Performance Issue while updating Child Collection

janu019 · **Joined:** Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:31 am **Posts:** 22

I am facing Performance issue while storing(updating) the collection of childs.

Here is the class

Code:

public class Folder {

 private Set<FolderSupplier> folderSupplier = new HashSet<FolderSupplier>(0);

 @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "folder")
    @NotAudited
    public Set<FolderSupplier> getFolderSupplier() {
        return folderSupplier;
    }

    /** @param folderSupplier the folderSupplier to set */
    public void setFolderSupplier(Set<FolderSupplier> folderSupplier) {
        this.folderSupplier = folderSupplier;
    }
 protected void addFolderSupplier(FolderSupplier folderSupplier) {
        this.folderSupplier.add(folderSupplier);
    }
}
class FolderSupplier {

  private Folder folder;

 @ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
    @JoinColumn(name = "FLDR_ID", nullable = false)
    public Folder getFolder() {
        return this.folder;
    }


}

The models are mentioned above.
I want to add one new FolderSupplier to Folder
as below

Code:

Folder folder = entityManager.read(12l);
FolderSupplier folderSupplier = new FolderSupplier ();
folder.addFolderSupplier(folderSupplier );

entityManager.store(folder);

The above code at line
folder.addFolderSupplier(folderSupplier );

will load all FolderSupliers for the folder and then it will add new foldersupplier to collection.

What if I have 70000 folderSuppliers associated with this Folder.
it will load all 70k objects Lazily and then it will add new FolderSupplier.

This is causing Performance issue.
could you please someone suggest is there any way to do this without loading Child objects.

Thanks in Advance,
Jana

shynate26 · **Posted:** Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:36 am

Hi Janu019,

This can be avoided. You can save the FolderSupplier object instead of Folder.

folderSupplier.setFolder(loadedFolderObject);

aftr saving obviously when u access getFolderSupplier() from folder this can be fetched. Please try and let know any issues.

janu019 · **Joined:** Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:31 am **Posts:** 22

Hi,

Thanks alot. I tried the same way as you said , now Its working fine.
But still my doubt is that without persisting directly child like FolderSupplier
can we do some thing to update Folder object only without loading child objects..?

Suppose what If I have some 1000 new Folder Suppliers to be added to Folder
in such case 1000 times i should persist. i think it may again leads to performance degradation.

please clarify my doubt.

Thanks,
Jana

shynate26 · **Posted:** Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:35 am

Quote:

Suppose what If I have some 1000 new Folder Suppliers to be added to Folder
in such case 1000 times i should persist. i think it may again leads to performance degradation

U have stated new Folder suppliers , however you are going to store 1000 new records in the table so it cant be avoided without persisting. Please let me know still u have doubts.

janu019 · **Joined:** Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:31 am **Posts:** 22

I mean to say that 1000 times should i execute store(folderSupplier)

Or for these 1000 folder supplier objects if i set the folder and then if update the folder will do the needful..?