We have JPA entities representing lookup values (states, country codes, etc). Methods that are called frequently to get Lists of these values are cached using the org.springframework.cache.annotation.Cacheable annotation where appropriate.
We also have entities that have relationships with these lookup entities defined like:
#Entity
#Table(name = "Address")
public class AddressEntity {
// ...
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "STATE_CD", referencedColumnName = "CD")
#NotNull
private StateEntity state;
// ...
}
When we load one of these entities and then call the getter on the associated lookup, Hibernate hits the database again to load that value. We'd like to make it so when we have an address and we do a getState on that address, we hit a local cache for that information. How can we do that with Hibernate/JPA?
// Get address:
Address address = addressRepo.findOne(addressId);
// Get the state - this causes an additional query to hit the database:
State state = address.getState();
The fetch type does not matter here. Hibernate's second-level cache behavior is to cache the ids of to-one association targets rather than the targets themselves.
Why not make StateEntity itself #Cacheable? It seems a very good candidate, as there should be (much) fewer instances of StateEntity than AddressEntity
I have defined roles in my database role_template.
#Entity
#Table(name = "role_template")
#Cacheable
public class Role {
#Id
private int id;
private String name;
#Transient
private final int identity = new Random().nextInt(1000000) + 1;
}
I have one role at this moment with id=1 and name="admin"
My entity User has a list of roles defined as follow
#Entity
#Table(name = "app_user")
public class User {
[...]
#ManyToMany(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinTable(name = "role_assign",
joinColumns = #JoinColumn(name = "user_id", referencedColumnName = "id"),
inverseJoinColumns = #JoinColumn(name = "role_id", referencedColumnName = "id"))
private Set<Role> roles;
}
Roles are joined to users with my association table
[Table `role_assign`]
int user_id
int role_id
My problem is predictable, #Cacheable does not work.
I tried with 2 users, they have the same Role template, but not the same instance. The transient variable identity isn't equals for the role of the two users.. My app configuration is good, I think I forgot something to make it working for #JoinTable
Is this the javax.persistence.Cacheable annotation? Because it should.
I think your understanding of how caching works with JPA is wrong and your observations is not sufficient to decide if caching takes place or not.
#Cacheable is about the 2nd level cache. If an entity is pulled from the cache it is instantiated from information stored in the cache, and not actually the same instance. The latter wouldn't work. Entities can always only be attached to a single session, but the 2nd level cache lives across sessions.
Two representations of an entity should be the same instance exactly if they belong to the same session.
In order to decide if the cache is used or not you have two good options:
Log the SQL statements issued against the database and see if the data for the entity is selected over and over again, or only once.
Log the cache interaction and see what is going on directly.
How you do that depends on the JPA provider you use. Here are instructions for Hibernate.
I understand that the N+1 problem is where one query is executed to fetch N records and N queries to fetch some relational records.
But how can it be avoided in Hibernate?
The problem
The N+1 query issue happens when you forget to fetch an association and then you need to access it.
For instance, let's assume we have the following JPA query:
List<PostComment> comments = entityManager.createQuery("""
select pc
from PostComment pc
where pc.review = :review
""", PostComment.class)
.setParameter("review", review)
.getResultList();
Now, if we iterate the PostComment entities and traverse the post association:
for(PostComment comment : comments) {
LOGGER.info("The post title is '{}'", comment.getPost().getTitle());
}
Hibernate will generate the following SQL statements:
SELECT pc.id AS id1_1_, pc.post_id AS post_id3_1_, pc.review AS review2_1_
FROM post_comment pc
WHERE pc.review = 'Excellent!'
INFO - Loaded 3 comments
SELECT pc.id AS id1_0_0_, pc.title AS title2_0_0_
FROM post pc
WHERE pc.id = 1
INFO - The post title is 'Post nr. 1'
SELECT pc.id AS id1_0_0_, pc.title AS title2_0_0_
FROM post pc
WHERE pc.id = 2
INFO - The post title is 'Post nr. 2'
SELECT pc.id AS id1_0_0_, pc.title AS title2_0_0_
FROM post pc
WHERE pc.id = 3
INFO - The post title is 'Post nr. 3'
That's how the N+1 query issue is generated.
