I have a tricky problem with hibernate using more queries than necessary for a simple findAll call. In my model there is two entities Parent and Child with oneToMany association;
Parent
class Parent{
#id
private long id;
//unique
private String code;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "parent", cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
private List<OperatorAttribute> children;
}
Child
class Child{
#id
private long id;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "parent_code", referencedColumnName = "code")
#LazyToOne(LazyToOneOption.NO_PROXY) // here i'm trying to tell hibernate to create no proxy and just ignore the field but no luck :/
public Parent parent;
}
The problem is that whenever I try to fetch the list of child using childRepository.findAll() from the database, hibernate make N+1 select query, why ?
I think this may be the explanation for that: IMHO when Hibernate populate the child object, he tries to create a proxy for the parent field,
and for that he needs the id of the parent row, which should normally be the foreign key in the child table, but in my case the #fk isn't binded to the primary key of the Parent table but to a unique column (plz don't ask me why) so in order to populate the id he needs to do an additional select query just to initialize the proxy of the parent field.
So my question is how to prevent Hibernate from creating a proxy for the parent field.
Thanks.
You are right. The proxy needs the #Id of the proxied entity (this way it could be made sure that it could be find). As soon you define the LazyToOneOption.NO_PROXY it tells the system to give back the real object. And this is what happens here. What you get mapped on the result is not a proxy, because with this annotation you explicitly disabled it so you have to get the real object.
Based on the mapping provided you cannot ignore the field because You'll loose the information what was is the Parent on the Child. So with this kind of setup you'll always need to read the parent.
If this field is not needed at all in a specific area, you can create some other mappings to the same table. But be careful! This could introduce a load of other cache related problems.
Related
I have an #Entity A that references another entity B using OneToOne relation ship. I fetch entity A using spring data JpaRepository
A a = aRepository.findById(1);
int b_id = a.getB().getId();
As you can see I need to query ID of the B table, however in order to do that, I need to call getter of the B table, which will cause lazy-loading the B table itself. I do not want to do that because the only thing I need is the get ID, nothing else, and that ID is present in the first A table.
Is there any trick that will help me to get ID of the dependent table without triggering new query?
UPDATE
#Entity
class A {
#Id
private Long id;
#OneToOne
private B b;
}
#Entity
class {
#Id
private Long id;
}
Without looking at the entity mapping, I suspect, your entity classes might be using hibernate annotations on the field. With this if you call even the getId() method as in a.getB().getId() on the entity it will result in initializing the proxy (i.e., B object) and hits the database to fetch it.
So if the intent is only to get the id of the entity you can place the hibernate annotations on the getter methods instead. This doesn't result initializing the proxy (B object) to return the id. Although accessing any property other than id will result in hitting the database.
Have a look at related bug at HHH-3718
So, try using property/getter AccessType instead of field access. As an example instead of placing the annotations on field
#Id
#GeneratedValue(...)
private long id;
place them on the getters
#Id
#GeneratedValue(...)
public long getId() { ... }
Make sure you make similar changes to all the fields of B entity. Although you can explore #Access(AccessType.PROPERTY/FIELD) later.
There is already a related bug HHH-3718 regarding this behavior.
And a related topic on hibernate forum regarding field vs property access type that might be of interest for you Field Vs Property access
Posting your entities classes would help, if this doesn't resolve the issue.
I have an hibernate managed entity:
#Entity
public class Parent {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
// (omitted useless details)
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "child_id", updatable = false)
private Child child;
// (omitted useless details)
}
--
#Entity
public class Child {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
// (omitted rest...this is a POJO)
}
Since the responsibility of the update for Child is managed elsewhere, my goal is to simply not update child when the parent is saved. Unfortunately, this updatable = false on the #JoinColumn appears to be getting ignored, saving any changes made to both parent and child.
How can I achieve only saving the parent in a one to one relationship?
Any help is appreciated.
EDIT: Clarification, the Child class is an #Entity as well, but a simple POJO. The relationship between Parent and Child is unidirectional from the parent.
I looked into this for quite a while and looking at the documentation for #JoinColumn annotation and the updatable/insertable properties it says...
"(Optional) Whether the column is included in SQL UPDATE statements generated by the persistence provider."
What this means is setting updatable = false will only prevent the foreign key from being updated (column is included). When you save the parent entity it will also save all child entities attached to the object.
This means that any child properties that are attached to the parent entity when you save will also be persisted. This brings another issue to light if someone else may have updated this child entity, but because you are saving the parent entity with the child entity attached to it, you will un-knowingly overwrite any changes made to the child object.
Solution:
AFAIK the only way to resolve this is to be diligent about the object you save, unless you really need to be saving/updating the child entities don't. Keep your objects self contained, this is the downfalls of lazy/eager loaded properties and saving that same object graph. You could also do like another poster said and set the child entity to null before the save to prevent any updates, but can easily be missed.
If you are OK with saving the entire object tree (parent and children entities) you could add a property that utilizes the #Version attribute to introduce optimistic concurrency. This way if any entity was updated by someone else and you are trying to save an old version it will fail.
#Version
#Column(name=”version”)
private long version;
public long getVersion() { return version; }
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).
I am trying to establish a relationship between 2 entities which would be zero-to-one. That is, the Parent can be saved without the associated Child entity and also along with the assoicated Child.
Following are the 2 Entity classes...
