mention upsert() in the doc
This commit is contained in:
parent
7cf4fd0626
commit
c937ac6f9d
|
@ -852,7 +852,8 @@ A stateless session:
|
|||
- doesn't have a first-level cache (persistence context), nor does it interact with any second-level caches, and
|
||||
- doesn't implement transactional write-behind or automatic dirty checking, so all operations are executed immediately when they're explicitly called.
|
||||
|
||||
For a stateless session, you're always working with detached objects. Thus, the programming model is a bit different:
|
||||
For a stateless session, we're always working with detached objects.
|
||||
Thus, the programming model is a bit different:
|
||||
|
||||
.Important methods of the `StatelessSession`
|
||||
[%autowidth.stretch]
|
||||
|
@ -866,6 +867,7 @@ a `select`
|
|||
| `insert(Object)` | Immediately `insert` the state of the given transient object into the database
|
||||
| `update(Object)` | Immediately `update` the state of the given detached object in the database
|
||||
| `delete(Object)` | Immediately `delete` the state of the given detached object from the database
|
||||
| `upsert(Object)1 | Immediately `insert` or `update` the state of the given detached object using a SQL `merge into` statement
|
||||
|===
|
||||
|
||||
NOTE: There's no `flush()` operation, and so `update()` is always explicit.
|
||||
|
@ -875,10 +877,10 @@ In certain circumstances, this makes stateless sessions easier to work with, but
|
|||
[%unbreakable]
|
||||
[CAUTION]
|
||||
====
|
||||
If you use `fetch()` in a stateless session, you can very easily obtain two objects representing the same database row!
|
||||
If we use `fetch()` in a stateless session, we can very easily obtain two objects representing the same database row!
|
||||
====
|
||||
|
||||
In particular, the absence of a persistence context means that you can safely perform bulk-processing tasks without allocating huge quantities of memory.
|
||||
In particular, the absence of a persistence context means that we can safely perform bulk-processing tasks without allocating huge quantities of memory.
|
||||
Use of a `StatelessSession` alleviates the need to call:
|
||||
|
||||
- `clear()` or `detach()` to perform first-level cache management, and
|
||||
|
@ -887,8 +889,7 @@ Use of a `StatelessSession` alleviates the need to call:
|
|||
[%unbreakable]
|
||||
[TIP]
|
||||
====
|
||||
Stateless sessions can be useful, but for bulk operations on huge datasets,
|
||||
Hibernate can't possibly compete with stored procedures!
|
||||
Stateless sessions can be useful, but for bulk operations on huge datasets, Hibernate can't possibly compete with stored procedures!
|
||||
====
|
||||
|
||||
When using a stateless session, you should be aware of the following additional limitations:
|
||||
|
@ -900,18 +901,15 @@ When using a stateless session, you should be aware of the following additional
|
|||
[[optimistic-and-pessimistic-locking]]
|
||||
=== Optimistic and pessimistic locking
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, an aspect of behavior under load that we didn't mention above is row-level
|
||||
data contention. When many transactions try to read and update the same data, the
|
||||
program might become unresponsive with lock escalation, deadlocks, and lock
|
||||
acquisition timeout errors.
|
||||
Finally, an aspect of behavior under load that we didn't mention above is row-level data contention.
|
||||
When many transactions try to read and update the same data, the program might become unresponsive with lock escalation, deadlocks, and lock acquisition timeout errors.
|
||||
|
||||
There's two basic approaches to data concurrency in Hibernate:
|
||||
|
||||
- optimistic locking using `@Version` columns, and
|
||||
- database-level pessimistic locking using the SQL `for update` syntax (or equivalent).
|
||||
|
||||
In the Hibernate community it's _much_ more common to use optimistic locking, and
|
||||
Hibernate makes that incredibly easy.
|
||||
In the Hibernate community it's _much_ more common to use optimistic locking, and Hibernate makes that incredibly easy.
|
||||
|
||||
[%unbreakable]
|
||||
[TIP]
|
||||
|
@ -920,13 +918,10 @@ Where possible, in a multiuser system, avoid holding a pessimistic lock across a
|
|||
Indeed, the usual practice is to avoid having transactions that span user interactions. For multiuser systems, optimistic locking is king.
|
||||
====
|
||||
|
||||
That said, there _is_ also a place for pessimistic locks, which can sometimes reduce
|
||||
the probability of transaction rollbacks.
|
||||
That said, there _is_ also a place for pessimistic locks, which can sometimes reduce the probability of transaction rollbacks.
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore, the `find()`, `lock()`, and `refresh()` methods of the reactive session
|
||||
accept an optional `LockMode`. You can also specify a `LockMode` for a query. The
|
||||
lock mode can be used to request a pessimistic lock, or to customize the behavior
|
||||
of optimistic locking:
|
||||
Therefore, the `find()`, `lock()`, and `refresh()` methods of the reactive session accept an optional `LockMode`. You can also specify a `LockMode` for a query.
|
||||
The lock mode can be used to request a pessimistic lock, or to customize the behavior of optimistic locking:
|
||||
|
||||
.Optimistic and pessimistic lock modes
|
||||
[%breakable,cols="26,~"]
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue