I have two tables Item and Property and one item can have multiple properties. I have modeled it correctly (i think) in hibernate and when loading the ItemModel object, all the properties load properly.
The problem is when I am trying to delete properties and then save it, the properties just get added to the existing ones.
ItemModel m = ...;
m.getPropertySet().size() // returns 5 initially
m.getPropertySet().clear();
// some update function which adds properties
m.getPropertySet().size(); // returns 1
...currentSession().saveOrUpdate(m);
What happens is that now the database has 6 properties for that category instead of 1. What should I do to make this work?
The model for Item's mapping to properties looks something like this
<set name="propertySet" cascade="all">
<key column="item_id" not-null="true"/>
<one-to-many class="Property"/>
</set>
Use cascade="all-delete-orphan". See the first example in the reference guide for a walkthrough of relationships like this. Also, if this is a bidirectional one-to-many, then this side (the set) should be mapped with inverse="true" so that the relationship is determined solely based on the other side of the relationship.
Related
A table Product represents two entities Parent and Child.There relationship is defined in a separate table, lest's say Relation_Table.
hbm for Product is very straightforward. It does not have any reference to Reference_Table. hbm for Relation_Table looks like this:
<class name="RelationMember" table="RELATION_TABLE" lazy="true">
<id column="relation_id" type="int"/>
<many-to-one name="parent" class="Product" column="pId"/>
<many-to-one name="child" class="Product" column="child_id"/>
</class>
How would I fetch all the children for a given pId of a parent?
Is it like first I will fetch list of child_id and then use that list to read all entities from Product table?
Wondering if Hibernate provide some ways of mapping child_id directly to fetch entities from Product table.
You did not inlclude your classes but in typical cases, JPQL query is like:
select child from Product child where child.parent.id in :pids;
but Hibernate will still translate it to 2 joins, Product x Relation_Table x Product again.
You can use native query to have only 1 join (Product x Relation_Table).
But since the joins will be index based joins, you can trust DB to run it fast and there is no need for this extra optimization.
we have a big problem in our development team.
We are using Hibernate and we have some entities which are related in two transitive one-to-many relations. The main object is a Group which has a list of Property instances, and each Property containing a list of Values.
(The mappings are down ahead)
We have two main problems:
A) When making a HQL Query, Criteria Query or SQLQuery it doesn't matter the conditions applied in JOINs or WHERE clauses, Hibernate always retrieves for us all the underlying objects. For example, if I make a Criteria or SQL getting only the Group objects, Hibernate comes and (lazy or not) gets all the Property and Value instances too. We want to control this. We want to do left joins and get only the properties with no values inside (Hibernate removes these properties with no value)
B) When making the Query, for example, a SQL, it shows in the log the SQL code we want. Everything seems perfect. But after that it brings every instance in the list without applying conditions, getting them only by id, and we can assure this because with lazy="true" we see the "load many-to-one" queries in the log.
Is there something we can do in hibernate config, fetching mode/strategy, the mappings configuration or anywhere? I'm thinking on going on Result transformers now.
I would be grateful if someone coud give me a hint or tell me where to find a solution to this problem. We are confused about how to get this, but it must be a way.
Thanks in advance
Query:
Criteria lstCriterios = this.getSession().createCriteria(CardGroup.class, CARD_GROUP)
.add(Restrictions.eq(ID_CATEGORY, idCategory));
lstCriterios.createAlias("listProperty", "listProperty", CriteriaSpecification.LEFT_JOIN);
if (clusterId != null) {
lstCriterios.add(Restrictions.or(
Restrictions.isNull("listPropertyValue" + ".value"),
Restrictions.and(Restrictions.eq("listPropertyValue" + ".clusterId", clusterId),
Restrictions.eq("listPropertValue" + ".companyWarehouseId", idCompanyWarehouse))));
lstCriterios
.createAlias("listProperty" + "." + "listPropertyValue", "listPropertyValue",
CriteriaSpecification.LEFT_JOIN,
Restrictions.eq("listPropertyValue" + ".clusterId", clusterId));
} else {
lstCriterios.createAlias("listProperty" + ".listPropertyValue", "listPropertyValue",
CriteriaSpecification.LEFT_JOIN);
}
lstCriterios.add(Restrictions.eq(ID_CATEGORY, idCategory));
lstCriterios.add(Restrictions.eq("listProperty" + ".groupId", idGroup));
lstCriterios.setResultTransformer(CriteriaSpecification.DISTINCT_ROOT_ENTITY);
/*
* Sorting
*/
lstCriterios.addOrder(Order.asc("order"));
lstCriterios.addOrder(Order.asc("listProperty" + ".order"));
lstCriterios.addOrder(Order.asc("listPropertyValue"+ ".clusterId")); // Agrupacion, podría ser nulo
lstCriterios.addOrder(Order.asc("listPropertyValue"+ ".propertyId")); // Propiedad
lstCriterios.addOrder(Order.asc("listPropertyValue"+ ".id"));
return lstCriterios.list();
Group mapping:
<list name="listProperty"
table="FICHA_PROPIEDAD" schema="${db2.siglo.schema}"
inverse="false" cascade="all" >
<key column="ID_FICHA_GRUPO" not-null="false" />
<list-index column="ORDEN" base="1"/>
<one-to-many
class="com.company.aslo.appwebsiglo.model.card.property.property.CardProperty" />
</list>
Property mapping:
<bag name="listPropertyValue"
table="FICHA_PROPIEDAD_VALOR" schema="${db2.siglo.schema}"
inverse="false" cascade="all">
<key column="ID_FICHA_PROPIEDAD" not-null="false" />
<one-to-many
class="com.company.aslo.appwebsiglo.model.card.propertyvalue.propertyvalue.CardPropertyValue" />
</bag>
It seems like our model design was bad and we didn't realize that if the DB table FICHA_PROPIEDAD_VALOR has Composite Key we can't map only one of the attributes in the composite key, because it brings us unexpected results.
