Synopsis: I'm trying to create an SQL update using jOOQ
DSL.using(connection)
.update(DSL.table("dogs"))
.set(DSL.field("age"), DSL.field("age").add(1))
.set(DSL.field("rabies"), "true")
.where(DSL.field("id").eq("Kujo"))
.execute();
Issue:
The method set(Field<Object>, Object) is ambiguous for the type UpdateSetFirstStep<Record>
Question: How do I create this update using jOOQ?
You ran into this problem: Reference is ambiguous with generics
Fixing your query
It's always a good idea to attach data types with your jOOQ expressions. In your particular case, you can work around the problem by specifying things like:
DSL.field("age", SQLDataType.INTEGER)
Or, shorter, with the usual static imports:
field("age", INTEGER)
Using the code generator
However, jOOQ is best used with its code generator, see also this article here. Not only will you avoid problems like these, but you also get compile time type safety (of data types and meta data), advanced features like implicit joins and much more.
Your query would then look like this:
DSL.using(connection)
.update(DOGS)
.set(DOGS.AGE, DOGS.AGE.add(1))
.set(DOGS.RABIES, true)
.where(DOGS.ID.eq("Kujo"))
.execute();
Related
I have a problem.
I have the following query:
SELECT
Agents.Owner,
Orders.*
FROM
Orders
INNER JOIN Agents ON Agents.id = Orders.agentid
WHERE
Agents.botstate = 'Active' AND Orders.state = 'Active' AND(
Orders.status = 'Failed' OR Orders.status = 'Processing' AND Orders.DateTimeInProgressMicro < DATE_SUB(NOW(), INTERVAL 10 SECOND))
ORDER BY
Orders.agentid
But now I need to convert this to JOOQ language. This is what I came up with:
create.select()
.from(DSL.table("Orders"))
.join(DSL.table("Agents"))
.on(DSL.table("Agents").field("Id").eq(DSL.table("Orders").field("AgentId")))
.where(DSL.table("Agents").field("botstate").eq("Active")
.and(DSL.table("Orders").field("state").eq("Active"))
.and((DSL.table("Orders").field("status").eq("Failed"))
.or(DSL.table("Orders").field("status").eq("Processing")))).fetch().sortAsc(DSL.table("Orders").field("AgentId"));
Now the first problem is that it doesn't like all the .eq() statements, because it gives me the error:
Cannot resolve method: eq(Java.lang.String). And my second problem is that I don't know how to write this statement in JOOQ: Orders.DateTimeInProgressMicro < DATE_SUB(NOW(), INTERVAL 10 SECOND).
The first problem is caused by the fact that I can't just use:
.on(Agents.Id).eq(Orders.AgentId)
But instead I need to enter for every table:
DSL.table("table_name")
And for every column:
DSL.field("column_name")
Without that it doesn't recognize my tables and columns
How can I write the SQL in the JOOQ version correctly or an alternative solution is that I can use normal SQL statements?
Why doesn't your code work?
Table.field(String) does not construct a path expression of the form table.field. It tries to dereference a known field from Table. If Table doesn't have any known fields (e.g. in the case of using DSL.table(String), then there are no fields to dereference.
Correct plain SQL API usage
There are two types of API that allow for working with dynamic SQL fragments:
The plain SQL API to construct plain SQL fragments and templates
The Name API to construct identifiers and jOOQ types from identifiers
Most people use these only when generated code isn't possible (see below), or jOOQ is missing some support for vendor-specific functionality (e.g. some built-in function).
Here's how to write your query with each:
Plain SQL API
The advantage of this API is that you can use arbitrary SQL fragments including vendor specific function calls that are unknown to jOOQ. There's a certain risk of running into syntax errors, SQL injection (!), and simple data type problems, because jOOQ won't know the data types unless you tell jOOQ explicitly
// as always, this static import is implied:
import static org.jooq.impl.DSL.*;
And then:
create.select()
.from("orders") // or table("orders")
.join("agents") // or table("agents")
.on(field("agents.id").eq(field("orders.id")))
.where(field("agents.botstate").eq("Active"))
.and(field("orders.state").eq("Active"))
.and(field("orders.status").in("Failed", "Processing"))
.orderBy(field("orders.agentid"))
.fetch();
Sometimes it is useful to tell jOOQ about data types explicitly, e.g. when using these expressions in SELECT, or when creating bind variables:
// Use the default SQLDataType for a Java class
field("agents.id", Integer.class);
// Use an explicit SQLDataType
field("agents.id", SQLDataType.INTEGER);
Name API
This API allows for constructing identifiers (by default quoted, but you can configure that, or use unquotedName()). If the identifiers are quoted, the SQL injection risk is avoided, but then in most dialects, you need to get case sensitivity right.
