Related
org.hibernate.HibernateException: identifier of an instance
of org.cometd.hibernate.User altered from 12 to 3
in fact, my user table is really must dynamically change its value, my Java app is multithreaded.
Any ideas how to fix it?
Are you changing the primary key value of a User object somewhere? You shouldn't do that. Check that your mapping for the primary key is correct.
What does your mapping XML file or mapping annotations look like?
You must detach your entity from session before modifying its ID fields
In my case, the PK Field in hbm.xml was of type "integer" but in bean code it was long.
In my case getters and setter names were different from Variable name.
private Long stockId;
public Long getStockID() {
return stockId;
}
public void setStockID(Long stockID) {
this.stockId = stockID;
}
where it should be
public Long getStockId() {
return stockId;
}
public void setStockId(Long stockID) {
this.stockId = stockID;
}
In my case, I solved it changing the #Id field type from long to Long.
In my particular case, this was caused by a method in my service implementation that needed the spring #Transactional(readOnly = true) annotation. Once I added that, the issue was resolved. Unusual though, it was just a select statement.
Make sure you aren't trying to use the same User object more than once while changing the ID. In other words, if you were doing something in a batch type operation:
User user = new User(); // Using the same one over and over, won't work
List<Customer> customers = fetchCustomersFromSomeService();
for(Customer customer : customers) {
// User user = new User(); <-- This would work, you get a new one each time
user.setId(customer.getId());
user.setName(customer.getName());
saveUserToDB(user);
}
In my case, a template had a typo so instead of checking for equivalency (==) it was using an assignment equals (=).
So I changed the template logic from:
if (user1.id = user2.id) ...
to
if (user1.id == user2.id) ...
and now everything is fine. So, check your views as well!
It is a problem in your update method. Just instance new User before you save changes and you will be fine. If you use mapping between DTO and Entity class, than do this before mapping.
I had this error also. I had User Object, trying to change his Location, Location was FK in User table. I solved this problem with
#Transactional
public void update(User input) throws Exception {
User userDB = userRepository.findById(input.getUserId()).orElse(null);
userDB.setLocation(new Location());
userMapper.updateEntityFromDto(input, userDB);
User user= userRepository.save(userDB);
}
Also ran into this error message, but the root cause was of a different flavor from those referenced in the other answers here.
Generic answer:
Make sure that once hibernate loads an entity, no code changes the primary key value in that object in any way. When hibernate flushes all changes back to the database, it throws this exception because the primary key changed. If you don't do it explicitly, look for places where this may happen unintentionally, perhaps on related entities that only have LAZY loading configured.
In my case, I am using a mapping framework (MapStruct) to update an entity. In the process, also other referenced entities were being updates as mapping frameworks tend to do that by default. I was later replacing the original entity with new one (in DB terms, changed the value of the foreign key to reference a different row in the related table), the primary key of the previously-referenced entity was already updated, and hibernate attempted to persist this update on flush.
I was facing this issue, too.
The target table is a relation table, wiring two IDs from different tables. I have a UNIQUE constraint on the value combination, replacing the PK.
When updating one of the values of a tuple, this error occured.
This is how the table looks like (MySQL):
CREATE TABLE my_relation_table (
mrt_left_id BIGINT NOT NULL,
mrt_right_id BIGINT NOT NULL,
UNIQUE KEY uix_my_relation_table (mrt_left_id, mrt_right_id),
FOREIGN KEY (mrt_left_id)
REFERENCES left_table(lef_id),
FOREIGN KEY (mrt_right_id)
REFERENCES right_table(rig_id)
);
The Entity class for the RelationWithUnique entity looks basically like this:
#Entity
#IdClass(RelationWithUnique.class)
#Table(name = "my_relation_table")
public class RelationWithUnique implements Serializable {
...
#Id
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "mrt_left_id", referencedColumnName = "left_table.lef_id")
private LeftTableEntity leftId;
#Id
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "mrt_right_id", referencedColumnName = "right_table.rig_id")
private RightTableEntity rightId;
...
I fixed it by
// usually, we need to detach the object as we are updating the PK
// (rightId being part of the UNIQUE constraint) => PK
// but this would produce a duplicate entry,
// therefore, we simply delete the old tuple and add the new one
final RelationWithUnique newRelation = new RelationWithUnique();
newRelation.setLeftId(oldRelation.getLeftId());
newRelation.setRightId(rightId); // here, the value is updated actually
entityManager.remove(oldRelation);
entityManager.persist(newRelation);
Thanks a lot for the hint of the PK, I just missed it.
