I have read that the session.get(Employee.class, new Long(1)) method will take the data from cache or database.
If there are two users who are accessing the application concurrently.
if user - > User1 is doing get then data will be retrieved from DB. Now data is moved to cache.
If user - > User2 has deleted the record or updated the record. then
If user - > User1 is doing get then data will it be retrieved from cache.
Isnt User1 is getting old data. Does it falls to pitfall of caching.
Or am I missing something here?
I can say on this that why User1 is doing 2 times session.get in the same session. But still I need different opinions.
You understand it correctly: the cache is bound to the session, and if an object is loaded into the first-level cache, then no SQL will executed with #get(). You could use #evict() to clear one object from the cache, or #clear() to clear every object from the cache, without closing the session. Closing the session will always delete the entire cache.
See a nice explanation here.
You need to read more about Container-managed entity manager
The most common and widely used entity manager in a Java EE
environment is the container-managed entity manager. In this mode, the
container is responsible for the opening and closing of the entity
manager (this is transparent to the application). It is also
responsible for transaction boundaries. A container-managed entity
manager is obtained in an application through dependency injection or
through JNDI lookup, A container-managed entity manger requires the
use of a JTA transaction.
It's responable of what do you want understand and archive and how is used it.
More doucmentation Entity Mananger
No, because Hibernate saves data on cache, but whether you update the data with Hibernate it will know that some change exists. You will have troubles if you update the data with SQL or from other point where Hibernate cannot see that something happends.
Related
I have a common database that is used by two different applications (different technologies, different deployment servers, they just use the same database).
Let's call them application #1 and application #2.
Suppose we have the following scenario:
the database contains a table called items (doesn't matter its content)
application #2 is developed in Spring Boot and it is mainly used just for reading data from the database
application #2 retrieves an item from the database
application #1 changes that item
application #2 retrieves the same item again, but the changes are not visible
What I understood by reading a lot of articles:
when application #2 retrieves the item, Hibernate stores it in the first level cache
the changes that are done to the item by application #1 are external changes and Hibernate is unaware of them, and thus, the cache is not updated (same happens when you do a manual change in the database)
you cannot disable Hibernate's first level cache.
So, my question is, can you force Hibernate into refreshing the entities every time they are read (or make it go into the database) without explicitly calling em.refresh(entity)? The problem is that the business logic module from application1 is used as a dependency in application1 so I can only call service methods (i.e. I don't have access to the entityManager or session references).
Hibernate L1 cache is roughly equivalent to a DB transaction when you run in a repeatable-read level isolation. Basically, if you read/write some data, the next time you query in the context of the same session, you will get the same data. Further, within the same process, sessions run independent of each other, which means 2 session are looking at different data in the L1 cache.
If you use repeatable read or less, then you shouldn't really be concerned about the L1 cache, as you might run into this scenario regardless of the ORM (or no ORM).
I think you only need to think about the L2 cache here. The L2 cache is what stores data and assumes only hibernate is accessing the DB, which means that if some change happens in the DB, hibernate might not know about it. If you just disable the L2 cache, you are sorted.
Further reading - Short description of hibernate cache levels
Well, if you cannot access hibernate session you are left with nothing. Any operations you want to do requires session access. For instance you can remove entity from cache after reading it like this:
session.evict(entity);
or this
session.clear();
but first and foremost you need a session. Since you calling only services you need to create service endpoints clearing session cache after serving them or modify existing endpoints to do that.
You can try to use StatelessSession, but you will lose cascading and other things.
https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/current/userguide/html_single/Hibernate_User_Guide.html#_statelesssession
https://stackoverflow.com/a/48978736/3405171
You can force to start a new transaction, so in this manner hibernate will not be read from the cache and it will redo the read from the db.
You can annotate your function in this manner
#Transactional(readOnly = true, propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW)
Requesting a new transaction, the system will generation a new hibernate session, so the data will not be in the cache.
I have a set of very heavy queries whose result I want to cache into an external Cache implementation (cache the whole object list not just ids like in Hibernate's 2nd level cache).
The issue is that due to the lazy loading of several collections in the root object, once the session that queried the results is done, the objects become de-attached and the next request that tries to use the object might throw a LazyLoading exception.
Environment: Spring 4, Hibernate 4.3, Ehcache.
Is there any way to be able to re-attach the object to a new session without having it modify the underlaying DB (like with merge and update)?
There is no way to reattach a detached entity to a session just to load a lazy-initialized collection.
