ObjectDB Database Search

and accidentally written to, which causes it to become NonTransactional- Dirty .         ... for the issue to happen: The entity must be made dirty on accident, outside of a transaction ( retrieveEntityAndMakeItDirtyByAccident  method). The dirty entity must be refreshed (beginning

the database. ie: which objects, and which collections of objects, have been dirtied . in the jdo api ... ) so you can check if an entity object is dirty using the static JDOHelper.isDeleted method. support Support ... object is dirty using the static JDOHelper.isDeleted method. excellent, thanks! another question

affects only clean (non dirty ) entity objects. Explicit lock at that mode marks the clean entity object as modified ( dirty ) and increases its version number by 1. The PESSIMISTIC_FORCE_INCREMENT mode ... dirty and increases its version number by one (i.e. it combines PESSIMISTIC_WRITE with OPTIMISTIC

the reference type for holding non dirty entities in the persistence context of the EntityManager

JDOHelper . makeDirty (employee, "projects"); // reported as dirty em. getTransaction (). commit (); As

, these changes will not trigger making the containing entity object dirty , but if it is marked dirty ... Support I'd like to understand the " dirtying " of entities a little better.  If an array reference ... that is the same as the old value, will the entity be marked dirty ?  If I want to avoid

, the entity manager must ensure that neither of the following phenomena can occur: P1 ( Dirty read ... manager must ensure that neither of the following phenomena can occur: P1 ( Dirty read): Transaction T1

(){ softReferenceData = new SoftReference (data); data = null; } @Override public void jdoPreStore(){ // A dirty ... objects unless necessary (e.g. for dirty objects until commit). On the other hand the data store page

program that retrieves all the relevant containing entity objects, makes them dirty and persists ... the schema and wrote the program which retrieves the containing entities, made them dirty

become dirty just by changing a mapped-by field (this was also true for reflection mode until build 2.2.6_03 and was changed in order to fix orphan removal). If Customer is not dirty - it doesn't cascade

to you in a migration process, in which relevant EntityA instances will be marked as dirty and changes

Hi, I have one case where commit (update of entity in this case) is not taken in account unless database is actually closed and re-open, no error. I tried to use flush instead of close+re-open but it does not work. So currently there is a dirty close + open + reload on each update

class you will have to iterate over all the relevant objects, mark them as dirty within an active

objectdb.conf file I will revisit the issue of dirty tracking of arrays. However, I have these new

). Can you explain the optimistic lock exception? It seems that the first level cache contains yet a dirty entity

it becomes a regular java.util.Array again which of course doesn't mark the object dirty when getting changed

change. As a workaround you can read and write (after making them dirty ) all the instances

Hi, the manual states the following regarding config of Entities: http://www.objectdb.com/java/jpa/setting/entities : The element specifies settings of the two cache mechanisms for entities: The ref attribute specifies the reference type for holding non dirty entities in the persistence

classes? Merging non dirty objects is expected to be more efficient when classes are enhanced

file size = 297009152, dirty pages = 1, update list s = 2, dirty page map = 1,   FastModel Ben

included a dirty and quick fix that used  get as a prefix for both get and set  persistent

type? What is the status of that object when it is refreshed (clean, dirty , detached, etc.)? Which maps

collection) to non dirty entity objects. Can you share a heap dump of your application during 

from another new / dirty entity object by a reference with cascading persist disabled. The following