Hibernate version: 2.1.6

Mapping documents:

Code between sessionFactory.openSession() and session.close():

Full stack trace of any exception that occurs:

Name and version of the database you are using:

The generated SQL (show_sql=true):

Debug level Hibernate log excerpt:

When adding to a collection does the collection always have to be intialized (cannot be collection proxy) ? If so is it bad practice to add to the many side be setting the detail object (many side) object to point to to the parent object and just save the detail object. Almost all examples I have seen are cases where child records are always added through the parent but I don't really want to intialize the collection to add details to it since it is so big.

Wondering if the "reverse" keyword on your collection mapping is not what you need.

Check the doc at various places. Look for the collection mapping info and the

yes this is correct , however , when u access the the collection to add the child the collection still needs to be intialized.

Parent.addChild(new Child());

with inverse="true" .. the child will do the insert but hibernate will still initialize the collection of the parent. What I am doing now is just saving the child by and pointing it to the parent.

What you do is correct (according to me).

* insert the child and point it to the parent (using a many-to-one);

* in the parent, you can still have a collection of the children (as an unindexed collection - set or bag) mapped with the *inverse* keyword. This keyword actually says the relationship between parent and child is actually managed by the child...

Using this strategy, you don't access the parent's children collection - so Hibernate shouldn't initialize it.

perfect , this helps .. just wanted to make sure I am on the right track. For me .. the performance implication of say loading 50,000 child objects to insert one extra child was not a good a thing.

Thanks for your help and quick reply