Because the post association is not initialized when fetching the PostComment entities, Hibernate must fetch the Post entity with a secondary query, and for N PostComment entities, N more queries are going to be executed (hence the N+1 query problem).
The fix
The first thing you need to do to tackle this issue is to add [proper SQL logging and monitoring][1]. Without logging, you won't notice the N+1 query issue while developing a certain feature.
Second, to fix it, you can just JOIN FETCH the relationship causing this issue:
List<PostComment> comments = entityManager.createQuery("""
select pc
from PostComment pc
join fetch pc.post p
where pc.review = :review
""", PostComment.class)
.setParameter("review", review)
.getResultList();
If you need to fetch multiple child associations, it's better to fetch one collection in the initial query and the second one with a secondary SQL query.
How to automatically detect the N+1 query issue
This issue is better to be caught by integration tests.
You can use an automatic JUnit assert to validate the expected count of generated SQL statements. The db-util project already provides this functionality, and it's open-source and the dependency is available on Maven Central.
Suppose we have a class Manufacturer with a many-to-one relationship with Contact.
We solve this problem by making sure that the initial query fetches all the data needed to load the objects we need in their appropriately initialized state. One way of doing this is using an HQL fetch join. We use the HQL
"from Manufacturer manufacturer join fetch manufacturer.contact contact"
with the fetch statement. This results in an inner join:
select MANUFACTURER.id from manufacturer and contact ... from
MANUFACTURER inner join CONTACT on MANUFACTURER.CONTACT_ID=CONTACT.id
Using a Criteria query we can get the same result from
Criteria criteria = session.createCriteria(Manufacturer.class);
criteria.setFetchMode("contact", FetchMode.EAGER);
which creates the SQL :
select MANUFACTURER.id from MANUFACTURER left outer join CONTACT on
MANUFACTURER.CONTACT_ID=CONTACT.id where 1=1
in both cases, our query returns a list of Manufacturer objects with the contact initialized. Only one query needs to be run to return all the contact and manufacturer information required
for further information here is a link to the problem and the solution.
Native solution for 1 + N in Hibernate, is called:
20.1.5. Using batch fetching
Using batch fetching, Hibernate can load several uninitialized proxies if one proxy is accessed. Batch fetching is an optimization of the lazy select fetching strategy. There are two ways we can configure batch fetching: on the 1) class level and the 2) collection level...
Check these Q & A:
#BatchSize but many round trip in #ManyToOne case
Avoiding n+1 eager fetching of child collection element association
With annotations we can do it like this:
A class level:
#Entity
#BatchSize(size=25)
#Table(...
public class MyEntity implements java.io.Serializable {...
A collection level:
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY...)
#BatchSize(size=25)
public Set<MyEntity> getMyColl()
Lazy loading and batch fetching together represent optimization, which:
does not require any explicit fetching in our queries
will be applied on any amount of references which are (lazily) touched after the root entity is loaded (while explicit fetching effects only these named in query)
will solve issue 1 + N with collections (because only one collection could be fetched with root query) without need to farther processing To get DISTINCT root values (check: Criteria.DISTINCT_ROOT_ENTITY vs Projections.distinct)
You can even get it working without having to add the #BatchSize annotation everywhere, just set the property hibernate.default_batch_fetch_size to the desired value to enable batch fetching globally. See the Hibernate docs for details.
While you are at it, you will probably also want to change the BatchFetchStyle, because the default (LEGACY) is most likely not what you want. So a complete configuration for globally enabling batch fetching would look like this:
hibernate.batch_fetch_style=PADDED
hibernate.default_batch_fetch_size=25
Also, I'm suprised that one of the proposed solutions involves join-fetching. Join-fetching is rarely desirable because it causes more data to be transferred with every result row, even if the dependent entity has already been loaded into the L1 or L2 cache. Thus I would recommend to disable it completey by setting
hibernate.max_fetch_depth=0
This is a frequently asked question so I created the article Eliminate Spring Hibernate N+1 Queries to detail the solutions
To help you detect all the N+1 queries in your application and avoid adding more queries, I created the library spring-hibernate-query-utils that auto-detects the Hibernate N+1 queries.
