In my JPA class, I have this Annotation and the syntax I am not able to understand
#JoinColumns({
#JoinColumn(name="RES_ID", referencedColumnName="ACCT_ID"),
#JoinColumn(name="DELETED", referencedColumnName="'N'")
})
protected Account account;
The first line is ok: The current class has column in db (RES_ID) which joins with Account which has a column ACCT_ID
But the second line says :
#JoinColumn(name="DELETED", referencedColumnName="'N'")
Now both these tables have a column called DELETED. Is that a shorthand way of saying that join the two tables when both these tables have DELETED = 'N'?
Because the documentation says that referencedColumn should contain a columnName. here it is containing a value = N
Let me guess, you're using OpenJPA? This is surely not a specified JPA feature, but OpenJPA has such a feature called constant joins in its Non-Standard Joins.
Related
I would like someone to explain me why Hibernate is making one extra SQL statement in my straight forward case. Basically i have this object:
#Entity
class ConfigurationTechLog (
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
val id: Long?,
val configurationId: Long,
val type: String,
val value: String?
) {
#JsonIgnore
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "configurationId", insertable = false, updatable = false)
val configuration: Configuration? = null
}
So as you can see, nothing special there. And when i execute this query :
#Query(value = "SELECT c FROM ConfigurationTechLog c where c.id = 10")
fun findById10() : Set<ConfigurationTechLog>
In my console i see this:
Hibernate:
/* SELECT
c
FROM
ConfigurationTechLog c
where
c.id = 10 */ select
configurat0_.id as id1_2_,
configurat0_.configuration_id as configur2_2_,
configurat0_.type as type3_2_,
configurat0_.value as value4_2_
from
configuration_tech_log configurat0_
where
configurat0_.id=10
Hibernate:
select
configurat0_.id as id1_0_0_,
configurat0_.branch_code as branch_c2_0_0_,
configurat0_.country as country3_0_0_,
configurat0_.merchant_name as merchant4_0_0_,
configurat0_.merchant_number as merchant5_0_0_,
configurat0_.org as org6_0_0_,
configurat0_.outlet_id as outlet_i7_0_0_,
configurat0_.platform_merchant_account_name as platform8_0_0_,
configurat0_.store_type as store_ty9_0_0_,
configurat0_.terminal_count as termina10_0_0_
from
configuration configurat0_
where
configurat0_.id=?
Can someone please explain me, what is happening here ? From where this second query is coming from ?
I assume you are using Kotlin data class. The kotlin data class would generate toString, hashCode and equals methods utilizing all the member fields. So if you are using the returned values in your code in a way that results in calling of any of these method may cause this issue.
BTW, using Kotlin data claases is against the basic requirements for JPA Entity as data classes are final classes having final members.
In order to make an association lazy, Hibernate has to create a proxy instance instead of using the real object, i.e. it needs to create an instance of dynamically generated subclass of the association class.
Since in Kotlin all classes are final by default, Hibernate cannot subclass it so it has to create the real object and initialize the association right away. In order to verify this, try declaring the Configuration class as open.
To solve this without the need to explicitly declare all entities open, it is easier to do it via the kotlin-allopen compiler plugin.
This Link can be useful for understand what kind (common) problem is that N + 1 Problem
Let me give you an example:
I have three Courses and each of them have Students related.
I would like to perform a "SELECT * FROM Courses". This is the first query that i want (+ 1) but Hibernate in background, in order to get details about Students for each Course that select * given to us, will execute three more queries, one for each course (N, there are three Course coming from select *). In the end i will see 4 queries into Hibernate Logs
Considering the example before, probably this is what happen in your case: You execute the first query that you want, getting Configuration Id = 10 but after, Hibernate, will take the entity related to this Configuration, then a new query is executed to get this related entity.
This problem should be related in specific to Relationships (of course) and LAZY Fetch. This is not a problem that you have caused but is an Hibernate Performance Issue with LAZY Fetch, consider it a sort of bug or a default behaviour
To solve this kind of problem, i don't know if will be in your case but ... i know three ways:
EAGER Fetch Type (but not the most good option)
Query with JOIN FETCH between Courses and Students
Creating EntityGraph Object that rappresent the Course and SubGraph that rappresent Students and is added to EntityGraph
Looking at your question, it seems like an expected behavior.
