I want to put all of the following autogenerated tables into a specific schema.
#Entity
#Table(name = "master_table", schema = "test")
public class MasterTable {
#OneToMany
private List<VideoEntity> videos;
#Entity
#Table(name = "video_entity", schema = "test")
public static class VideoEntity {
}
}
Result: there are the two entity tables in test schema, but also one in the public schema called master_table_videos for the list mapping.
Question: how can I tell hibernate to also put the list-mapping table in the same schema than the others?
I think you should use the #JoinTable annotation, at least that allows to set the schema name in standard JPA. Check the JavaDoc for Java EE 7 or Java EE 6.
So it would be something like #JoinTable(name = "master_to_videos", schema = "test" ), and you could also specify the name of the join column if required.
Hibernate will create the table in whichever persistence.xml the entity is defined in. So if MasterTable and VideoEntity are both in persistence.xml, it will create both tables in the configured data schema.
I agree with Hein Blöd i tested the #joinTable annotation after any other annotation like #ManyToOne #OneToMany ... as for your example it becomes like this
#OneToMany
#JoinTable(schema = "testSchema" )
private List<VideoEntity> videos;
testSchema is interpreted by Hibernate as test-schema
i know this is for an old question i'm writing this so that any one
right now can find the correct answer i search the internet and this is the first question i found.
Related
I have two tables with the same name in different schemas and I am trying to create an entity using both these tables and #SecondaryTable. It gives me the following error
InFlightMetadataCollector$DuplicateSecondaryTableException: Table with that name [EMPLOYEE] already associated with entity
Here is my code
#Entity
#Table(name = "EMPLOYEE", schema = "S1", catalog = "")
#SecondaryTable(name = "EMPLOYEE", schema = "S2", catalog = "", pkJoinColumns = {#PrimaryKeyJoinColumn(name = "EID", referencedColumnName = "ENO")})
public class Employee {
It seems this is a bug in Hibernate, Hibernate ORM team says on the ticket HHH-12423 that this is fixed and will be available from hibernate version 5.3.0
name needs to be unique in order to be referenced inside the column annotation ... I have two ideas which I didn't try .... you can make an alias to one database table if you have privelege to do and then refer to this alias (i don't know if it works or no) .... or you can define the table name as "s1.employee" and "s2.employee" , some providers allow it but i am not sure if hibernate does or no ... if any of these worked with u please let us know
I want to store my table in two different databases, (for example: HyperSQL and MYSQL), but I can't duplicate table annotation like this:
#Entity(name="users")
#Table(name = "users", schema = "Users#HyperSQL_pu")
#Table(name = "users", schema = "Users#Mysql_pu")
public class UserEntitie implements Serializable {}
Have any idea, how can I do this without duplicating my bean class
This is why some people have recommended not to put schema information into annotations. Use orm.xml to specify schema information (schema name, table name, column name etc), and have one orm.xml per datastore that the system is deployed to. Clearly this means one EntityManagerFactory per datastore; you cannot have one class persisted into multiple datastores with the same EntityManagerFactory
Using annotations you can only specify something once, and would have to manually edit java files to redeploy.
I created a #OneToMany relationship with Entities.
For instance, Member and Address. These two are joined by Mem_Addr table.
When I deploy the application, the log shows:
EntityBinder I org.hibernate.cfg.annotations.EntityBinder bindTable Bind entity Address on table ADDRESS
But the table doesn't exist the in the database.. Not sure how this happens?!?!
Secondly, the Hibernate query (from the Log) to pull members, which is expected to show Address Query as well. But the query does not have Address / Mem_addr tables included. Its just pulling Members alone, ignoring address, despite #OneToMany annotation.
Any ideas? Does Hibernate intelligently recognizes non-existance of table and does not include that table in the query?
Edit Updated for clarity.
I haven't used Hibernate in a while, but as I recall you have to pretty much tell Hibernate exactly how you want it to operate. In other words, in your annotations, you need to specify exactly how you want your records to be loaded. You might want to read up on the OneToMany annotation.
Off the top of my head you'll need:
#Entity
public class Member {
private Set<Address> addresses = new HashSet<Address>();
#Id
...