Because of this and the nested objects, we had also bad implementations of the hashCode() and equals() methods which Hibernate uses.
I had solved this previously with a ResultTransformer getting the rows from a SQLQuery, but we got the Hibernate solution after that refactoring and changing the design of our model.
As per Hibernate docs for one-to-many xml mapping tag there is an attribute called as not-found
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/3.3/reference/en-US/html/collections.html#collections-onetomany
The Doc says:
not-found (optional - defaults to exception): specifies how cached
identifiers that reference missing rows will be handled. ignore will
treat a missing row as a null association.
What is the use of this attribute? I tried to create a mapping between Product and Parts with Product having a set of Parts with below mapping details:
<set name="parts" cascade="all">
<key column="productSerialNumber" not-null="true" />
<one-to-many class="Part" not-found="ignore"/>
</set>
Then I wrote my Java code as:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Session session = HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().getCurrentSession();
session.beginTransaction();
Product prod = (Product) session.get(Product.class, 1);
session.getTransaction().commit();
System.out.println(prod);
HibernateUtil.getSessionFactory().close();
}
I was expecting null for my set which has Parts as I configured in my mapping file as not-found="ignore". But I got the regular exception - org.hibernate.LazyInitializationException
Please help me in understanding what is the use of this attribute? What are cached identifiers here?
The not-found has nothing to do with lazy loading. It's used to handle incoherences in your database.
Suppose you know nothing about good database practices, and have an order_line table containing an order_id column, supposed to reference the order it belongs to. And suppose that since you know nothing about good practices, you don't have a foreign key constraint on this column.
Deleting an order will thus be possible, even if the order has order lines referencing it. When loading such an OrderLine with Hibernate, Hibernate will load the Order and fail with an exception because it's supposed to exist, but doesn't.
Using not-found=ignore makes Hibernate ignore the order_id in the OrderLine, and will thus initialize the order field to null.
In a well-designed database, this attribute should never be used.
I have the following class diagram and I want to map it to a database (note that Person has a list with objects of class Vehicle).
Also my database looks like:
All tables in the database that represent a subclass of the Vehicle class have all the fields of the superclass Vehicle. Also, all the relations show a one-to-many relationship from Person to Vehicle, Car and Motorcycle.
My hibernate mapping files are the following:
Person.hbm.xml
<hibernate-mapping package="....">
<class name="Person" table="Persons">
<id name="key" column="Person_ID">
<generator class="native"/>
</id>
<list name="ownedVehicles" inverse="false" cascade="all">
<key column="Person_ID" not-null="true" />
<list-index column="idx"/>
<one-to-many class="Vehicle"/>
</list>
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
Vehicle.hbm.xml
<hibernate-mapping package="...">
<class name="Vehicle" table="Vehicles" polymorphism="implicit">
<id name="id" type="int" column="Vehicle_ID">
<generator class="increment"/>
</id>
<property name="numOfSeats"/>
<union-subclass name="Car" table="Cars"></union-subclass>
<union-subclass name="Motorcycle" table="Motorcycles"></union-subclass>
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
The problem (error I get) is the following:
Hibernate: insert into Persons (Person_ID) values (default)
2013-06-26 15:41:52 WARN JdbcCoordinatorImpl:424 - HHH000386: ResultSet had no statement associated with it, but was not yet registered
Hibernate: update Car set numOfSeats=? where Vehicle_ID=?
org.hibernate.StaleStateException: Batch update returned unexpected row count from update [0]; actual row count: 0; expected: 1
I get this error when I run:
Car car = new Car();
car.setNumOfSeats(5);
Person person = new Person();
person.getOwnedVehicles().add(car);
ManagePerson managePerson = new ManagePerson();
Integer personID = managePerson.store(person);
The store() function of ManagePerson actually creates a session and a transaction and then uses the save() method provided by Hibernate to persist the objects into the database.
