# RE: Interesting ActiveRecord vs Hibernate article **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [May 4, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-interesting-activerecord-vs-hibernate-article/94481 "2006-05-04T16:47:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/e19b73/32.png) [@kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kousen)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-interesting-activerecord-vs-hibernate-article/94481/1 "2006-05-04T16:47:06Z")
* * * Rails mailing list removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails](http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails) ---
**Author:** ![kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/e19b73/32.png) [@kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kousen)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-interesting-activerecord-vs-hibernate-article/94481/2 "2006-05-04T17:06:14Z")
Ken K. wrote: > I’d bet anything the version of RoR in the article was 1.0. > It can’t be. If the article date’s accurate (March '05), 1.0 was a good > 7 months away (at least… don’t have dates handy). 0.8’s more likely. ---
**Author:** ![kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/e19b73/32.png) [@kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kousen)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-interesting-activerecord-vs-hibernate-article/94481/3 "2006-05-04T17:09:34Z")
Am I missing something?? Did something change in RoR 1.0 to ActiveRecord that this article was not correctly reporting? aj ---
**Author:** ![kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/e19b73/32.png) [@kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kousen)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-interesting-activerecord-vs-hibernate-article/94481/4 "2006-05-04T18:14:49Z")
On May 4, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Alex Y. wrote: > Andrew H. Johnson wrote: > > > Am I missing something?? Did something change in RoR 1.0 to > > ActiveRecord that this article was not correctly reporting? > > At some point the :include option was added to > > ActiveRecord::Base#find, which enables eager loading. I thought it > > was before 1.0, but I could be wrong. The author makes much of the > > need to do piggy-back queries, which is exactly what :include does > > away with. The :include option has been part of Rails since at least 0.13 (not sure what the AR version would be), which was out last Summer. That’s when I first started using it… -Brian ---
**Author:** ![kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/e19b73/32.png) [@kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kousen)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-interesting-activerecord-vs-hibernate-article/94481/5 "2006-05-04T17:43:38Z")
Andrew H. Johnson wrote: > Am I missing something?? Did something change in RoR 1.0 to > ActiveRecord that this article was not correctly reporting? > At some point the :include option was added to ActiveRecord::Base#find, > which enables eager loading. I thought it was before 1.0, but I could > be wrong. The author makes much of the need to do piggy-back queries, > which is exactly what :include does away with. ---
**Author:** ![kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/e19b73/32.png) [@kousen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kousen)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2006, 10:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-interesting-activerecord-vs-hibernate-article/94481/6 "2006-05-05T10:13:37Z")
Brian H. wrote: > > need to do piggy-back queries, which is exactly what :include does > > away with. > > The :include option has been part of Rails since at least 0.13 (not > sure what the AR version would be), which was out last Summer. That’s > when I first started using it… > So it’s quite possible that it didn’t exist when the article was > written. Is the article being presented as ‘new’ anywhere? If so, it might be worth getting the author to make an update… Mind you, that’s the only point which he’s actually out of date on, so maybe it’s not worth it.