We Keep Coding

How to map a table with composite key with one of the column being foreign key on Hibernate

I am having a hard time mapping the following database schema on Hibernate:
The tb_order is an existing table and it is already mapped on Java class. The tb_external_order_details table was recently created and it only have two columns. Both columns are part of the composite Primary Key. The tb_order_id column references to the id column on tb_order table and the external_order_id is just a loose id that doesn't references any column on database.
Please note that the database table and column names are not exactly equal to the Java classes and attributes names. e.g. the java class name is Order and the table name is tb_order. I just think this is important to note because the table/column names inferred by Hibernate may not match (also the table column is snake_case while properties on java classes will be camelCase).
I tried many solutions found here on stack overflow and none of them worked. Also, on the examples I found, no column of the composite Primary Key is a Foreign Key referencing another column of another table.

Try this:
#Entity
public class Order {
#Id
Integer id;
String type;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "order")
Set<ExternalOrderDetails> externalOrderDetails;
}
#Entity
public class ExternalOrderDetails {
#EmbeddedId
ExternalOrderDetailsId id;
#ManyToOne(fetch = LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "tb_order_id", insertable = false, updatable = false)
Order order;
}
#Entity
public class ExternalOrderDetailsId {
#Column(name = "tb_order_id")
Integer orderId;
#Column(name = "external_order_id")
Integer externalOrderId;
}

Spring / JPA join on namespaced key

I am creating a Spring 4 / Spring Data application for an existing database. The database structure and data are defined by a closed source software.
One aspect of the existing system is that you can create a comment on any other item in the system. This means, that an article, a document, a media file (all entities in the system) can have any number of comments, and each comment is exactly for one entity in the system. All comments are in the same comment table.
The way this is implemented is that the table comment has a column comment_for that holds a concatenated/namespaced/prefixed reference to the actual entity it is a comment for. The current system seems to just builds the join query by prefixing the primary key with the table name:
+----+-------------------+----------------+
| id | comment_for | comment |
+----+-------------------+----------------+
| 1| article:12345 | This is nice...|
| 2| document:42 | Cool doc! |
+----+-------------------+----------------+
This sample shows two comments, one for an Article with an article.id of 12345 and one for a document with document.id of 42. I created #Entities matching the database tables and the corresponding Repository Interfaces with the query methods I need.
I would like to make use of Spring Data Repositories / Entities to populate the collections of my entities with the corresponding comments, like this (pseudocde) for Entity Article.
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "comment_for", prefix = "article:")
private List<Comment> comment = new ArrayList<>();
I only need it unidirectional. My entities (at the moment Article, Document and Mediafile) should hold a collection of their comments. I don't need comments to hold a reference back to the entity.
Is there a way to do this? The resulting SQL query should be something like
SELECT * FROM .... WHERE comment.comment_for = concat('<entityname>:', <entity>.id);
I looked at #JoinColumn but I can't modify the used value for the join, only the column name. The only solution I have at the moment are manual #Querys on the CommentRepository Interface, which gives me an ArrayList of all comments for a certain Entity / ID combination. But I would like to have the comments automatically joined as part of my Business Entity.
Update : It looks like I am able to split the namespace and id from comment_for into two new columns without interrupting the existing software. The two columns are now comment_for_id and comment_for_entityname

You could also break out comment_for to contain only the id like your entities. Adding an additional column like entity_type would allow you to avoid duplicate id values between different entities.
Also you could use #JoinColumn on the owner side of the relationship between Entity and Comments. It looks like in your case that would be the Comment entity/table, since there are many comments per each entity.
Example:
#Entity
#NamedQueries({ #NamedQuery(name = "Comments.findAll", query = "select o from Comments o") })
#IdClass(CommentsPK.class)
public class Comments implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 4787438687752132432L;
#Id
#Column(name = "COMMENT_TEXT", nullable = false, length = 30)
private String commentText;
#Id
#Column(name = "ENTITY_TYPE", nullable = false, length = 30)
private String entityType;
#ManyToOne
#Id
#JoinColumn(name = "COMMENT_FOR")
private EntityDemo entityDemo;
Note that I set the combination of all three fields as the primary key, I am not sure what criteria is used as the PK in your current set up.
Here is an example of an Entity. The attributes have been made up for the purpose of demonstration.
#Entity
#NamedQueries({ #NamedQuery(name = "EntityDemo.findAll", query = "select o from EntityDemo o") })
#Table(name = "ENTITY_DEMO")
public class EntityDemo implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = -8709368847389356776L;
#Column(length = 1)
private String data;
#Id
#Column(nullable = false)
private BigDecimal id;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "entityDemo", cascade = { CascadeType.PERSIST, CascadeType.MERGE })
private List<Comments> commentsList;