Here is some code to explain how to add it to your application:
Add the library to your dependencies
<dependency>
<groupId>com.yannbriancon</groupId>
<artifactId>spring-hibernate-query-utils</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0</version>
</dependency>
Configure it in your application properties to return exceptions, default is error logs
hibernate.query.interceptor.error-level=EXCEPTION
If you are using Spring Data JPA to implement your repositories, you can specify lazy fetching in the JPA associations:
#Entity
#Table(name = "film", schema = "public")
public class Film implements Serializable {
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "language_id", nullable = false)
private Language language;
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "film")
private Set<FilmActor> filmActors;
...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "film_actor", schema = "public")
public class FilmActor implements Serializable {
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "film_id", nullable = false, insertable = false, updatable = false)
private Film film;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "actor_id", nullable = false, insertable = false, updatable = false)
private Actor actor;
...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "actor", schema = "public")
public class Actor implements Serializable {
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "actor")
private Set<FilmActor> filmActors;
...
}
And add #EntityGraph to your Spring Data JPA-based repository:
#Repository
public interface FilmDao extends JpaRepository<Film, Integer> {
#EntityGraph(
type = EntityGraphType.FETCH,
attributePaths = {
"language",
"filmActors",
"filmActors.actor"
}
)
Page<Film> findAll(Pageable pageable);
...
}
My blog post at https://tech.asimio.net/2020/11/06/Preventing-N-plus-1-select-problem-using-Spring-Data-JPA-EntityGraph.html helps you preventing the N+1 select problem using Spring Data JPA and #EntityGraph.
Here are some snippet codes that would help you to fix the N+1 Problem.
One to Many Relationship with Manager and Client Entity.
Client JPA Repository -
public interface ClientDetailsRepository extends JpaRepository<ClientEntity, Long> {
#Query("FROM clientMaster c join fetch c.manager m where m.managerId= :managerId")
List<ClientEntity> findClientByManagerId(String managerId);
}
Manager Entity -
#Entity(name = "portfolioManager")
#Table(name = "portfolio_manager")
public class ManagerEntity implements Serializable {
// some fields
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "manager")
protected List<ClientEntity> clients = new ArrayList<>();
// Getter & Setter
}
Client Entity -
#Entity(name = "clientMaster")
#Table(name = "clientMaster")
public class ClientEntity implements Serializable {
// some fields
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "manager_id", insertable = false, updatable = false)
protected ManagerEntity manager;
// Getter & Setter
}
And finally, Generate output -
Hibernate: select cliententi0_.client_id as client_id1_0_0_, cliententi0_.manager_id as manager_id2_0_0_, managerent1_.manager_id as manager_id1_2_1_, cliententi0_.created_by as created_by7_0_0_, cliententi0_.created_date as created_date3_0_0_, cliententi0_.client_name as client_name4_0_0_, cliententi0_.sector_name as sector_name5_0_0_, cliententi0_.updated_by as updated_by8_0_0_, cliententi0_.updated_date as updated_date6_0_0_, managerent1_.manager_name as manager_name2_2_1_ from client_master cliententi0_, portfolio_manager managerent1_ where cliententi0_.manager_id=managerent1_.manager_id and managerent1_.manager_id=?```
I have a Group entity that has a list of User entities in a many to many relationship. It is mapped by a typical join table containing the two IDs. This list may be very large, a million or more users in a group.
I need to add a new user to the group, typically that will be something like
group.getUsers().add(user);
user.getGroups().add(group);
em.merge(group);
em.merge(user);
If I understand typical JPA operation, will this require pulling down the entire list of 1 million+ users into the collection in order to add the new user and then save? That doesn't sound very scalable to me.
Should I simply not be defining this relationship in JPA? Should I be manipulating the join table entries directly in a case like this?
Please forgive the loose syntax, I'm actually using Spring Data JPA so I don't directly use the entity manager directly very often, but the question seems to be general to JPA so I wanted to pose it that way.