Problem can be also in different types of object's PK ("User" in your case) and type you ask hibernate to get session.get(type, id);.
In my case error was identifier of an instance of <skipped> was altered from 16 to 32.
Object's PK type was Integer, hibernate was asked for Long type.
In my case it was because the property was long on object but int in the mapping xml, this exception should be clearer
If you are using Spring MVC or Spring Boot try to avoid:
#ModelAttribute("user") in one controoler, and in other controller
model.addAttribute("user", userRepository.findOne(someId);
This situation can produce such error.
This is an old question, but I'm going to add the fix for my particular issue (Spring Boot, JPA using Hibernate, SQL Server 2014) since it doesn't exactly match the other answers included here:
I had a foreign key, e.g. my_id = '12345', but the value in the referenced column was my_id = '12345 '. It had an extra space at the end which hibernate didn't like. I removed the space, fixed the part of my code that was allowing this extra space, and everything works fine.
Faced the same Issue.
I had an assosciation between 2 beans. In bean A I had defined the variable type as Integer and in bean B I had defined the same variable as Long.
I changed both of them to Integer. This solved my issue.
I solve this by instancing a new instance of depending Object. For an example
instanceA.setInstanceB(new InstanceB());
instanceA.setInstanceB(YOUR NEW VALUE);
In my case I had a primary key in the database that had an accent, but in other table its foreign key didn't have. For some reason, MySQL allowed this.
It looks like you have changed identifier of an instance
of org.cometd.hibernate.User object menaged by JPA entity context.
In this case create the new User entity object with appropriate id. And set it instead of the original User object.
Did you using multiple Transaction managers from the same service class.
Like, if your project has two or more transaction configurations.
If true,
then at first separate them.
I got the issue when i tried fetching an existing DB entity, modified few fields and executed
session.save(entity)
instead of
session.merge(entity)
Since it is existing in the DB, when we should merge() instead of save()
you may be modified primary key of fetched entity and then trying to save with a same transaction to create new record from existing.
I wonder is it livable to associate an entity with a child entity by using not a proxy object but by creating a new object and setting Id manually? Like this?
#Transactional
public void save(#NonNull String name, #NonNull Long roleId) {
User user = new User();
user.setName(name);
Role role = new Role(); role.setRoleId(roleId);
// Instead of:
// roleRepository.getOne(roleId);
user.setRole(role);
userRepository.save(user);
}
I know that the accepted and well-documented way to do it is by calling smth. like:
em.getReference(Role.class, roleId) ;
or if use Spring Data
roleRepository.getOne(roleId);
or Hibernetish way:
session.load(Role.class, roleId)
So the question is, what bad consequences can one face if he does this trick by cheating the JPA provider and using this new object with set Id? Note, the only reason to do getOne() is to associate a newly created entity with an existing one. Yet the Role mock object is not managed, no fear of loosing any data. It simply does its job for connecting two entities.
From the Hibernate documentation:
getReference() obtains a reference to the entity. The state may or may
not be initialized. If the entity is already associated with the
current running Session, that reference (loaded or not) is returned.
If the entity is not loaded in the current Session and the entity
supports proxy generation, an uninitialized proxy is generated and
returned, otherwise the entity is loaded from the database and
returned.
So after testing I found that it basically does not even hit the database to check the presence of ID and save() would fail at commit if FK constraint is violated. It just requires additional dependency to auto-wire (RoleRepository).
So why should I have this proxy fetched by invoking getOne() instead of this mock object created with new if my case is as simple as this one? What and when may go wrong with this approach?
Thank you for clarifying things.
EDIT:
Hibernate/JPA, save a new entity while only setting id on #OneToOne association
This related topic doesn't answer the question. I am asking why calling JPA's API getReference() is better and what wrong may happen to me if I adopt this practice of creating a new "mock" objects with a given Id with new operator?
I have two user Objects and while I try to save the object using
session.save(userObj);
I am getting the following error:
Caused by: org.hibernate.NonUniqueObjectException: a different object with the same identifier value was already associated with the session:
[com.pojo.rtrequests.User#com.pojo.rtrequests.User#d079b40b]
I am creating the session using
BaseHibernateDAO dao = new BaseHibernateDAO();
rtsession = dao.getSession(userData.getRegion(),
BaseHibernateDAO.RTREQUESTS_DATABASE_NAME);
rttrans = rtsession.beginTransaction();
rttrans.begin();
rtsession.save(userObj1);
rtsession.save(userObj2);
rtsession.flush();
rttrans.commit();
rtsession.close(); // in finally block
I also tried doing the session.clear() before saving, still no luck.