In order to get an updated copy of a persistent object without overwriting the session / calling merge, it's necessary to call either EntityManager.find() or do a query.
This is because the main goal of the session is to keep the database and the objects in memory in sync. Due to this there is no API for attaching new state without persisting it, as this is not in line with the main functionality of the session.
The 2nd level cache, if configured together with the query cache can solve the problem of caching the entities, queries and their associations in a much better way than any custom solution.
Everything can get cached to the point that no query hits the database. The two caches really go together, check this blog post for further info.
I get an entity 'A' using
getHibernateTemplate().get(A.class, 100)
from the database. Lets say this entity 'A' has a property 'value' 200 in the database.
Now, in my Java code, I change a property for this entity. lets say, I change the 'value' property to '500' and then add it to some list.
Now, If I again do getHibernateTemplate().get(A.class, 100) for the same Entity, I am getting the updated entity(that has a value of 500). How do I force hibernate to get me the entity from the database, but not the one updated in my code?
Is this what is called as 'First Level Caching'?
Your assumption (about first level caching) is correct. As for example stated here: Interface Session:
The main runtime interface between a Java application and Hibernate.
This is the central API class abstracting the notion of a persistence service.
Or here Chapter 2. Architecture; 2.1. Overview
Extract: Session (org.hibernate.Session)
A single-threaded, short-lived object representing a conversation between the application and the persistent store. It wraps a JDBC
connection and is a factory for Transaction. Session holds a mandatory
first-level cache of persistent objects that are used when navigating
the object graph or looking up objects by identifier.
And also, you can see the methods available for us, to remove an object form the session:
evict(Object object):
Remove this instance from the session cache.
refresh(Object object):
Re-read the state of the given instance from the underlying database.
clear():
Completely clear the session.
And many more. Evict in this case should be working. We have to take the current instance ('A') and explicitly Evict it from the session.
If we've already loaded some/more stuff, and we do not know, what to Evict(), we simply need to get the fresh data. Then we can call Clear() to completely reset the session and start again.
This is a bit radical, because none of the objects in the session will be updated/inserted on session Flush()... but it could be what we want in this scenario (very often used for testing... load, clear... change and flush)
I suggest searching Google for hibernate commit, flush, and detach and reading up on when they write to the database. Better yet, I recommend reading a good book on Hibernate if you haven't already done so (search amazon.com for good reviews on a book) to get a good grasp of the technology.
My reason for responding to this post is not to answer your question directly, but suggest that you edit your hibernate.cfg.xml file and set the following to true:
< property name="hibernate.show_sql" > false < /property >.
This will cause a display to your console window to list when every sql statement that is sent to the database. This way, you can see exactly when a write to the database occurs. You can then experiment with what you research/read and verify it works as you expect.
I am trying to understand how JPA works. From what I know, if you persist an Entity, that object will remain in the memory until the application is closed. This means, that when I look for a previously persisted entity, there will be no query made on the database. Assuming that no insert, update or delete is made, if the application runs long enough, all the information in it might become persistent. Does this mean that at some point, I will no longer need the database?
Edit
My problem is not with the database. I am sure that the database can not be modified from outside the application. I am managing transactions by myself, so the data gets stored in the database as soon as I commit. My question is: What happens with the entities after I commit? Are they kept in the memory and act like a cache? If so, how long are they kept there? After I commit a persist, I make a select query. This select should return the object I persisted before. Will that object be brought from memory, or will the application query the database?
Not really. Think about it.
Your application probably isn't the only thing that will use the database. If an entity was persisted once and stored in memory, how can you be sure that, let's say, one hour later, it won't be changed by some other means? If that happens, you will have stale data that can harm logic of your application.
Storing data in memory and hoping that everything will be alright won't bring any benefits. That's why data stored in database is your primary source of information, and you should query it every time, unless you are absolutely sure that a subset of data won't change.
When you persist an entity an entity this will add it to the persistence context which acts like a first level cache (this is in-memory). When the actual persisting happens depends on whether you use container managed transactions or deal with transactions yourself. The entity instance will live in memory as long as the transaction is not commited, and when it is it will be persisted to the database or XML etc.
JPA can't work with only the persistence context (L1 cache) or the explicit cache (L2 cache). It always needs to be combined with a datasource, and this datasource typically points to a database that persists to stable storage.
So, the entity is in memory only as long as the transaction (which is required for JPA persist operations) isn't committed. After that it's send to the datasource.
