We Keep Coding

Java JPA Hibernate OneToOne vs HashMap - Which One Should I Use and Why?

I have a question about performance and common practice, if someone could explain this to me.
I have recently started using JPA and hibernate and have come across an Entity that has a foreign key and I need to get some data from it. So for example: CustomerAddress has a City and that city has a lot of detail and also a name.
SQL:
select
CA.Id, CI.Name
from
CustomerAddress as CA
inner join City as CI
on CA.CityID = CI.Id
So now in Java JPA Entity I can have a one-to-many annotation:
#Entity
#Table(name = "CustomerAddress")
public class CustomerAddressEntity {
#Id
#Column(name = "Id", unique = true, nullable = false)
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#NotFound(action = NotFoundAction.IGNORE)
#JoinColumn(name = "city", referencedColumnName = "id", insertable = false, updatable = false)
private City city;
}
Where City is also an #Entity with #Id and simple object.
Which in my opinion does not turn out the best because it makes a lot of SQL requests.
And then I have the option having just two findAll() calls at the beginning, where I would collect all the City Entities in a HashMap<String, City> and when needing the name I would just call hashmap.get(key).getName().
EDIT (thanks for the heads up :)):
And when using this HashMap I can use a simpler Entity without the #JoinColumn
#Entity
#Table(name = "CustomerAddress")
public class CustomerAddressEntity {
#Id
#Column(name = "Id", unique = true, nullable = false)
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#Column(name = "CityID")
private Long cityId;
}
In the hashmap case I only get two SQL calls and I think it works much faster. Is there a way to get this behavior also using JPA and hibernate?
If my question and code needs some more refinement please let me know.. I can edit the question with more details and perhaps if necessary provide a working example. Thank you for your thoughts :)
And the same would go for OneToMany, where the hashmap would be: new HashMap<String, List<City>> for example - I mean the whole example should be created a bit differently - I guess it could even be a HashMap<String, HashMap<String,City>> - if one would need quick access to the City by Id or sth... but i digress :) I will edit the question and respond to comments as I will go.. and refine the question if necessary.. I would just like to hear some thoughts and where my thinking is wrong :) and what am I failing to see and missing :)
EDIT: For example a code that would create a lot of SQL requests:
public interface CustomerAddressRepository extends JpaRepository<CustomerAddressEntity, Long> {
#Override
List<CustomerAddressEntity> findAll();
}
This for example creates an SQL Query (I would use findAll() at the beginning to list all - or most of the Entities for the user) and you would get an SQL query for every Entity because it would want to find the Name of the City as well - because the ID of the City Entity does not really help to the user.
Also - I like to have all the Entities in my RAM so I can do a quick search for the user more responsive - So a search does not always do SQL Query + #(found results) Queries.

The HashMap has nothing to do with the fact that Hibernate issues a query when you want to get the name of the City object.Here's why it's happening.
In your CustomerAddressEntity you have a OneToOne with City , and since you have a #JoinColumn there ,it means that CustomerAddressEntity database Table will have the Primary Key of the City table as a foreign key , and since you specified in your class that it should be fetched LAZY,Hibernate will create a Proxy object wrapping the City object,ready to get queried from the database in case you call any getMethod ,like getName() ,(excluding the getId() method since the ID exists prealably in the proxy object,you can check the sql query logs and see that the query selects the foreign key with all the other fields of CustomerAddressEntity ),that's why when you trigger the getName() method Hibernate will fetch that entity from the database.