#OneToMany
#JoinTable(
name="MEM_ADDR",
joinColumns = #JoinColumn( name="MEMBER_ID"),
inverseJoinColumns = #JoinColumn( name="ADDRESS_ID")
)
public Set<Part> getAddresses() { return addresses; }
...
}
#Entity
public class Address {
...
}
EDIT: Addressing eager vs lazy loading
FYI, you can force eager loading in your #OneToMany annotation as the default is Lazy
#OneToMany(fetch=FetchType.EAGER)
Hope that helps.
Okay. This is what I figured out. Though during deploymnet, it says Entity bound to the table, I guess it did not.
But since the dependencies are Lazy loaded, it generates the query with its dependencies only when the dependencies are used/requested. And thats when it throws the error that the table does not exist.
I thought it throws the error during bind time itself. But it does not, at least in my case.
I am using Hibernate 4.3.1.Final
If I have two Entities, let's say A and B. A contains a set of B objects that is annotated as a OneToMany association.
If I set "org.hibernate.envers.global_with_modified_flag" to true and "org.hibernate.envers.modified_flag_suffix" to "Modified", then Envers correctly adds columns for the all of the columns in that table with the specified suffix, but it also expects to find a modified column for each of the associations even though they are owned by the foreign side.
In the below case, Envers expects columns in A for "foo" "fooModified", and "bObjectsModified" when I would think that it should expect columns for "foo" and "fooModified" in A and "aIdModified" in B.
#Entity
#Table("A")
#Audited
class A {
private String foo;
private Set<B> bObjects;
#Column(name = "foo")
public getFoo( return foo; )
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY,
mappedBy = "a")
public Set<B> getBObjects() { return bObjects; }
}
#Entity
#Table("B")
#Audited
class B {
private A a;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "aId")
public getA(){ return a; }
}
Has anyone else seen this? How do I change that behavior other than annotating every one of my #ManyToOne relationships with #Audited(withModifiedFlag=false). I have many thousands of relationships, so even testing that part will be a huge pain.
The alternative is forcing the database to know details about our Java code that it has no business knowing and makes it much more difficult to add bi-directional associations.
For those who may come later, at least as of 4.3.1.Final, the only way to do this is to remove the global configuration flag and add that option to the #Audited annotation on every class so that it is #Audited(withModifiedFlag=true) and then add #Audited(withModifiedFlag=false) to every property (not column!) in that class for which you do not want a modified field to be created.
In the other Hibernate modules, global configuration options can be overridden at the class or attribute level. For Envers, global configuration options can never be overridden.
Also note that the modified field names are based on the attribute name in the Java class and not the value in the #Column annotation that the rest of Hibernate ORM uses.
I am using hibernate-annotation (entitymanager) to handle my db2 databases using separate schema.
My main schema is called "mainschema". It has a table for fileuploads.
Then I have some other schema (schema1, schema2, schema3, schemaN).
How can I tell the many-to-one relationship on the schemaN to refer to the filetable on "mainschema". If I open the connection, I tell which schema to use. But the many-to-one is still using that schema and the fileupload table is only available in the "mainschema"
Thanks for help!
EDIT:
My fileupload hibernate bean using explicit the main schema:
#Entity
#Table(name="DOKUMENT", schema="mainschema")
Then I have one schema for every client, have a look at here:
The Schema is not set in the bean. It is set instead in time where the connection is opened.
#Entity
#Table(name="SOMETABLE")
This table "SOMETABLE" is existing in every schema for every client.
It refers to the dokument entity with an many-to-one
#Many-To-One
#JoinColumn(name="DOKUMENT_ID")
public Dokument getDokument() { return dokument }
public void setDokument() { this.dokument = dokument }
Question can be closed. It is working without any changes, because hibernate is still using "mainschema" automaticly.
This is how to map SchemaN to MainSchema one-to-many
#Entity
public class SchemaN{
#OneToMany(targetEntity=MainSchema.class, mappedBy="pk_SchemaN")
private List<MainSchema> ms;
...
}
#Entity
public class MainSchema{
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name="FK_MainSchema")
private SchemaN pk_schemaN;
...
}
Hope this helps you it should be the same for any Schema1 to N