Query cache OOM for too large beans #3645
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Wosch96
changed the title
added 2 commits
July 1, 2025 09:02
Member
Well if it's easy enough for people to "get the wrong result" ... then we should address it if we can. So yes this looks like the good and right thing to do. I'll have another look to see if there are any side effects or if the PR is good to go. |
rPraml
pushed a commit
to FOCONIS/ebean
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 2, 2025
Clean up Fix imports no import changes
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi @rob-bygrave,
we have a problem with the query cache that holds whole beans inside the memory. If these beans are too big, a potential OOM can occur.
I created a test that uses a 'big' bean in an '.eq' expression without the specific id call.
The easy solution would be the usage of '.id'
.eq("child.id", DB.reference(MemleakChild.class, id).id).I added a potential draft to fix this. What default would you expect in this case? Should I always use .id or should this be handled automatically if possible. Let me hear what you think about this.