Employee (Parent)
public class Employee {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#Column(name="EMP_NAME")
private String name;
#PrimaryKeyJoinColumn
#OneToOne(cascade = {CascadeType.ALL})
private EmployeeInfo info;
#Column(name="EMP_ENUM")
private Integer enumId;
EmployeeInfo (Child)
public class EmployeeInfo {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.AUTO)
private Long id;
#Column(name="EMPLOYEE_EMAIL")
private String email;
With such kind of a relation and id column of the only Parent (Employee) table set to AUTO INCREMENT in MySql DB, the problem is that while saving a Parent->Child object graph, I get the following exception
org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.HibernateJdbcException: JDBC exception on Hibernate data access: SQLException for SQL [insert into EMP_INFO
Caused by: java.sql.SQLException: Field 'id' doesn't have a default value
I tried setting the Child Table's Id property to AUTO INCREMENT in the DB , and the persistence of such a Parent->Child object graph is successful.
However, the problem described here surfaces, because I have a scenario in which I would like to save the parent (Employee) object without the associated EmpInfo object, and hence do NOT want to have AUTO INCREMENT on the Child's id column.
One solution could be not use the PrimaryKeyJoinColumn, but use a particular JoinColumn, but that adds an unnecessary column to my existing Table.
Has anyone come across such a problem? If yes, any pointers would be much helpful.
Finally, I got it working thanks to Pascal and some googling from my side. Apparently, I cannot use the Native key generator for such relationships where the parent can exist without the child (optional = true).
The thing that worked finally was the following, leaving me the downside of having to deal with Hibernate specific annotation (#GenericGenerator) and also having to make-do with bi-directional relationships instead of the unidirectional that I wanted.
Employee (Parent) class remains unchanged as above. It has AUTO INCREMENT on the Id column.
As for the child class (EmployeeInfo) it changed to the following, and again WITHOUT having the AUTO INCREMENT set on the Id column.
#Table(name="EMP_INFO")
#Entity
public class EmployeeInfo {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(generator="foreign")
#GenericGenerator(name="foreign", strategy = "foreign", parameters={
#Parameter(name="property", value="verifInfo")})
private Long id;
#OneToOne(optional=false)
#JoinColumn (name="id")
private Employee emp;
#Column(name="EMPLOYEE_EMAIL")
private String email;
This helped me achieve what I wanted but on the downside, GenericGenerator is not a JPA annotation, it is a hibernate annotation, and sadly I have to make do with that as of now because JPA does not currently support this(or any similar) annotation.
Anyway, it helps to get through such cases :-)
I have a scenario in which I would like to save the parent (Employee) object without the associated EmpInfo object.
The optional attribute of a OneToOne is true by default, which is what you want.
However, you are somehow misusing the #PrimaryKeyJoinColumn here (well, it actually depends on what you really want to achieve but your current combination of annotations is not correct).
IF you want to map a OneToOne with a shared primary-key, use the #PrimaryKeyJoinColumn. But in that case, don't use a GeneratedValue on EmployeeInfo and set the id manually or, if you don't want to set it manually, use the Hibernate specific foreign generator that I already mentioned in your previous question. Check also the related question mentioned below.
And IF you do not want to use a shared primary key (like in your current code since you're trying to get the id generated by the database), then do not use the PrimaryKeyJoinColumn.
You have to make a choice.
References
JPA 1.0 specification:
9.1.32 PrimaryKeyJoinColumn Annotation
Related question
JPA Hibernate One-to-One relationship.
I have two tables: t_promo_program and t_promo_program_param.
They are represented by the following JPA entities:
#Entity
#Table(name = "t_promo_program")
public class PromoProgram {
#Id
#Column(name = "promo_program_id")
private Long id;
#OneToMany(cascade = {CascadeType.REMOVE})
#JoinColumn(name = "promo_program_id")
private List<PromoProgramParam> params;
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "t_promo_program_param")
public class PromoProgramParam {
#Id
#Column(name = "promo_program_param_id")
private Long id;
//#NotNull // This is a Hibernate annotation so that my test db gets created with the NOT NULL attribute, I'm not married to this annotation.
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "PROMO_PROGRAM_ID", referencedColumnName = "promo_program_id")
private PromoProgram promoProgram;
}
When I delete a PromoProgram, Hibernate hits my database with:
update
T_PROMO_PROGRAM_PARAM
set
promo_program_id=null
where
promo_program_id=?
delete
from
t_promo_program
where
promo_program_id=?
and last_change=?
I'm at a loss for where to start looking for the source of the problem.
Oh crud, it was a missing "mappedBy" field in PromoProgram.
Double-check whether you're maintaining bidirectional association consistency. That is; make sure that all PromoProgramParam entities that link to a PromoProgram as its parent are also contained in said parent's params list. It's a good idea to make sure this happens regardless of which side "initiates" the association if you will; if setPromoProgram is called on a PromoProgramParam, have the setter automatically add itself to the PromoProgram's params list. Vice versa, when calling addPromoProgramParam on a PromoProgram, have it set itself as the param's parent.
I've encountered this problem before as well, and it was due to not maintaining bidirectional consistency. I debugged around into Hibernate and found that it was unable to cascade the delete operation to the children because they weren't in the list. However, they most certainly were present in the database, and caused FK exceptions as Hibernate tried to delete only the parent without first deleting its children (which you've likely also encountered with the #NonNull in place).
FYI, I believe the proper "EJB 3.0"-way of making the PromoProgramParam.promoProgram field (say that a 100 times) non-nullable is to set the optional=false attribute on the #ManyToOne annotation.