JPA One To One relationship between two columns (not PK and not FK)

I have two tables, one named "Category" and the other "Rule" that are related logically with One to One relationship using a field (code) different than the Primary Key (PK) of table and not phisically managed with a Foreign Key (FK):
CATEGORY
ID (PK) NUMBER
COD_RULE VARCHAR
NAME VARCHAR
.....
RULE
ID (PK) NUMBER
CODE VARCHAR
TYPE VARCHAR
.....
I haven't on Rule table FK to category ID but only unique constraint (the relation is 1 to 1)
Implemented in this way in JPA
public Category implement Serializable {
#Id
#Column (name="ID")
private Long id;
#NotNull
#OneToOne(cascade=CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name="CODE_RULE" referencedColumnName="CODE", nullable=false)
private Rule;
#Column (name="NAME")
private String name;
//Getter and Setter methods
.......
}
public Rule implement Serializable {
#Id
#Column (name="ID")
private Long id;
#NotNull
#Column (name="CODE")
private String code;
#Column (name="TYPE")
private String type;
//Getter and Setter methods
.......
}
I need to:
When retrieve Categories obtain also all informations of associated Rule
SELECT c.*, r.type FROM Category c LEFT OUTER JOIN Rule r WHERE c.CODE_RULE = r.CODE
When edit Category maintain aligned CODE_RULE with CODE, so If I change CODE_RULE I would yo change automatically the CODE on Rule
UPDATE Category SET COD_RULE='5A', NAME='Test' WHERE ID=1
UPDATE Rule SET CODE='5A' WHERE CODE='AB'
I see on the specification that:
There are three cases for one-to-one associations: either the
associated entities share the same primary keys values, a foreign key
is held by one of the entities (note that this FK column in the
database should be constrained unique to simulate one-to-one
multiplicity), or a association table is used to store the link
between the 2 entities (a unique constraint has to be defined on each
fk to ensure the one to one multiplicity).
But with this implementation satisfy point 1. But not the point 2.
Suppose that I've already created Category (on ID = 1) and associated rule, when I edit category (having CODE_RULE = CODE = "AB") and change the code to "5A":
#PersistentContext
private EntityManager em;
.......
Category cat = em.find(Category.class, 1L);
cat.setName("Test");
cat.getRule().setCode("5A");
em.merge(cat);
I see that the code has been updated on Rule but not in Category:
BEFORE EDIT
Category (ID, COD_RULE, NAME) --> (1, AB, First Category)
Rule (ID, CODE, TYPE) --> (10, AB, C)
AFTER EDIT
Category (ID, COD_RULE, NAME)--> (1, AB, Test)
Rule (ID, CODE, TYPE) --> (10, 5A, C)
How can I do this work in JPA?
Is this type of operation supported in the JPA specification?
Is there an alternative (i.e. I have to merge before Rule and then Category)?