create.select()
.from(table(name("orders")))
.join(table(name("agents")))
.on(field(name("agents", "id")).eq(field(name("orders", "id"))))
.where(field(name("agents", "botstate")).eq("Active"))
.and(field(name("orders", "state")).eq("Active"))
.and(field(name("orders", "status")).in("Failed", "Processing"))
.orderBy(field(name("orders", "agentid")))
.fetch();
Using the code generator
Some use cases prevent using jOOQ's code generator, e.g. when working with dynamic schemas that are only known at runtime. In all other cases, it is very strongly recommended to use the code generator. Not only will building your SQL statements with jOOQ be much easier in general, you will also not run into problems like the one you're presenting here.
Your query would read:
create.select()
.from(ORDERS)
.join(AGENTS)
.on(AGENTS.ID.eq(ORDERS.ID))
.where(AGENTS.BOTSTATE.eq("Active"))
.and(ORDERS.STATE.eq("Active"))
.and(ORDERS.STATUS.in("Failed", "Processing"))
.orderBy(ORDERS.AGENTID)
.fetch();
Benefits:
All tables and columns are type checked by your Java compiler
You can use IDE auto completion on your schema objects
You never run into SQL injection problems or syntax errors
Your code stops compiling as soon as you rename a column, or change a data type, etc.
When fetching your data, you already know the data type as well
Your bind variables are bound using the correct type without you having to specify it explicitly
Remember that both the plain SQL API and the identifier API were built for cases where the schema is not known at compile time, or schema elements need to be accessed dynamically for any other reason. They are low level APIs, to be avoided when code generation is an option.
Which Java ORM support not-typesave modification of object?
I want to modify objects / records in a generic way, where the fieldName is a string input parameter, and value is a generic AnyObject parameter. Do you know something like this?
I.e. in Core Data in iOS it can work like this:
I went though ormlite tutorial and I just realized, need to get the appropriate Dao, to insert an item:
This is exactly how ActiveJDBC works. Check out at http://javalite.io.
I am using custom type converters with JOOQ, which work fine for tables but create uncompilable code for routines.
For example I have a public class DateConverter implements Converter<Date, LocalDate> but when auto-generating code some functions that accept a date as a parameter lead to the following code being generated:
public static final org.jooq.Parameter<java.time.LocalDate> VALUE_DATE = createParameter("value_date", org.jooq.impl.SQLDataType.DATE);
I understand that a related feature is planned for 3.5.0 that will probably solve the issue but I am on 3.4.4 and wonder if there is a workaround.
From your comments, I take that you're looking for a way to prevent jOOQ's code generator from erroneously applying converted data types to stored function parameters.
One workaround I can think of doing this right now is to ensure that none of the procedures / functions is accidentally matched in the code generator configuration. The <expression/> only matches either the fully qualified object name (e.g. the parameter) or the unqualified object name.
Another workaround would be to have two distinct code generation configurations: One for tables, the other for routines. That way, it would be much easier to configure converters...
I'm currently evaluating JOOQ because I believe I started reinventing the wheel which looks very close to part of JOOQ :)
Now, while digging in great JOOQ documentation I've found that my use case lies somewhere between Using JOOQ as SQL Builder and Using JOOQ as SQL Builder with Code generation i.e. I would like to:
Create plain SQL strings like it is shown in Using JOOQ as SQL Builder part
Instead of using hard-coded DSL.fieldByName("BOOK","TITLE") constructs, I prefer storing name of a table along with it's column names and types like it's shown in Using JOOQ as SQL Builder with Code generation part
I prefer not to use code generation (at least not on regular basis), but rather creating TableImpl myself when new table is needed.
While digging in manual, I've found how table implementation should look like in chapter Generated tables. However, TableImpl class as well as Table interface should be parameterized with record type and the same goes for TableField class. I believe this is done for easier type inference when directly querying database and retrieving results, though I may be mistaken.
So my questions are:
Is there a guide in manual on how to create Table and TableField implementations? Or I can simply generate them once for my database schema and use generated code as a guideline?