This is for the first I am getting the session object when a user request comes, so I am getting why is saying that object is present in session.
Any suggestions?
I have had this error many times and it can be quite hard to track down...
Basically, what hibernate is saying is that you have two objects which have the same identifier (same primary key) but they are not the same object.
I would suggest you break down your code, i.e. comment out bits until the error goes away and then put the code back until it comes back and you should find the error.
It most often happens via cascading saves where there is a cascade save between object A and B, but object B has already been associated with the session but is not on the same instance of B as the one on A.
What primary key generator are you using?
The reason I ask is this error is related to how you're telling hibernate to ascertain the persistent state of an object (i.e. whether an object is persistent or not). The error could be happening because hibernate is trying to persist an object that is already persistent. In fact, if you use save hibernate will try and persist that object, and maybe there is already an object with that same primary key associated with the session.
Example
Assuming you have a hibernate class object for a table with 10 rows based on a primary key combination (column 1 and column 2). Now, you have removed 5 rows from the table at some point of time. Now, if you try to add the same 10 rows again, while hibernate tries to persist the objects in database, 5 rows which were already removed will be added without errors. Now the remaining 5 rows which are already existing, will throw this exception.
So the easy approach would be checking if you have updated/removed any value in a table which is part of something and later are you trying to insert the same objects again
This is only one point where hibernate makes more problems than it solves.
In my case there are many objects with the same identifier 0, because they are new and don't have one. The db generates them. Somewhere I have read that 0 signals Id not set. The intuitive way to persist them is iterating over them and saying hibernate to save the objects. But You can't do that - "Of course You should know that hibernate works this and that way, therefore You have to.."
So now I can try to change Ids to Long instead of long and look if it then works.
In the end it's easier to do it with a simple mapper by your own, because hibernate is just an additional intransparent burden.
Another example: Trying to read parameters from one database and persist them in another forces you to do nearly all work manually. But if you have to do it anyway, using hibernate is just additional work.
USe session.evict(object); The function of evict() method is used to remove instance from the session cache. So for first time saving the object ,save object by calling session.save(object) method before evicting the object from the cache. In the same way update object by calling session.saveOrUpdate(object) or session.update(object) before calling evict().
This can happen when you have used same session object for read & write. How?
Say you have created one session.
You read a record from employee table with primary key Emp_id=101
Now You have modified the record in Java.
And you are going to save the Employee record in database.
we have not closed session anywhere here.
As the object that was read also persist in the session. It conflicts with the object that we wish to write. Hence this error comes.
As somebody already pointed above i ran into this problem when i had cascade=all on both ends of a one-to-many relationship, so let's assume A --> B (one-to-many from A and many-to-one from B) and was updating instance of B in A and then calling saveOrUpdate(A) , it was resulting in a circular save request i.e save of A triggers save of B that triggers save of A... and in the third instance as the entity( of A) was tried to be added to the sessionPersistenceContext the duplicateObject exception was thrown. I could solve it by removing cascade from one end.
You can use session.merge(obj), if you are doing save with different sessions with same identifier persistent object.
It worked, I had same issue before.
I ran into this problem by:
Deleting an object (using HQL)
Immediately storing a new object with the same id
I resolved it by flushing the results after the delete, and clearing the cache before saving the new object
String delQuery = "DELETE FROM OasisNode";
session.createQuery( delQuery ).executeUpdate();
session.flush();
session.clear();
This problem occurs when we update the same object of session, which we have used to fetch the object from database.
You can use merge method of hibernate instead of update method.
e.g. First use session.get() and then you can use session.merge (object). This method will not create any problem. We can also use merge() method to update object in database.
I also ran into this problem and had a hard time to find the error.
The problem I had was the following:
The object has been read by a Dao with a different hibernate session.
To avoid this exception, simply re-read the object with the dao that is going to save/update this object later on.
so:
class A{
readFoo(){
someDaoA.read(myBadAssObject); //Different Session than in class B
}
}
class B{
saveFoo(){
someDaoB.read(myBadAssObjectAgain); //Different Session than in class A
[...]
myBadAssObjectAgain.fooValue = 'bar';
persist();
}
}
Hope that save some people a lot of time!
Get the object inside the session, here an example:
MyObject ob = null;
ob = (MyObject) session.get(MyObject.class, id);
By default is using the identity strategy but I fixed it by adding
#ID
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
Are your Id mappings correct? If the database is responsible for creating the Id through an identifier, you need to map your userobject to that ..
