We Keep Coding

update() and merge behave differently in case of updating an item in OneToMany collection

I have this a class like bellow:
#Entity
#Table(name="work")
public class Work {
#Id
#Column(name="id")
private String id;
#OneToMany(orphanRemoval=true ,mappedBy="work", cascade=CascadeType.ALL , fetch=FetchType.EAGER)
private List<PersonRole> personRoleList;
}
As mine is an web application, when i update (comes from client) a personRoleList item and call :
session.update(work); //`work` is in detached state
It does not update the existing personRoleList item it actually add a new one.
Some other people also having the same problem. REF:
using-saveorupdate-in-hibernate-creates-new-records-instead-of-updating-existi
jpa-onetomany-not-deleting-child
I tried all suggested solution, but none of them work for me.
But then i just tried :
session.merge(work); //replacing session.update(work)
And it works as expected.!!
This is where I get confused. Because I can't find any explanation for this difference in behaviors in case of OneToMany relationship (or may be i missed ). I read some threads to understand the differences between update() and merge() and gone through the doc. REF:
what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-saving-methods-in-hibernate
differences-among-save-update-saveorupdate-merge-methods-in-session
But still it is not clear What are those behavioral pattern/logic/steps that creating this difference.?

Merge attempts to associate a currently transient object with a persistent object currently under management by the session by 'merging' them into one entity. Its intended use is when you have a detached object and an attached object and wish to resolve them.
In a merge(), Hibernate will read the entity from the database if there isn't already a managed instance in the session. In your example, this will result in Hibernate eagerly loading the collection (due to fetch=FetchType.EAGER). Then when your session ends, Hibernate will check for changes in the collection (due to cascade=CascadeType.ALL) and will perform the appropriate UPDATE in the database.
This differs from the update() scenario because in an update Hibernate always (by default) assumes the object is dirty and schedules an UPDATE. This update is likely what's causing creation of a new element in your collection - Hibernate hasn't looked in the database to bring the collection into session before issuing the UPDATE.
I'd bet you can get the desired behavior of update() by setting
select-before-update="true"
in your class mapping or by using the lock method to re-attach your object to the session before making changes.
From Chapter 9 of Java Persistence with Hibernate
It doesn’t matter if the item object is modified before or after it’s passed to
update(). The important thing here is that the call to update() is reattaching the detached instance to the new Session (and persistence context). Hibernate
always treats the object as dirty and schedules an SQL UPDATE, which will be executed during flush. You can see the same unit of work in figure 9.8.
You may be surprised and probably hoped that Hibernate could know that you
modified the detached item’s description (or that Hibernate should know you did
not modify anything). However, the new Session and its fresh persistence context
don’t have this information. Neither does the detached object contain some internal list of all the modifications you’ve made.
UDPATE in the database is needed. One way to avoid this UDPATE statement is to
configure the class mapping of Item with the select-before-update="true"
attribute. Hibernate then determines whether the object is dirty by executing a
SELECT statement and comparing the object’s current state to the current data-
base state.

What is the correct CascadeType in #ManyToMany Hibernate annotation?

I am trying to model a transient operations solution schema in Hibernate and I am unsure how to get the object graph and behavior I want from the model.
The table structure uses a correlation table (many-to-many) to create lists of users for the operation:
Operation OperationUsers Users
op_id op_id user_id
... user_id ...
In modeling the persistent class Operation.java using hibernate annotations, I created:
#ManyToMany(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name="op_id")
public List<User> users() { return userlist; }
So far, I have the following questions:
When a user is removed from the list, how do I avoid Hibernate
deleting the user from the Users table? It should just be removed
from the correlation table, not the Users table. I cannot see a valid
CascadeType to accomplish this.
Do I need to put anything more in the method body?
Do I need to add more annotation arguments?
I am expecting to do this without futzing with the User class.
Please tell me that I do not have to mess with User.java!
It's possible I'm overthinking this, but that's the nature of learning... Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!

From the documentation:
Hibernate defines and supports the following object states:
*Transient - an object is transient if it has just been instantiated using the new operator, and it is not associated with a Hibernate Session. It has no persistent representation in the database and no identifier value has been assigned. Transient instances will be destroyed by the garbage collector if the application does not hold a reference anymore. Use the Hibernate Session to make an object persistent (and let Hibernate take care of the SQL statements that need to be executed for this transition).
*Persistent - a persistent instance has a representation in the database and an identifier value. It might just have been saved or loaded, however, it is by definition in the scope of a Session. Hibernate will detect any changes made to an object in persistent state and synchronize the state with the database when the unit of work completes. Developers do not execute manual UPDATE statements, or DELETE statements when an object should be made transient.
*Detached - a detached instance is an object that has been persistent, but its Session has been closed. The reference to the object is still valid, of course, and the detached instance might even be modified in this state. A detached instance can be reattached to a new Session at a later point in time, making it (and all the modifications) persistent again. This feature enables a programming model for long running units of work that require user think-time. We call them application transactions, i.e., a unit of work from the point of view of the user.
As explained in this answer, you can detach your entity using Session.evict() to prevent hibernate from updating the database or simply clone it and make the needed changes on the copy.