If the transaction manager is transaction scoped (the 'normal' case) then the L1 cache (the persistence context) is closed and the entities do not longer exist there. If the L1 cache somehow bothers you, you can manage it a bit explicitly. There are operations to clear it and you could separate your read operations (which don't need transactions) from write operations. If there's no transaction active when reading, there's no persistence context, an entity becomes never attached and is thus never put into this L1 cache.
The L2 cache however is not cleared when the transaction commits and entities inside it remain available for the entire application. This L2 cache must be explicitly configured and you as an application developer must indicate which entities should be cached in it. Via vendor specific mechanisms (e.g. JBoss Cache, Infinispan) you can put a max on the number of entities being cached and set/define so-called eviction policies.
Of course, nothing prevents you from letting the datasource point to an in-memmory embedded DB, but this is outside the knowledge of JPA.
Persistence means in short terms: you can shut down your app, and the data is not lost.
To achieve that you need a database or some sort of saving data in a way that it's not lost when you shut down the app.
To "persist" an entity means to actually save it in the data base. Sure, JPA maintains some entity information in memory in the persistence context (and this is highly dependent on configuration and programming practices), but at certain point information will be stored in the data base - for instance, when a transaction commits, or likely (but not necessarily) after flush() or merge() operations.
If you want to keep your entities after committing and for a select query, you need to use the query cache. Just Google around on that term and it should be clear to you.
We are using Hibernate Spring MVC with OpenSessionInView filter.
Here is a problem we are running into (pseudo code)
transaction 1
load object foo
transaction 1 end
update foo's properties (not calling session.save or session.update but only foo's setters)
validate foo (using hibernate validator)
if validation fails ?
go back to edit screen
transaction 2 (read only)
load form backing objects from db
transaction 2 end
go to view
else
transaction 3
session.update(foo)
transaction 3 end
the problem we have is if the validation fails
foo is marked "dirty" in the hibernate session (since we use OpenSessionInView we only have one session throughout the http request), when we load the form backing objects (like a list of some entities using an HQL query), hibernate before performing the query checks if there are dirty objects in the session, it sees that foo is and flushes it, when transaction 2 is committed the updates are written to the database.
The problem is that even though it is a read only transaction and even though foo wasn't updated in transaction 2 hibernate doesn't have knowledge of which object was updated in which transaction and doesn't flush only objects from that transaction.
Any suggestions? did somebody ran into similar problem before
Update: this post sheds some more light on the problem: http://brian.pontarelli.com/2007/04/03/hibernate-pitfalls-part-2/
You can run a get on foo to put it into the hibernate session, and then replace it with the object you created elsewhere. But for this to work, you have to know all the ids for your objects so that the ids will look correct to Hibernate.
There are a couple of options here. First is that you don't actually need transaction 2 since the session is open you could just load the backing objects from the db, thus avoiding the dirty check on the session. The other option is to evict foo from the session after it is retrieved and later use session.merge() to reattach it when you what your changes to be stored.
With hibernate it is important to understand what exactly is going on under the covers. At every commit boundary it will attempt to flush all changes to objects in the current session regardless of whether or not the changes where made in the current transaction or any transaction at all for that matter. This is way you don't actually need to call session.update() for any object that is already in the session.
Hope this helps
There is a design issue here. Do you think an ORM is a transparent abstraction of your datastore, or do you think it's a set of data manipulation libraries? I would say that Hibernate is the former. Its whole reason for existing is to remove the distinction between your in-memory object state and your database state. It does provide low-level mechanisms to allow you to pry the two apart and deal with them separately, but by doing so you're removing a lot of Hibernate's value.
So very simply - Hibernate = your database. If you don't want something persisted, don't change your persistent objects.
Validate your data before you update your domain objects. By all means validate domain objects as well, but that's a last line of defense. If you do get a validation error on a persistent object, don't swallow the exception. Unless you prevent it, Hibernate will do the right thing, which is to close the session there and then.
What about using Session.clear() and/or Session.evict()?
What about setting singleSession=false on the filter? That might put your operations into separate sessions so you don't have to deal with the 1st level cache issues. Otherwise you will probably want to detach/attach your objects manually as the user above suggests. You could also change the FlushMode on your Session if you don't want things being flushed automatically (FlushMode.MANUAL).
Implement a service layer, take a look at spring's #Transactional annotation, and mark your methods as #Transactional(readOnly=true) where applicable.
Your flush mode is probably set to auto, which means you don't really have control of when a DB commit happens.
You could also set your flush mode to manual, and your services/repos will only try to synchronize the db with your app when you tell them to.