Check if you forgot to put #GenerateValue for #Id column.
I had same problem with many to many relationship between Movie and Genre. The program threw
Hibernate Error: org.hibernate.NonUniqueObjectException: a different object with the same identifier value was already associated with the session
error.
I found out later that I just have to make sure you have #GenerateValue to the GenreId get method.
I encountered this problem with deleting an object, neither evict nor clear helped.
/**
* Deletes the given entity, even if hibernate has an old reference to it.
* If the entity has already disappeared due to a db cascade then noop.
*/
public void delete(final Object entity) {
Object merged = null;
try {
merged = getSession().merge(entity);
}
catch (ObjectNotFoundException e) {
// disappeared already due to cascade
return;
}
getSession().delete(merged);
}
before the position where repetitive objects begin , you should close the session
and then you should start a new session
session.close();
session = HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().openSession();
so in this way in one session there is not more than one entities that have the same identifier.
I had a similar problem. In my case I had forgotten to set the increment_by value in the database to be the same like the one used by the cache_size and allocationSize. (The arrows point to the mentioned attributes)
SQL:
CREATED 26.07.16
LAST_DDL_TIME 26.07.16
SEQUENCE_OWNER MY
SEQUENCE_NAME MY_ID_SEQ
MIN_VALUE 1
MAX_VALUE 9999999999999999999999999999
INCREMENT_BY 20 <-
CYCLE_FLAG N
ORDER_FLAG N
CACHE_SIZE 20 <-
LAST_NUMBER 180
Java:
#SequenceGenerator(name = "mySG", schema = "my",
sequenceName = "my_id_seq", allocationSize = 20 <-)
Late to the party, but may help for coming users -
I got this issue when i select a record using getsession() and again update another record with same identifier using same session causes the issue. Added code below.
Customer existingCustomer=getSession().get(Customer.class,1);
Customer customerFromUi;// This customer details comiong from UI with identifer 1
getSession().update(customerFromUi);// Here the issue comes
This should never be done . Solution is either evict session before update or change business logic.
just check the id whether it takes null or 0 like
if(offersubformtwo.getId()!=null && offersubformtwo.getId()!=0)
in add or update where the content are set from form to Pojo
I'm new to NHibernate, and my problem was that I used a different session to query my object than I did to save it. So the saving session didn't know about the object.
It seems obvious, but from reading the previous answers I was looking everywhere for 2 objects, not 2 sessions.
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY), adding this annotation to the primary key property in your entity bean should solve this issue.
I resolved this problem .
Actually this is happening because we forgot implementation of Generator Type of PK property in the bean class. So make it any type like as
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private int id;
when we persist the objects of bean ,every object acquired same ID ,so first object is saved ,when another object to be persist then HIB FW through this type of Exception: org.hibernate.NonUniqueObjectException: a different object with the same identifier value was already associated with the session.
The problem happens because in same hibernate session you are trying to save two objects with same identifier.There are two solutions:-
This is happening because you have not configured your mapping.xml file correctly for id fields as below:-
<id name="id">
<column name="id" sql-type="bigint" not-null="true"/>
<generator class="hibernateGeneratorClass"</generator>
</id>
Overload the getsession method to accept a Parameter like isSessionClear,
and clear the session before returning the current session like below
public static Session getSession(boolean isSessionClear) {
if (session.isOpen() && isSessionClear) {
session.clear();
return session;
} else if (session.isOpen()) {
return session;
} else {
return sessionFactory.openSession();
}
}
This will cause existing session objects to be cleared and even if hibernate doesn't generate a unique identifier ,assuming you have configured your database properly for a primary key using something like Auto_Increment,it should work for you.
Otherwise than what wbdarby said, it even can happen when an object is fetched by giving the identifier of the object to a HQL. In the case of trying to modify the object fields and save it back into DB(modification could be insert, delete or update) over the same session, this error will appear. Try clearing the hibernate session before saving your modified object or create a brand new session.
Hope i helped ;-)
I have the same error I was replacing my Set with a new one get from Jackson.
To solve this I keep the existing set, I remove from the old set the element unknown into the new list with retainAll.
Then I add the new ones with addAll.
this.oldSet.retainAll(newSet);
this.oldSet.addAll(newSet);
No need to have the Session and manipulate it.
Try this. The below worked for me!
In the hbm.xml file
We need to set the dynamic-update attribute of class tag to true:
<class dynamic-update="true">
Set the class attribute of the generator tag under unique column to identity:
<generator class="identity">
Note: Set the unique column to identity rather than assigned.