From your datamodel, it looks more like a Many To One relationship between Category and Rule, given in your data model only restrict each Category can refer to [0..1] Rule, but not restricting how many Categories that a Rule can be referred by.
Based on your comment, it seems that you can change the data model. Normally if it is a ~ToOne relationship, you should have the referring side referring as FK, which looks like this:
(Tables)
CATEGORY (
CATEGORY_ID NUMBER PK,
CATEGORY_CODE VARCHAR, // Unqiue
RULE_ID NUMBER FK to RULE,
... (Don't refer by RULE_CODE!!)
)
RULE (
RULE_ID NUMBER PK,
RULE_CODE VARCHAR, // unique, can be updated
...
)
Entity should look like
class Category {
#Id #Column(name="CATEGORY_ID)
Long id;
#ManyToOne // or #OneToOne if you really insist
#JoinColumn(name="RULE_ID)
Rule rule;
)
(class Rule is straight-forward, I will skip)
The HQL you mentioned should be
// When retrieving Category together with Rule
from Category c join fetch c.rule
for Point 2, as you mentioned in comment, you are trying to align Rule's code with Category's code, when Category's code is updated. This should be implemented as:
class Category {
//.....
public void setCode(String code) {
this.code = code;
this.rule.setCode(code);
}
//....
)
Base on personal experience, when using JPA, life will be much easier to drive data model base on domain model design. It should save a lot of problem caused by "data-model that looks tolerable".

Hibernate and JPA annotations - persist a list of phrases

I'm having trouble using hibernate to persist a simple java object containing just a list of phrases in the form of strings.
To store this in a MySql database I have two tables:
phrase_list - columns:
group_id, phrase_id, list_position (which together make up the primary key; also there is a foreign key constraint on phrase_id from the phrase table)
phrase - columns: phrase_id, phrase (phrase is a varchar with a unique index)
I would like to simply be able to annotate the object containing the list of phrases in order to persist it, but nothing I've tried has worked, I've tried examples and variations of using #ElementCollection and #OneToMany with another Entity representing the phrase, but no matter what I try I can't seem to get this to work.
For example a phrase list: {"a","b","b"} would be stored as:
**(phrase table)** **(phrase_list table)**
phrase_id phrase group_id phrase_id list_position
1 'a' 1 1 0
2 'b' 1 2 1
1 2 2
Here is the attempt to what I thought would work; I added an extra id field because I could see no way to use the foreign key as part of the id, and annotating the list with #Id didn't work.
#Entity #Table(name = "phrase_list")
public class PhraseList {
#ElementCollection
#CollectionTable(
name="phrase",
joinColumns=#JoinColumn(name="phrase_id")
)
#OrderColumn(name="list_position")
#Column(name="phrase")
private List<String> phrases;
#Id #GeneratedValue
#Column(name = "list_id")
private Long id;
#Column(name = "goup_id")
private Long groupId;
public void setResults(List<String> results){
this.results = results;
}
public void setGroupId(Integer groupId) {
this.groupId = groupId;
}
}
I get this exception:
org.hibernate.engine.jdbc.spi.SqlExceptionHelper logExceptions
ERROR: Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails (test_db.phrase_list, CONSTRAINTfk_phrase_list_phrase_idFOREIGN KEY (phrase_id) REFERENCESphrase(phrase_id`) ON DELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE )
Is there any way to get this to work simply by annotating the plain Java object? If not what is the best way to achieve this?
If I can't get it to work with annotation I would probably write custom queries and/or specialized methods for persisting the object. I.e., a method that is coupled to that particular class in knowing how to persist its objects, which I hoped to avoid.

JPA Mapping Multi-Rows with ElementCollection

I'm trying to follow the JPA tutorial and using ElementCollection to record employee phone numbers:
PHONE (table)
OWNER_ID TYPE NUMBER
1 home 792-0001
1 work 494-1234
2 work 892-0005
Short version
What I need is a class like this:
#Entity
#Table(name="Phones")
public class PhoneId {
#Id
#Column(name="owner_id")
long owner_id;
#Embedded
List<Phone> phones;
}
that stores each person's phone numbers in a collection.
Long version
I follow the tutorial code:
#Entity
#Table(name="Phones")
public class PhoneId {
#Id
#Column(name="owner_id")
long owner_id;
#ElementCollection
#CollectionTable(
name="Phones",
joinColumns=#JoinColumn(name="owner_id")
)
List<Phone> phones = new ArrayList<Phone>();
}
#Embeddable
class Phone {
#Column(name="type")
String type = "";
#Column(name="number")
String number = "";
public Phone () {}
public Phone (String type, String number)
{ this.type = type; this.number = number; }
}
with a slight difference that I only keep one table. I tried to use the following code to add records to this table:
public static void main (String[] args) {
EntityManagerFactory entityFactory =
Persistence.createEntityManagerFactory("Tutorial");
EntityManager entityManager = entityFactory.createEntityManager();
// Create new entity
entityManager.getTransaction().begin();
Phone ph = new Phone("home", "001-010-0100");
PhoneId phid = new PhoneId();
phid.phones.add(ph);
entityManager.persist(phid);
entityManager.getTransaction().commit();
entityManager.close();
}
but it keeps throwing exceptions
Internal Exception: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: null
value in column "type" violates not-null constraint Detail: Failing
row contains (0, null, null). Error Code: 0 Call: INSERT INTO Phones
(owner_id) VALUES (?) bind => [1 parameter bound] Query:
InsertObjectQuery(tutorial.Phone1#162e295)
What did I do wrong?