Since you've set up configuration to fetch lazily with #ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY), the first sql just queries the other variables. When you try to access the configuration object, hibernate queries the db again. That's what lazy fetching is. If you'd like Hibernate to use joins and fetch all values at once, try setting #ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER).
I'm trying to understand EclipseLink behaviour in case if I use native query. So I have Entity like this:
class Entity {
#OneToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name="other_entity_id")
private OtherEntity otherEntity;
#Column(name = "name")
private String name;
//gets ... sets ...
}
and corresponding table looks like:
**ENTITY**
INTEGER ID;
VARCHAR NAME;
OTHER_ENTITY_ID;
And then I run native query
Query query = getEntityManager().runNativeQuery("select * from ENTITY", Entity.class);
query.getResultList()
Within Entity I have declared OtherEntity otherEntity which is annotated with FetchType.LAZY, however my query selects (*) - all of the columns, including OTHER_ENTITY_ID. The question is - if I run native query that fetches all columns, will fields annotated with FetchType.LAZY populated as if they were FetchType.EAGER or not? I've never worked with EclipseLink before and tyring to decide is it worth using it or not so I would really appreciate any help
Thanks, Cheers
My first advice is to turn on EclipseLink's SQL logging, and execute the equivalent JPQL to load what you are looking for and see the SQL EclipseLink generates to accomplish that to get an understanding of what is required to build objects in your native queries based on your current mappings.
Relationships generally loaded with a secondary query using the values read in from the foreign keys, so eager or lazy fetching is not affected by the native query to read in "Entity" - the query requires the other_entity_id value regardless of the fetch type. When required based on eager/lazy loading, EclipseLink will issue the query required by the mapping.
You can change this though by marking that the relationship is to use joining. In this case, EclipseLink will expect not only the Entity values to be in the query, but the referenced OtherEntity values as well.
In a Spring MVC application using Hibernate and MySQL, I have an abstract superclass BaseEntity that manages the values of the IDs for all the other entities in the model. The id field uses #GeneratedValue. I am encountering a problem whenever my code tries to save any of the subclasses that extend BaseEntity. The problem comes with the choice of GenerationType for the #GeneratedValue.
At every place in my code where a subclass of BaseEntity tries to save to the underlying MySQL database, I get the following error:
ERROR SqlExceptionHelper - Table 'docbd.hibernate_sequences' doesn't exist
I have read many postings about this on SO and on google, but they either deal with other databases (not MySQL) or they do not deal with abstract superclasses. I cannot solve the problem by using GenerationType.IDENTITY because I am using an abstract superclass to manage id fields for all entities in the model. Similarly, I cannot use GenerationType.SEQUENCE because MySQL does not support sequences.
So how do I solve this problem?
Here is the code for BaseEntity.java:
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.TABLE_PER_CLASS)
public abstract class BaseEntity {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.TABLE)
protected Integer id;
public void setId(Integer id) {this.id = id;}
public Integer getId() {return id;}
public boolean isNew() {return (this.id == null);}
}
Here is an example of the code for one of the entities that extends BaseEntity:
#Entity
#Table(name = "ccd")
public class CCD extends BaseEntity{
//other stuff
}
Here is the DDL:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS ccd(
id int(11) UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
#other stuff
)engine=InnoDB;SHOW WARNINGS;
Here is the JPQL code in the DAO:
#Override
#Transactional
public void saveCCD(CCD ccd) {
if (ccd.getId() == null) {
System.out.println("[[[[[[[[[[[[ about to persist CCD ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]");
this.em.persist(ccd);
this.em.flush();
}
else {
System.out.println("]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] about to merge CCD [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[");
this.em.merge(ccd);
this.em.flush();
}
}
EDIT:
The reason I cannot use #MappedSuperClass in this situation is that I need to have ManyToOne relationships that allow for multiple subtypes to be used interchangeably. Look at the AccessLog class below as an example. It has an actor_entity and a target_entity. There can be many types of actor entities and many types of target entities, but they all inherit from BaseEntity. This inheritance enables the underlying accesslogs data table in MySQL to just have one actor_entity_id field and just one target_entity_id field instead of having to have several fields for each. When I change #Entity above BaseEntity to #MappedSuperClass, a different error gets thrown indicating that AccessLog cannot find BaseEntity. BaseEntity needs #Entity annotation in order for AccessLog to have polymorphic properties.
