I have 2 tables, Table 1 has a ID column which is auto generated. I have this Id as a foreign key with table 2, I am using mybatis to insert data into tables. I am stuck at point where I need to send the foreign key to insert command dynamically.
Table 1
CLM_ID (PK) AUTO GENERATED
CLM_VALUE NN UNIQUE
TABLE 2
CLM_ID (FK)
CML_VALUE1 (NN)
CML_VALUE2 (NN)
CML_VALUE3 (NN)
Upon request I am storing the data into table 1 where ID is generated automatically. when I am trying to store the data in table 2 how do I get the {ID}
If I know the value of the corresponding column I can get the ID associated with that column. But how do I pass the column name dynamically.
Sample Mapper example I have.
public class Address {
private Integer address_ID; //PK auto generated
private String name;
// getters and setters
}
public class Home {
private Integer addressID; //FK
private String Name;
}
public interface HomeMapper {
String INSERT_ADDRESS = "INSERT INTO HOMES(ADDRESS_ID, NAME) VALUES ( {addressID}, #{name})";
#Insert(INSERT_ADDRESS)
#SelectKey(**statement="SELECT ADDRESS_ID FROM ADDRESSES WHERE NAME='Mintu'**", keyProperty = "addressID", before=true, resultType=int.class)
public void insertRecord(Home homeName);
}
How do I send the values dynamically to statement?
Can someone help me to handle this situation? I am new to mybatis and not sure if this is the way to achieve this.
Related
I am new to Java and spring. I have an existing database and table. I just wanted to update the records in the existing table. I have created a class and marked it with #entity annotation and I have spring.jpa.hibernate.auto-ddl set to update in application.properties.
But when I run my program it is creating new columns in the database. I don't want new columns to be added. Just wanted to map the table to the class and update existing records in the table.
Also, my table has 4 columns of which one has not null constraint on it. So when I run the program it's giving me an error saying "ALTER TABLE only allows columns to be added that can contain nulls, or have a DEFAULT definition specified, or a column being added is an identity, or timestamp column or alternatively if none of the previous conditions are satisfied the table must be empty to allow the addition of this column. Column brand_id cannot be added to a not empty table TableName because it does not satisfy these conditions." I could see on the console that it's executing alter table add column command.
Column names in the table are brandId, advanceDescription, and Aliases.
#Entity
Public class TableName {
#Id
private int recid;
private int brandId;
private String advanceDescription;
private String aliases;
}
And the newly added column name in the table is advance_description.
If I understand correctly, you don't want to change the schema of the table. Just add new data to it. To do so you need to disable auto-ddl and set it to none:
spring.jpa.hibernate.auto-ddl=none
Now the second problem is mismatched column names. Try changing your entity definition by setting a matching column name for each field. You can do it by using #Column(name="columnName") annotation. With the provided data it should be something like this:
#Entity
public class TableName {
#Id
private int recid;
#Column(name="brandId")
private int brandId;
#Column(name="advance_description")
private String advanceDescription;
#Column(name="Aliases")
private String aliases;
}
Please try show create table tableName command on db.
it will give you the schema of your table like
CREATE TABLE `tableName` (
`recid` int(11),
`brand_id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL,
`advance_description` text,
`aliases` text,
PRIMARY KEY (`recid`),
)
#Entity
#Table("tableName")
public class TableName {
#Id
private int recid;
#Column(name="brand_id")
private int brandId;
#Column(name="advance_description")
private String advanceDescription;
#Column(name="aliases")
private String aliases;
}
i.e. now you can see from the db command you will able to see that your table have brand_id field so you want to map brand_id field in your TableName.class with brandId field so in that case you have to add #Column(name = "brand_id) onto your brandId field i.e. in db field is brand_id but in java I want to map brand_id field to brandId.
This applicable to all column. Check for rec_id,advance_description and aliases too.
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".
This is my scenario. I have a Parent table Files_Info and a child table Files_Versions.
create table files_info(
id bigint primary key,
name varchar(255) not null,
description varchar(255) not null,
last_modified TIMESTAMP,
latest_version integer default 0 not null
);
create table files_versions(
id bigint primary key,
file_id bigint references files_info(id),
version integer not null,
location text not null,
created TIMESTAMP,
unique(file_id, version)
);
This is mainly to track a file and its various versions. When the user initiates a new file creation (not yet uploaded any version of the file), an entry is made to the files_info table with basic info like name, description. The latest_version will be 0 initially.
Then when the user uploads the first version, an entry is created in the files_versions table for that file_id and the version
value is set as parent's latest_version + 1. Parent's latest_version is now set to 1.
The user can also upload an initial version of the file when he/she initiates a new file creation. In that case, parent record
will be created with latest_version as 1 and also the corresponding version 1 child record.
I do not know how to design this using JPA / Hibernate.
I wrote my Entity and Repository classes and the save methods seem to work independently. But I do not know how to do the simultaneously latest_version updates.
Can this be done using JPA / Hibernate? Or should it be a database trigger?
A trigger is a valid option, but It can be done using JPA/Hibernate.
I'll suggest to use #PrePersist annotation on some method defined at the files_versions entity ... This method will be called by JPA when you execute: EntityManager.persist(FileVersion); and it can be use to update entity's derivative attributes ... In your case, will be the sum of the file last_version + 1 ... Example:
#Entity
#Table(name = "files_info")
public class FileInfo {
}
#Entity
#Table(name = files_versions)
public class FileVersion {
... //some attributes
#Column(name = "version")
private int version;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "file_id")
private FileInfo fileInfo;
... //some getters and setters
#PrePersist
private void setupVersion() {
// fileInfo should be set before of calling persist()!
// fileInfo should increase its lastest Version before of calling persist()!
this.version = this.fileInfo.getLastVersion();
}
}
I want to create a java class that contains only 1 column from OneToMany ManyToOne etc. type connection not the whole row.
How can I do that?
(I'm not sure that I could express myself so I made an example)
TABLE e_skill
(
id int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
skill_name VARCHAR (20) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
TABLE t_person
(
id int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
user_id int NOT NULL,
primary_skill int,
PRIMARY KEY (id),
FOREIGN KEY (primary_skill) REFERENCES e_skill(id)
);
TABLE t_secondaryskills
(
id int NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
t_person_id int NOT NULL,
skill_name int NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id),
FOREIGN KEY (t_person_id) REFERENCES t_person(id),
FOREIGN KEY (skill_name) REFERENCES e_skill(id)
);
public enum Skill {
...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "t_person")
public class Employee {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private Integer id;
#ManyToOne
#Enumerated(EnumType.STRING)
//????????
//get skill_name column from e_skill
//????????
private Skill primarySkill;
#OneToMany
#Enumerated(EnumType.STRING)
//????????
//get skill_name column from e_skill
//????????
private Set<Skill> secondarySkills;
//getters setters
}
The only way I could do it now is to create a Entity to represent the e_skill table, I want to avoid that, because I only need 1 column from it.
If I understand your question correctly, you can't do what you want because of the secondary skills (because it's a collection). You can only map the primary skill name though using the #SecondaryTable annotation.
When you map things using an ORM there's no such thing as I only want a column in this scenario as you're mapping Objects, and usually in your objects you don't want to replicate data (unless they are outside your domain model). If this is unacceptable for you, I suggest you to take a look at other tools like myBtais, which gives you full control on the data you get back.
So bottom line, map your skill as an entity and live with it even if it has many columns, or choose a different tool (but not an ORM).
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.