It turns out that the specific answer to my primary question (#1 and the main topic) is: "Do not specify any CascadeType on the property."
The answer is mentioned sorta sideways in the answer to this question.

after performing an merge on the detached object in hibernate in the current session will the changes on the object be tracked?

In a container managed transaction i get a detached object and merge it so that the detached object is brought to managed state.My initial question is by caching the Pojo java objects and merging is a better idea to get the object into session or performing the get of the data from the DB to get in to session context a better idea in terms of cost of operation/time involved in getting the data from the DB?If i am performing an merge at start to get the object into the session context and doing the modification on this merged object will the hibernate take care of generating all the required sql statements and at the end will it be taken care ?
Please comment back which is better approach to get the entity to session , using a merge of the cached detached object or fetching the data from the DB is lesser time consumption?

when you call detach and then merge, merge returns you the attached entity in the context. it's a common mistake that users would use the passed entity after merge operation hoping that would be managed but this is not the case. you have to use the returned entity from merge which will be managed by hibernate and subsequent changes will be flushed at transaction end automatically.
it doesnt matter much when u load your entity coz hibernate will anyways fire a select if it is already not loaded in the context. also even if you keep on doing changes to your managed entity, hibernate will fire update only when you exit your transaction or call flush() explicitly.

Copy the state of the given object onto the persistent object with the same identifier. If there is no persistent instance currently associated with the session, it will be loaded. Return the persistent instance. If the given instance is unsaved, save a copy of and return it as a newly persistent instance. The given instance does not become associated with the session. This operation cascades to associated instances if the association is mapped with cascade="merge".
According to the API it saves a copy when you perform the merge and then returns a new instance. Based on my experience its always better to merge at the end after you have performed all the updates on the objects in detached state. Its better because you will call merge operation only at the end when the object state is ready to be persisted.
Also this will perform better because the object is moved to persistent context at the end and hence Hibernate will not have to come into picture till the end.

Hibernate overriding database modifications with detached object state

I'm gonna go with this design:
create an object and keep it alive during all web-app session.
And I need to synchronize its state with database state.
What I want to achieve is that :
IF between my db operations, that is, modifications that I persist to a db
someone intentionally spoils table rows, then on next saving to a database
all those changes WOULD BE OVERWRITTEN with the object state, that always contains valid data.
What Hibernate methods do you recommend me to use to persist the modifications in a database?
saveOrUpdate() is a possible solution, but maybe there's anything better?
Again, I repeat how it looks. First I create an object without collections. Persist it (save()).
Then user provides us with additional data. In a serviceLayer, again, we modify our object in memory (say, populate it with collections) and then, persist it again.
So every serviceLayer operation of the next step must simply guarantee that database contains the exact persistent copy of this object that we have in memory. If data in a database differ, it MUST BE OVERRIDDEN with the object (kept in memory) state.
What Session operations do you recommend?

FWIW saveOrUpdate() looks like the best option overall:
The saveOrUpdate() method is in practice more useful than update(),
save(), or lock(): In complex conversations, you don’t know if the item is in
detached state or if it’s new and transient and must be saved. The automatic
state-detection provided by saveOrUpdate() becomes even more useful when you
not only work with single instances, but also want to reattach or persist a network
of connected objects and apply cascading options.
However for your case, if you are sure the entity was modified in detached state, and/or don't mind occasionally hitting the DB with an unnecessary UPDATE, maybe update() is the safest choice:
The update() operation
on the Session reattaches the detached object to the persistence context and
schedules an SQL UPDATE. Hibernate must assume that the client modified the
object while it was detached. [...] The persistence context is flushed automatically
when the second transaction in the conversation commits, and any
modifications to the once detached and now persistent object are synchronized
with the database.
Quotes from Java Persistence with Hibernate, chapter 11.2.2.

How can I create a hibernate collection that will be re-read every time I request it?

I have an entity that has a state table associated with it. The state table is managed by another process, and contains a list of objects that my business logic must process. I would like to get a new snapshot of the state table each time I reload the entity. How can I ensure that no part of Hibernate or its support libraries ever caches any of the values of this table? Basically, I want to get a new view of the collection every time I call getMyStateValues ().

Most of the point of Hibernate is to prevent that from happening and return a consistent view of an entity's state in the scope of a given transaction. So either reload the whole entity, in different transactions every time. Or, if you need to reload the state table during a business transaction, load only the state table by the parent entity's id in a separate Hibernate session.

You can create a method in your entity that queries the database and return the collection. getXYXReload(). It´s not a very nice design decision, thought.

You can use Hibernate's CacheMode. It allows you to instruct a hibernate session on how to interact with the cache. You can get access to the underlying session with:
#PersistenceContext EntityManager manager;
...
org.hibernate.Session session = (Session)manager.getDelegate();
Unfortunately, this technique applies to the whole session, and not specifically to an entity.