#Entity
#Table(name = "accesslogs")
public class AccessLog extends BaseEntity{
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "actorentity_id")
private BaseEntity actor_entity;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "targetentity_id")
private BaseEntity target_entity;
#Column(name="action_code")
private String action;
//getters, setters, & other stuff
}
SECOND EDIT:
As per JBNizet's suggestion, I created a hibernate_sequences table as follows:
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS hibernate_sequences(
sequence_next_hi_value int(11) UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY
)engine=InnoDB;SHOW WARNINGS;
But now I am getting the following error:
Caused by: com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLSyntaxErrorException: Unknown column 'sequence_name' in 'where clause'
Here is the hibernate sql causing the error, followed by the next 2 lines of the stack trace:
Hibernate: select sequence_next_hi_value from hibernate_sequences where sequence_name = 'BaseEntity' for update
ERROR MultipleHiLoPerTableGenerator - HHH000351: Could not read or init a hi value
com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLSyntaxErrorException: Unknown column 'sequence_name' in 'where clause'
How do I resolve this?
What a mess... AUTO_INCREMENT is MySQL's hidden sequence. The radical problem is that MySQL can not insert and return the PK at the same time, but Hibernate need this while INSERTing a new Entity.
The Problems you run into:
If Hibernate save a new Entity, he try to immerdentelly set the id to the new EntityBean. Therefore hibernate must read what ID will the Database use before hibernate save the new Tuple to the Table.
If you have multiple Servers who access the database, you shall let hibernate's session-factory decide to use the built-in sequence(AUTO-INCREMENT) or let hibernate decide (GenerationType.AUTO/GenerationType.IDENTITY) how large the open range of reserved PK's is (Job of a DB-Architect). (We have about 20 servers to one Database, so on a good-used table we use a PK-distance of +100). If only one server have access to the database GenerationType.TABLE shall be correct.
Hibernate must calculate the next id by yourself using max(*)+1 but:
What if two requests ask for max(*)+1 at the same time/with the same result? Right: The last try to insert will fail.
So you need to have a Table LAST_IDS in the database who stores the last Table-PK's. If you like to add one, you must do this steps:
Start read-optimistic transaction.
SELECT MAX(address_id) FROM LAST_IDS
store the maximum in a java-variable i.e.: $OldID.
$NewID = $OldID + 1. (+100 in pessimistic-lock)
UPDATE LAST_IDS SET address_id= $newID WHERE address_id= $oldID?
commit the read-optimistic transaction.
if commit was successfull, store $newID to setID() in the HibernateBean you like to save.
Finally let Hibernate call the insert.
This is the only way i know.
BTW: Hibernate-Entitys shall only use inheritance if the Database support inheritance between tables like PostgreSQL or Oracle.
Because you use the TABLE identifier generator you need to have that table created. If you are not using the enhanced identifier generators, chances are you are going to use the MultipleHiLoPerTableGenerator.
The MultipleHiLoPerTableGenerator can use one table for all table identifier generators.
My suggestion is to grab the table ddl from your integration tests, in case you use hbmddl to build the test schema. If you use flyway or liquibase for testing, you can add a maven plugin to generate the ddl schema.
Once you have the schema, you need to take the exact create table command and make add it to your MySQL database.
Problem description
Hello, I've been using OpenJPA 2.1.2 (JPA 2.0) to retrieve data from a table called LOGISCHRAPPORTwhich has about 28 columns. In some cases OpenJPA decides to issue seperate select statements for one of the columns for no particular reason, leading to a dramatic decrease in query performance.
Everything is fine until...
Initially everything goes fine and all my columns are retrieved in a performant, single SELECT statement by JPA.