Design your models like this and play with UserGroup for associations.
#Entity
public class User {
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, mappedBy = "user",fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#OnDelete(action = OnDeleteAction.CASCADE)
private Set<UserGroup> userGroups = new HashSet<UserGroup>();
}
#Entity
#Table(name="user_group",
uniqueConstraints = {#UniqueConstraint(columnNames = {"user_id", "group_id"})})
public class UserGroup {
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "user_id", nullable = false)
#ForeignKey(name = "usergroup_user_fkey")
private User user;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "group_id", nullable = false)
#ForeignKey(name = "usergroup_group_fkey")
private Group group;
}
#Entity
public class Group {
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, mappedBy="group", fetch = FetchType.LAZY )
#OnDelete(action = OnDeleteAction.CASCADE)
private Set<UserGroup> userGroups = new HashSet<UserGroup>();
}
Do like this.
User user = findUserId(id); //All groups wont be loaded they are marked lazy
Group group = findGroupId(id); //All users wont be loaded they are marked lazy
UserGroup userGroup = new UserGroup();
userGroup.setUser(user);
userGroup.setGroup(group);
em.save(userGroup);
Using the ManyToMany mapping effectively is caching the collection in the entity, so you might not want to do this for large collections, as displaying it or passing the entity around with it triggered will kill performance.
Instead you might remove the mapping on both sides, and create an entity for the relation table that you can use in queries when you do need to access the relationship. Using an intermediate entity will allow you to use paging and cursors, so that you can limit the data that might be brought back into usable chunks, and you can insert a new entity to represent new relationships with ease.
EclipseLink's attribute change tracking though does allow adding to collections without the need to trigger the relationship, as well as other performance enhancements. This is enabled with weaving and available on collection types that do not maintain order.
The collection classes returned by getUsers() and getGroups() don't have to have their contents resident in memory, and if you have lazy fetching turned on, as I assume you do for such a large relationship, the persistence provider should be smart enough to recognize that you're not trying to read the contents but just adding a value. (Similarly, calling size() on the collection will typically cause a SQL COUNT query rather than actually loading and counting the elements.)
I'm using Spring 3.2 with Roo 1.2.3 to build a database-backed Java application via Hibernate. I have several bidirectional OneToMany/ManyToOne relationships among the tables in my database. When I set up the ManyToOne side of the relationship using #JoinColumn (via "field reference" in Roo), a new field whose type is the related entity (the "one" in ManyToOne) is created. However, once this is done, there seems to be no way to access the underlying column value on which the ManyToOne relationship is based. This is a problem when the underlying join column contains data needed by the application (i.e. when the join column contains product stock numbers).
Is there any way to set up my entity class so that the column on which its ManyToOne relationship is based remains accessible without traversing the new join property? How can I define an accessor method for the value of this column?
I've been looking online for an answer to this question for several days, but to no avail. Thanks in advance for your help.
just map the column a second time with insertable=false and updateable=false
To make it more concrete. It's possible to do a HQL-SELCT and restrict a ManyToOne relationship, without any join in the resulting SQL:
Instead of using a join in
session.createQuery("FROM Person person WHERE person.adress.id = 42")
we use can use the adress_idcolumn
session.createQuery("FROM Person person WHERE person.adressId = 42")
This works, if you specify an additional adressId field, which is only used as mapping info for Hibernate:
#Entity
#Access(AccessType.FIELD)
public class Person{
#Id
String id;
#JoinColumn(name = "adress_id")
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#Nullable
public Adress adress;
#Column(name = "adress_id", insertable = false, updatable = false)
private String adressId;
}
#Entity
#Access(FIELD)
public class Adress{
#Id
String id;
}
The AccessType.FIELD is not needed (But we can leave getters/setters in example). The FetchType.LAZY and #Nullable are also optional, but make it clear when it makes sense to use it. We are able to load Person entities which have a specific Address (we know the address id). But we don't need a join because it's not needed for the WHERE-clause and not for the initial fetch (the address can be fetched lazy).