As far as I understand Hibernate usually will do insert into Persons, then insert into Cars and finally update Cars (the update is done to save the foreign keys on Cars table that will reference the Person that owns the cars). However, here this is not the case and the insert into Cars seems to be getting skipped. I understood how Hibernate works here by trying person.getOwnedVehicles().add(vehicle); instead of person.getOwnedVehicles().add(car); on the code given above.
As you might understand, I am trying to see if Hibernate actually understands in which "subclass" table a record should go, depending on the class of the object contained in the ownedVehicle list of the Person class. For example, if the ownedVehicles has an object of class Car and one of class Motorcycle, then each of these should go to Cars and Motorcycle tables respectively.
Note: I am using Hibernate 4.2.2 and HSQLDB 2.2.9.
I would appreciate any help with this.
Thanks.
I think it is just a matter of incorrect use of the implicit polymorphism of Hibernate.
Implicit polymorphism for your case can only work by changing your list to have
inverse="true". This can be done of course if your Vehicle class also 'knows' about the relationship with the Person class (e.g. by adding an 'Owner' property and the corresponding mapping).
(Have a look at this table and the case of "table per concrete-class (union-subclass)" and one-to-many associations.
If you enable logging and raise the log level to DEBUG you would see that currently Hibernate tries to update the Vehicles table with the Person_ID instead of the Car table like you meant it to. This is because of the inverse="true" and the limitations of the combination of the Table-per-concrete-class mapping strategy and implicit polymorphism (have a look at the documentation).
So, by having the Vehicle class know about its Owner and using inverse="true" you should be able to succeed in what you are trying to do. Either this or try one of the other inheritance mapping strategies (again have a look at the documentation).
If the managePerson.store(...) method doesn't have a recursive call to the objects in "getOwnedVehicles()" such that it can then call their "store" methods then you shouldn't expect that the created "car" object would be inserted into the table.
You are in fact calling "managePerson.store" not "manageCar.store", I'd have to see the code in the .store(...) method to be sure though but I would expect that it is not doing an iteration of the Vehicles and is not doing an insert for any discovered ones (why should it unless you built it explicitly to do that?).
I have two objects:
public class ParentObject {
// some basic bean info
}
public class ChildObject extends ParentObject {
// more bean info
}
Each of these tables corresponds to a differnet table in a database. I am using Hibernate to query the ChildObject, which will in turn populate the parent objects values.
I have defined my mapping file as so:
<hibernate-mapping>
<class name="ParentObject"
table="PARENT_OBJECT">
<id name="id"
column="parent"id">
<generator class="assigned"/>
</id>
<property name="beaninfo"/>
<!-- more properties -->
<joined-subclass name="ChildObject" table="CHILD_OBJECT">
<key column="CHILD_ID"/>
<!--properties again-->
</joined-subclass>
</class>
</hibernate-mapping>
I can use hibernate to query the two tables without issue.
I use
session.createQuery("from ChildObject as child ");
This is all basic hibernate stuff. However, the part which I am having issues with is that I need to apply locks to the all the tables in the query.
I can set the lock type for the child object by using the query.setLockType("child", LockMode.?). However, I cannot seem to find a way to place a lock on the parent table.
I am new to Hibernate, and am still working around a few mental roadblocks. The question is: how can I place a lock on the parent table?
I was wondering if there was a way around having to do this without undoing the Polymorphic structure that I have set up.
Why do you have to lock both tables? I'm asking because depending on what you're trying to do there may be alternative solutions to achieve what you want.
The way things are, Hibernate normally only locks the root table unless you're using some exotic database / dialect. So, chances are you're already locking your ParentObject table rather than ChildObject.
Update (based on comment):
Since you are using an exotic database :-) which doesn't support FOR UPDATE syntax, Hibernate is locking the "primary" tables as they are specified in query ("primary" in this case being table mapped for the entity listed in FROM clause, not the root of the hierarchy - e.g. ChildObject, not ParentObject). Since you want to lock both tables, I'd suggest you try one of the following:
Call session.lock() on entities after you've obtained them from the query. This should lock the root table of the hierarchy, however I'm not 100% sure on whether it'll work because technically you're trying to "upgrade" the lock that's already being held on a given entity.
Try to cheat by explicitly naming ParentObject table in your query and requesting lock mode for it:
String hql = "select c from ChildObject c, ParentObject p where c.id = p.id";
session.createQuery(hql)
.setLockMode("c", LockMode.READ)
.setLockMode("p", LockMode.READ).list();