Quick question about the second level cache and collections.

If I have a collection that is cached (by the second level cache) and I add a new item to the collection using Session.save() will the second level cache pick it up? From my testing it seems that the cache needs to expire before the new object get's picked up. Is that right?

No answer for this one? It seems that the second level cache isn't updated as far as I can tell. Does this mean I need to flush the cache every time someone does a save()?

The second-level cache is always evicted automatically, when necessary.

From my (limited) experience the secondary cache isn't write through. I just marks modified objects dirty and hits the DB for those objects.

From my experience you'll need to lookup your new person first (after the save), then future lookups will use the cached value. This behavior may also depend on second level cache implementation, there are a few to choose from.

-Jim

yes, it depends upon what is being cached and what the concurrency strategy is. sometimes, we do eviction, sometimes we recache (we have to be very careful to preserve consistency between cache and db)

Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong here. Even with the most liberal nonstrict-read-write strategy. If you do a save and then a lookup, that lookup will hit the db, even though the stuff you're looking up was the stuff you just saved. Future lookups will then use the cache unless there was a cause to invalidate it. But you don't add to cache and insert into DB at the same time.

If you do, please tell me what options to set as I'd like to use this feature as well.

Thanks,
Jim

that is true for collections, not necessarily for entities

I'm using a read-write cache. The cached item in question is in a parent child relationship. I tried just reissuing a get after the transaction was committed but I found that this wasn't enough to retrieve the object from the database. I had to do a refresh(object. LockMode.READ).

you are doing something wrong.

You're straight to the point aren't you! But yes you're right. I was doing something wrong. Sometimes you just been to be told that. :-)

:->

Gstamp what exactly was the fix for the problem?

Larry: It's pretty simple. Because of an incorrect condition check I was adding setting the parent property in the child but not adding the object as a child of the parent.

I have a parent child relationship also.

I guess this means that if I delete the sub node. I need to remove the sub node from the parent's collection of nodes.



Or should Hibernate take care of this?

I guess my error is because I don't have the cascade property set to all for the collection.

http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/refer ... ata-graphs