Sadly, i think the slight difference that you only keep one table is the problem here.
Look at the declaration of the PhoneId class (which i would suggest is better called PhoneOwner or something like that):
#Entity
#Table(name="Phones")
public class PhoneId {
When you declare that a class is an entity mapped to a certain table, you are making a set of assertions, of which two are particularly important here. Firstly, that there is one row in the table for each instance of the entity, and vice versa. Secondly, that there is one column in the table for each scalar field of the entity, and vice versa. Both of these are at the heart of the idea of object-relational mapping.
However, in your schema, neither of these assertions hold. In the data you gave:
OWNER_ID TYPE NUMBER
1 home 792-0001
1 work 494-1234
2 work 892-0005
There are two rows corresponding to the entity with owner_id 1, violating the first assertion. There are columns TYPE and NUMBER which are not mapped to fields in the entity, violating the second assertion.
(To be clear, there is nothing wrong with your declaration of the Phone class or the phones field - just the PhoneId entity)
As a result, when your JPA provider tries to insert an instance of PhoneId into the database, it runs into trouble. Because there are no mappings for the TYPE and NUMBER columns in PhoneId, when it generates the SQL for the insert, it does not include values for them. This is why you get the error you see - the provider writes INSERT INTO Phones (owner_id) VALUES (?), which PostgreSQL treats as INSERT INTO Phones (owner_id, type, number) VALUES (?, null, null), which is rejected.
Even if you did manage to insert a row into this table, you would then run into trouble on retrieving an object from it. Say you asked for the instance of PhoneId with owner_id 1. The provider would write SQL amounting to select * from Phones where owner_id = 1, and it would expect that to find exactly one row, which it can map to an object. But it will find two rows!
The solution, i'm afraid, is to use two tables, one for PhoneId, and one for Phone. The table for PhoneId will be trivially simple, but it is necessary for the correct operation of the JPA machinery.
Assuming you rename PhoneId to PhoneOwner, the tables need to look like:
create table PhoneOwner (
owner_id integer primary key
)
create table Phone (
owner_id integer not null references PhoneOwner,
type varchar(255) not null,
number varchar(255) not null,
primary key (owner_id, number)
)
(I've made (owner_id, number) the primary key for Phone, on the assumption that one owner might have more than one number of a given type, but will never have one number recorded under two types. You might prefer (owner_id, type) if that better reflects your domain.)
The entities are then:
#Entity
#Table(name="PhoneOwner")
public class PhoneOwner {
#Id
#Column(name="owner_id")
long id;
#ElementCollection
#CollectionTable(name = "Phone", joinColumns = #JoinColumn(name = "owner_id"))
List<Phone> phones = new ArrayList<Phone>();
}
#Embeddable
class Phone {
#Column(name="type", nullable = false)
String type;
#Column(name="number", nullable = false)
String number;
}
Now, if you really don't want to introduce a table for the PhoneOwner, then you might be able to get out of it using a view. Like this:
create view PhoneOwner as select distinct owner_id from Phone;
As far as the JPA provider can tell, this is a table, and it will support the queries it needs to do to read data.
However, it won't support inserts. If you ever needed to add a phone for an owner who is not currently in the database, you would need to go round the back and insert a row directly into Phone. Not very nice.