How can I gracefully "discard" record type parameters in implemented classes? First, I thought about using java.lang.Void class as type parameter but then I noticed that only subclasses of Record are allowed... The reason is that I don't need record types at all because I plan to use generated by JOOQ SQL queries in something like Spring JdbcTemplate so mapping is done by myself.
Thanks in advance for any help!
Given your use-case, I'm not sure why you'd like to roll your own Table and TableField implementations rather than using the ones generated by jOOQ. As you stated yourself, you don't have to regenerate that code every time the DB schema changes. Many users will just generate the schema once in a while and then put the generated artefacts under version control. This will help you keep track of newly added changes.
To answer your questions:
Yes, there are some examples around the use of CustomTable. You may also find some people sharing similar experiences on the user group
Yes you can just use Record. Your minimal custom table type would then be:
class X extends TableImpl<Record> {
public X() {
super("x");
}
}
Note that you will be using jOOQ's internal API (TableImpl), which is not officially supported. While I'm positive that it'll work, it might break in the future, e.g. as the super constructor signature might change.
My Java (JDK6) project uses Spring and JDBCTemplate for all its database access. We recently upgraded from Spring 2.5 to Spring 3 (RC1). The project does not use an ORM like Hibernate nor EJB.
If I need to read a bunch of records, and do some internal processing with them, it seems like there are several (overloaded) methods: query, queryForList and queryForRowSet
What should be the criteria to use one instead of the other? Are there any performance differences? Best practices?
Can you recommend some external references for further research on this topic?
I find that the standard way to access as list is via the query() methods rather than any of the other approaches. The main difference between query and the other methods is that you'll have to implement one of the callback interfaces (either RowMapper, RowCallbackHandler, or ResultSetExtractor) to handle your result set.
A RowMapper is likely what you'll find yourself using most of the time. It's used when each row of the result set corresponds to one object in your list. You only have to implement a single method mapRow where you populate the type of object that goes in your row and return it. Spring also has a BeanPropertyRowMapper which can populate the objects in a list via matching the bean property names to the column names (NB this class is for convenience not performance).
A RowCallbackHandler is more useful when you need your results to be more than just a simple list. You'll have to manage the return object yourself you are using this approach. I usually find myself using this when I need a map structure as my return type (i.e. for grouped data for a tree table or if I'm creating a custom cache based of the primary key).
A ResultSetExtractor is used when you want to control the iteration of the results. You implment a single method extractData that will be the return value of the call to query. I only find myself using this if I have to build some custom data structure that is more complex to build using either of the other callback interfaces.
The queryForList() methods are valuable in that you don't have to implement these callback methods. There are two ways use queryForList. The first is if you're only querying a single column from the database (for example a list of strings) you can use the versions of the method that takes a Class as an argument to automatically give you a list of only objects of those classes.
When calling the other implementations of queryForList() you'll get a list back with each entry being a map of for each column. While this is nice in that you are saved the expense of writing the callback methods, dealing with this data structure is quite unwieldy. You'll find yourself doing a lot of casting since the map's values are of type Object.
I've actually never seen the queryForRowSet methods used in the wild. This will load the entire result of the query into a CachedRowSet object wapped by a Spring SqlRowSet. I see a big downside in using this object in that if you're passing the SqlRowSet around to the other layers of your application, you're coupling those layers to your data access implementation.
You shouldn't see any huge performance differences between any of these calls except as I mentioned with the BeanPropertyRowMapper. If you're working with some complex manipulation of a large result set, you might be able to get some performance gains from writing an optimized ResultSetExtractor for your specific case.
If you want to learn more I would consult the Spring JDBC documentation and the JavaDoc for the classes I've mentioned. You can also take a look at some of the books on the Spring Framework. Though it's a bit dated Java Development with the Spring Framework has a very good section on working with the JDBC framework. Most of all, I would say just try writing some code with each method and see what works best for you.
Since you are in the wonderful Generics land, what you may really want to do is to use SimpleJdbcTemplate and use its query() methods for Lists of objects and queryForObject() for individual objects. Reasoning for this simply is that they're even easier to use than the ones in JdbcTemplate.
One small addition to the excellent answers above: additional methods, like queryForInt, queryForLong, queryForMap, queryForObject, etc. might seem like good options at times if you're running a simple query and expect a single row.
However, if you could get 0 or 1 rows back, the queryForList method is generally easier, otherwise you'd have to catch IncorrectResultSizeDataAccessException. I learned that the hard way.