Hibernate join-table two composite keys that are both foreign keys

I have two different tables, both of which have composite embedded keys. Both composite keys have in composition the same id A_ID.
I want to join table M with table D in a one to many relationship using a join-table.
The following are some pseudo-java code converted from XML ORM mappings. So please excuse any mistakes written here. The mappings in the final code work so the typos here are not to blame.
#Entity()
public class M {
#EmbeddedId()
private EmbeddedMId id;
#OneToMany(name="d", #JoinTable(name="M-D",
joinColumns={
#JoinColumn(name="M_ID", referencedColumnName="M_ID"),
#JoinColumn(name="A_ID", referencedColumnName="A_ID", table="M")
},
inverseJoinColumns={
#InverseJoinColumn(name="D_ID", referencedColumnName="D_ID"),
#InverseJoinColumn(name="A_ID", referencedColumnName="A_ID", table="D", insertable="false", updatable="false")
}
))
private Set<D> dSet;
}
#Embeddable()
public class EmbeddedMId {
#Basic() private String A_ID;
#Basic() private String M_ID;
}
#Embeddable()
public class EmbeddedDId {
#Basic() private String A_ID;
#Basic() private String D_ID;
}
As you can see, the embeddables both use A_ID therefore we tried to make the 2nd A_ID in the join-table be readonly. The application starts and the mappings seem to be okay.
The problem is whenever I want to insert a new D object in the M entity, hibernate throws an SQL error invalid column index because while the prepared statement is correct as seen bellow, hibernate only provides the first 2 parameters instead of all three. (Values provided by hibernate are (VALID_M_ID, VALID_A_ID) instead of providing 3 values)
INSERT INTO M_D("M_ID", "A_ID", "D_ID") VALUES (?, ?, ?)
If I rename the 2nd inverseJoinColumn to have a new column name and make it insertable/updatable, the problem is solved. But this means that the A_ID is duplicated in both A_ID and A_REPEAT_ID column and this is what I want to avoid.
#InverseJoinColumn(name="A_REPEAT_ID", referencedColumnName="A_ID", table="D")
Is there a way to tell Hibernate that my EmbeddedDId needs to be mapped over the D_ID and A_ID (readonly) correctly when doing the insertions?
I hope my explanation is clear enough, but feel free to ask for any clarifications.
Hibernate version is 5.2.17-FINAL
EDIT
The only other entity that is important in this case is pretty simple. But as requested I'll write it here
#Entity()
public class D {
#EmbeddedId()
private EmbeddedDId id;
/* other basic fields here */
}

I don't think insertable = false, updatable = false does what you want here. If you want the target column A_ID on D to be readonly, then you will have to map the column in the target entity D and specify there that the column is insertable = false, updatable = false but not on this association.

Select BETWEEN dates returns wrong results

I have a Table in MySQL which has it's column definitions as below:
CREATE TABLE APPOINTMENT(
CD_APPOINTMENT BIGINT NOT NULL,
-- omitted for brevity
APPOINT_DATE DATE NOT NULL
);
My JPA entity is defined as:
#Entity
#Table(name = "APPOINTMENT")
public class Appointment {
protected Long id;
protected Date date = new Date();
// other atributes omitted for brevity
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
#Column(name = "CD_APPOINTMENT")
public Long getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(Long id) {
this.id = id;
}
#Temporal(TemporalType.DATE)
#Column(name = "APPOINT_DATE", columnDefinition = "DATE")
public Date getDate() {
return date;
}
}
As I'm using Spring, I have benefits of Spring Data JPA. Following that line, I'm using Spring Data JPA Repositories.
I'm testing in 2019-07-12 (at my timezone [UTC-3]).
When I run:
appointmentRepository.save(appointment);
the Appointment is successfully (more or less) saved.
Fine! The column APPOINT_DATE has the value of 2019-07-12, yes? Well, it's seems ok.
When I run:
SELECT * FROM APPOINTMENT;
the retrieved rows looks as expected:
CD_APPOINTMENT|APPOINT_DATE
--------------|------------
1| 2019-07-12
The strange part appears when I try to filter BETWEEN dates.
If I run my JPQL:
SELECT ap FROM Appointment AS ap WHERE ap.date BETWEEN :startDate AND :endDate
startDate and endDate are parameters received in a #Param annotation in Spring and both of them have the value of 2019-07-12
I get 0 rows, but I was expecting to get one (the above inserted Appointment). Firstly, I thought it was a problem with the JPQL, but it's not. If I execute the same JPQL with a different RDBMS (like H2, for an example), the query works perfectly.
And if I run the same JPQL but in SQL, directly on the MySQL database:
SELECT * FROM APPOINTMENT where APPOINT_DATE BETWEEN '2019-07-12' AND '2019-07-12'
just like the JPQL it returns 0 rows.
If I run the now(); command at MySQL database, it return the CORRECT date time.
How can I fix it?
Has anybody seen something like that already? Because I have not.

BETWEEN '2019-07-12' AND '2019-07-13'

It is best not to use between for date/times. One reason is because there might be a time component that throws off the comparison.
I would suggest:
SELECT *
FROM APPOINTMENT
WHERE APPOINT_DATE >= '2019-07-12' AND
APPOINT_DATE < '2019-07-13'
This logic works with an without a time component. And it can take advantage of an index on the date column.

My MySQL instance is from Amazon RDS.
Their default Time Zone is UTC. Switched from UTC to Brazil/East and now it's working as expected.

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 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.