As soon as I add a relationship to another entity called RAPTAALMETADATA
#OneToMany(fetch=FetchType.EAGER, cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumns({
#JoinColumn(name = "RAPPORTNR", referencedColumnName = "RAPPORTNR"),
#JoinColumn(name = "RAPPORTTYPE", referencedColumnName = "RAPPORTTYPE") })
private List<Raptaalmetadata> raptaalmetadata;
---
Queried using Criteria API as follows:
---
Join<LogischRapport, Raptaalmetadata> metadata = reportRoot.join(
"raptaalmetadata");
JPA no longer includes one of my original columns called REPORT_COMMENTS instead it is issuing separate select statements to retrieve the REPORT_COMMENTS column for each instance of LOGISCHRAPPORT. All other columns (including the ones coming from RAPTAALMETADATA are retrieved properly as part of the intial SELECT.
REPORT_COMMENTS is of the HUGEBLOB type in Oracle and I've mapped in in my Entity as follows:
#Lob
#Basic
#Column(name = "REPORT_COMMENTS")
private byte[] reportComments;
I now get tons of these:
SELECT t0.REPORT_COMMENTS
FROM dwhsd001.LogischRapport t0
WHERE t0.rapportnr = ? AND t0.rapporttype = ?
[params=(long) 1473, (String) RAP]
Can anyone point out why I might be seeing this behavior and how I can avoid it?
Its not a LAZY loading problem as I've specifically tested that case. I don't see any other reason why OpenJPA decides to retrieve this one column using separate statements.
Update 1
Interesting addition: as soon as I remove the fetch=FetchType.EAGER attribute from the #OneToMany annotation described above I start seeing the exact same behavior for the relationship as I've been getting for the REPORT_COMMENTS column. This means I'm also getting separate SELECT statements for retrieving the entity relationship on top of the seperate selects for the column thereby further degrading performance.
In other words I'm then also getting tons of these:
SELECT t0.isotaalcode, t0.rapportnr, t0.rapporttype,
t0.FUNCDESC_MODIFIED_BY, t0.FUNCDESC_MODIFIED_DATE,
t0.FUNCTIONAL_DESCRIPTION, t0.omschrijving, t0.titel
FROM dwhsd001.Raptaalmetadata t0
WHERE t0.rapportnr = ? AND t0.rapporttype = ?
I need to set a table name dynamically so that I use query.setText(tname,abc)
e.g: select a.name from :tname where a.id = '2'
I used setText() because when I use setString() it says "tname is a invalid parameter" because I assume that Hibernate adds '' when setting string parameters.
But even setText() does not help and gives the same exception.
How can I set the table name dynamically?
Reply to PSR:
So you mean replace table name as a java string replacement. But then we can not take support of sql injections prevention etc from hibernate right? Also How we bind parameters in hibernate in a situation where like statement,
Eg: name like "%:name%"
This also gives me Illegal argument exception: Parameter does not exist as a named parameter when i try to bind it using query.setString(name,"def");
Hibernate will not do this for you, because it works with PreparedStatements, and you can't prepare a statement where the table being queried isn't known yet.
I don't see why you would be exposing table names to end users, so preventing SQL injection doing a regular string substitution should be easy. You use some sort of business logic to determine the correct table from a list that only you know. The table name isn't coming from user input at all.
Depending on your choice of RDBMS, you may find a discriminator column, or table inheritance with partitioning to be a better way of handling a situation where identical queries are made against different tables.
It is not possible to set table name dynamically.You can set dynamically column names.it is not possible to set table name
try like this
select a.name from '+table name+'where a.id = '2'
In my opinion, There are 2 ways to resolve this issue:
1- If you are using Spring and Hibernate together, you could use SpEL and it would be like #{#entityName} as it is described here
#Entity
public class User {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
Long id;
String lastname;
}
public interface UserRepository extends JpaRepository<User,Long> {
#Query("select u from #{#entityName} u where u.lastname = ?1")
List<User> findByLastname(String lastname);
}
2-You could use CriteriaBuilder like
CriteriaQuery<YourEntity> cr = cb.createQuery(YourEntity.class);
Root<YourEntity> root = cr.from(YourEntity.class);
cr.select(root);
I copied the source codes from the provided links and they are described there much better