I just had the same problem .I solve it by adding this line:
#GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
Another thing that worked for me was to make the instance variable Long in place of long
I had my primary key variable long id;
changing it to Long id; worked
All the best
You always can do a session flush.
Flush will synchronize the state of all your objects in session (please, someone correct me if i'm wrong), and maybe it would solve your problem in some cases.
Implementing your own equals and hashcode may help you too.
You can check your Cascade Settings. The Cascade settings on your models could be causing this. I removed Cascade Settings (Essentially not allowing Cascade Inserts/Updates) and this solved my problem
I found this error as well. What worked for me is to make sure that the primary key (that is auto-generated) is not a PDT (i.e. long, int, ect.), but an object (i.e. Long, Integer, etc.)
When you create your object to save it, make sure you pass null and not 0.
I would like to know if it's posible to change the insert and update attributes of a property defined in the mapping of a Class.
This is because in one scenario I need to update a property (or properties), but not in another, it's posible?
Thanks in advance
EDIT: Lets say that I've the Class User(with name, surname and loginDate), when the user logs into the app, I need to update only loginDate. But the administrator of the system must be able to edit the name and the surname of the User.
The only other solution that ocurrs to me is to use HQL for a Update (or in the worst case SQL), but I want if it's posible to modify that attributes.
EDIT 2: after reading Java persistence with hibernate and some forum threads I found that once the sessionFactory is created the mappings are immutables, and though You can change the properties programmatically, You need to create a new sessionFactory
// this is what the login screen calls
void updateLoginDate(Date date)
{
User user = session.get(User.class);
user.setDate(date);
session.Flush();
}
and in the mapping you could specify dynamicUpdate = true on the class so that the generated sql only updates columns which have changed
I have a problem with Hibernate (Thanks to Thomas now the problem is more legible).
In Short:
How to configure a ManyToMany association with Hibernate when the relationship has an attribute and we need save, delete and update in cascade?
In Large:
Imagine the following DataBase:
User Profile
M______N
|
attribute
There are 3 tables here:
"User", "Profile" and "User_Profile".
Now imagine User_Profile has 1 attribute for the relation (and obviously the keys).
Ok, now this is translating to Hibernate by the following:
User:
// The relation is Many to Many, but considering that it has an attribute, this is OneToMany with the ManyMany RelationShip
#OneToMany(mappedBy="user", targetEntity=UserProfile.class)
#Cascade({CascadeType.SAVE_UPDATE, CascadeType.DELETE})
#LazyCollection(LazyCollectionOption.TRUE)
private Set<UserProfile> userProfile = new HashSet<UserProfile>();
UserProfile:
#Id
#ManyToOne(targetEntity=User.class,fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
#Cascade({CascadeType.LOCK})
#JoinColumns({ #JoinColumn(name="...", referencedColumnName="...") })
private User user;
#Id
#ManyToOne(targetEntity=Profile.class,fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
#Cascade({CascadeType.LOCK})
#JoinColumns({ #JoinColumn(name="...", referencedColumnName="...") })
private Profile profile;
So, I think the configuration is correct, and the save, independently if the User has Profile childrens save all of them. The problem is when I try to update the user:
getHibernateTemplate().getSessionFactory().getCurrentSession().clear();
getHibernateTemplate().saveOrUpdate( user );
getHibernateTemplate().getSessionFactory().getCurrentSession().flush();
Hibernate don´t delete the Profile relation if there is an empty set of Profile childrens. Only add the profiles (override the old)... That´s rare... What´s the problem?
Thank you in advance
All you actually do is remove the relation and thus theres no DELETE to cascade, that's why nothing gets deleted.
Try adding the Hibernate cascade type DELETE_ORPHAN (using the #Cascade annotation) to make Hibernate delete entities that are not referenced anymore.
Additionally, I'd not remove the Mini entities alone. If there's no relation, i.e. the set of Minis is empty, it normally makes no sense to keep the SuperMini entities that now represent an empty collection (in rare cases it might make sense, just want you to think about whether you need them or not).
Edit:
Note that with DELETE_ORPHAN you should reuse the set, otherwise all the relations might be deleted and reinserted.
Basically Hibernate would then see the set being changed and would issue a delete for the "old" set and a reinsert for the "new" set. This could be wanted but in case you only want an update, i.e. only delete the entities that are not in the set anymore, you should do the following:
clear the set
add the "new" set to the reused and now cleared set using addAll(...)
This should trigger the update (and deletion of orphans) only.