
| Re: [CDO 0.8.0] Performance [message #122923 is a reply to message #122918] |
Fri, 23 May 2008 07:57  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com
Simon,
Comments below.
Simon McDuff wrote:
> Hi Eike,
>
> In EMF, everythings is somehow attached from a resource.
> However, in our production system, our IStore never update objects
> Resources.
>
> Now, that I need to follow the standard, I developped my IStore to update
> every objects correctly. However, when we create thousands of objects and
> add it to the resource.contents... it starting to get very slow. Also it
> needs to go through the list to find out if we already have the items..
> etc..etc..
>
Maybe you want to create a root contain so the resource has one child
and that child has all the other contents. Then you can manage the list
of all objects in the store itself.
> Here my questions:
>
> Can we persist objects without adding it to the resource ?
>
In general, an object for which eResource() == null can't be persisted.
> Could we persist object in a way where objectA.resourceID == resourceA but
> resourceA.content will not contains objectA ?
> This is in Fact how the result of never updating a Resource.(My previous
> IStore)
>
> We could have something like.
> CDOTransaction.persist(CDOResource, object);
>
> Do you think it will go against something ?
>
Very likely. It's best to meet all the expectations of the framework...
> Thank you.
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CDO 0.8.0] Performance [message #122935 is a reply to message #122923] |
Fri, 23 May 2008 08:19 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: stepper.sympedia.de
Ed, Simon,
I agree with Ed.
I always recommended to handle the attachment of href'ed objects
explicitely so that it is clear where they're contained.
I believe most strategies to automatically attach referenced but
uncontained objects is not scalable in the best case.
And I only agreed to develop something like a CDOAutoAttacher because it
is completely optional.
Cheers
/Eike
Ed Merks schrieb:
> Simon,
>
> Comments below.
>
> Simon McDuff wrote:
>> Hi Eike,
>>
>> In EMF, everythings is somehow attached from a resource.
>> However, in our production system, our IStore never update objects
>> Resources.
>>
>> Now, that I need to follow the standard, I developped my IStore to
>> update every objects correctly. However, when we create thousands of
>> objects and add it to the resource.contents... it starting to get
>> very slow. Also it needs to go through the list to find out if we
>> already have the items.. etc..etc..
>>
> Maybe you want to create a root contain so the resource has one child
> and that child has all the other contents. Then you can manage the
> list of all objects in the store itself.
>> Here my questions:
>>
>> Can we persist objects without adding it to the resource ?
>>
> In general, an object for which eResource() == null can't be persisted.
>> Could we persist object in a way where objectA.resourceID ==
>> resourceA but resourceA.content will not contains objectA ?
>> This is in Fact how the result of never updating a Resource.(My
>> previous IStore)
>>
>> We could have something like.
>> CDOTransaction.persist(CDOResource, object);
>>
>> Do you think it will go against something ?
>>
> Very likely. It's best to meet all the expectations of the framework...
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: [CDO 0.8.0] Performance [message #122938 is a reply to message #122923] |
Fri, 23 May 2008 08:43 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Understand!
So I will create an objects that have a list.
In fact, when you add to this objects you not necessarly add to a list
because it will not keep anything.
My objects will in fact call (IN CDO)
CDOStateMachine.INSTANCE.attach(eObjectToPersist, cdoResource,
(CDOViewImpl)cdoTransaction);
To make it persistent!!
I believe the implementation is cleaner using
CDOTransaction.persist(CDOResource, object);
but I will attach it indirectly.
I think by default it follow the standard.
But by having my special objects doing it .... is the same things that
having CDO framework having it. At the end, you will have an objects with a
collection that you can add to it but not retrieved from it.
"Ed Merks" <merks@ca.ibm.com> a
|
|
|
| Re: [CDO 0.8.0] Performance [message #618162 is a reply to message #122918] |
Fri, 23 May 2008 07:57 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Simon,
Comments below.
Simon McDuff wrote:
> Hi Eike,
>
> In EMF, everythings is somehow attached from a resource.
> However, in our production system, our IStore never update objects
> Resources.
>
> Now, that I need to follow the standard, I developped my IStore to update
> every objects correctly. However, when we create thousands of objects and
> add it to the resource.contents... it starting to get very slow. Also it
> needs to go through the list to find out if we already have the items..
> etc..etc..
>
Maybe you want to create a root contain so the resource has one child
and that child has all the other contents. Then you can manage the list
of all objects in the store itself.
> Here my questions:
>
> Can we persist objects without adding it to the resource ?
>
In general, an object for which eResource() == null can't be persisted.
> Could we persist object in a way where objectA.resourceID == resourceA but
> resourceA.content will not contains objectA ?
> This is in Fact how the result of never updating a Resource.(My previous
> IStore)
>
> We could have something like.
> CDOTransaction.persist(CDOResource, object);
>
> Do you think it will go against something ?
>
Very likely. It's best to meet all the expectations of the framework...
> Thank you.
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [CDO 0.8.0] Performance [message #618165 is a reply to message #122923] |
Fri, 23 May 2008 08:19 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Ed, Simon,
I agree with Ed.
I always recommended to handle the attachment of href'ed objects
explicitely so that it is clear where they're contained.
I believe most strategies to automatically attach referenced but
uncontained objects is not scalable in the best case.
And I only agreed to develop something like a CDOAutoAttacher because it
is completely optional.
Cheers
/Eike
Ed Merks schrieb:
> Simon,
>
> Comments below.
>
> Simon McDuff wrote:
>> Hi Eike,
>>
>> In EMF, everythings is somehow attached from a resource.
>> However, in our production system, our IStore never update objects
>> Resources.
>>
>> Now, that I need to follow the standard, I developped my IStore to
>> update every objects correctly. However, when we create thousands of
>> objects and add it to the resource.contents... it starting to get
>> very slow. Also it needs to go through the list to find out if we
>> already have the items.. etc..etc..
>>
> Maybe you want to create a root contain so the resource has one child
> and that child has all the other contents. Then you can manage the
> list of all objects in the store itself.
>> Here my questions:
>>
>> Can we persist objects without adding it to the resource ?
>>
> In general, an object for which eResource() == null can't be persisted.
>> Could we persist object in a way where objectA.resourceID ==
>> resourceA but resourceA.content will not contains objectA ?
>> This is in Fact how the result of never updating a Resource.(My
>> previous IStore)
>>
>> We could have something like.
>> CDOTransaction.persist(CDOResource, object);
>>
>> Do you think it will go against something ?
>>
> Very likely. It's best to meet all the expectations of the framework...
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: [CDO 0.8.0] Performance [message #618936 is a reply to message #122923] |
Fri, 23 May 2008 08:43 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Understand!
So I will create an objects that have a list.
In fact, when you add to this objects you not necessarly add to a list
because it will not keep anything.
My objects will in fact call (IN CDO)
CDOStateMachine.INSTANCE.attach(eObjectToPersist, cdoResource,
(CDOViewImpl)cdoTransaction);
To make it persistent!!
I believe the implementation is cleaner using
CDOTransaction.persist(CDOResource, object);
but I will attach it indirectly.
I think by default it follow the standard.
But by having my special objects doing it .... is the same things that
having CDO framework having it. At the end, you will have an objects with a
collection that you can add to it but not retrieved from it.
"Ed Merks" <merks@ca.ibm.com> a
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 03 01:27:57 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03349 seconds |
Home