I have a case where I'm persisting a large jsonb field into a PostGres table, but do not want to read it when I fetch the entity; if I do fetch it, my service goes OOM. A better design might be to separate this into a 1 to 1 table, but I can't do that at this time.
To plead that this is not a duplicate question, here's some of my research:
I'm not able to mark the column LAZY since I have a simple column not a join`
JPA/Hibernate write only field with no read
I tried the empty setter in this suggestion, which makes sense - but it still appears to read the column and I OOM: https://www.zizka.ch/pages/programming/java/hibernate/hibernate-write-only.html
I also tried omitting the setter altogether in my #Data class: Omitting one Setter/Getter in Lombok
So, I can not see the field, but I can't seem to keep it from being read into memory in the background. It seems like there must be some simple setting in JPA or Hibernate to exclude a column from read. Before I go try to make a complex repository hierarchy just to see if it works, I thought I would ask here in case I get lucky.
Thanks in advance!
Lazy loading attributes
Hibernate can load attribute lazily, but you need to enable byte code enhancements:
First you need to set the property hibernate.enhancer.enableLazyInitialization to true
Then you can annotate the field with #Basic( fetch = FetchType.LAZY ).
Here's the example from the documentation:
#Entity
public class Customer {
#Id
private Integer id;
private String name;
#Basic( fetch = FetchType.LAZY )
private UUID accountsPayableXrefId;
#Lob
#Basic( fetch = FetchType.LAZY )
#LazyGroup( "lobs" )
private Blob image;
//Getters and setters are omitted for brevity
}
You can also enable this feature via the Hibernate ORM gradle plugin
Named Native queries
You could also decide to not map it and save/read it with a named native query. It seems a good trade off for a single attribute - it will just require an additional query to save the json.
Example:
#Entity
#Table(name = "MyEntity_table")
#NamedNativeQuery(
name = "write_json",
query = "update MyEntity_table set json_column = :json where id = :id")
#NamedNativeQuery(
name = "read_json",
query = "select json_column from MyEntity_table where id = :id")
class MyEntity {
....
}
Long id = ...
String jsonString = ...
session.createNamedQuery( "write_json" )
.setParameter( "id", id )
.setParameter( "json", jsonString )
.executeUpdate();
jsonString = (String)session.createNamedQuery( "read_json" )
.setParameter( "id", id )
.getSingleResult();
In this case, schema generation is not going to create the column, so you will need to add it manually (not a big deal, considering that there are better tools to update the schema in production).
MappedSuperclass
You can also have two entities extending the same superclass (this way you don't have to copy the attributes). They have to update the same table:
#MappedSuperclass
class MyEntity {
#Id
Long id;
String name
...
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "MyEntity_table")
class MyEntityWriter extends MyEntity {
String json
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "MyEntity_table")
class MyEntityReader extends MyEntity {
// No field is necessary here
}
Now you can use MyEntityWriter for saving all the values and MyEntityReader for loading only the values you need.
I think you will have some problems with schema generation if you try to create the tables because only one of the two will be created:
If MyEntityWriter is the first table created, then no problem
If MyEntityWriter is the second table created, the query will fail because the table already exist and the additional column won't be created.
I haven't tested this solution though, there might be something I haven't thought about.
Related
What my project have:
rsqlParser in order to parse complicated queries
Hibernate envers for audit purposes
Pretty stupid middle developer who don't know how to implement isNull rsql query
I have two Object with strict one-to-one relationship: object A which contains object B, and object B, which contains object A.
In RDS it's looks like object B has an object_a_id field
Object_A entity class
#Entity
#Getter
#Setter
#Audited
#NoArgsConstructor
public class Object_A {
#OneToOne(mappedBy = "object_a")
private Object_B object_b;
}
Object_B entity
#Entity
#Getter
#Setter
#Audited
#NoArgsConstructor
public class Object_B {
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(
name = "object_a_id",
referencedColumnName = "id",
foreignKey = #ForeignKey(name = "object_b_object_a_fk")
)
private Object_A object_a;
Clearly you see that Object_B OWNS Object_A and when I try to perfom something simple like
return auditProperty.isNull();
I get
This type of relation (object_b) isn't supported and can't be used in queries
I guess I need somehow to make custom query where I add some object_b subselect beforehand but can't figure out how to write it.
You should probably create an issue in the issue tracker(https://hibernate.atlassian.net) with a test case(https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-test-case-templates/blob/master/orm/hibernate-orm-5/src/test/java/org/hibernate/bugs/JPAUnitTestCase.java) that shows this limitation and ask for an improvement for this.
Usually, in ORM this is handled on the SQL level by introducing an exists subquery like:
where not exists (select 1 from object_b b where b.object_a_id = rootAlias.id)
Not sure how that works exactly in your case, but you could try to do something similar in your query.
I have 2 tables S and I on the database (with a 1:1 relationship), they both have the same id as pk and the hibernate classes I've created are like these:
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
public class S {
#Id
#Column(name = "id")
#GeneratedValue(...)
#SequenceGenerator...
private long id;
....
}
#Entity
#PrimaryKeyJoinColumn(name = "id")
public class I extends S {
....
}
Because of historical reasons, in the database there are objects of type S but not the associated objects of type I. I want to create those I type objects using hibernate. How can I do that? Can I create an I type object from an left join HQL query like this?
select i from I i right join i.id s where s.id = :id
If I try to create a new I entity (new I()) and then persist it, I only managed to get some exceptions as it tries to create an already existing S record. I can't do a simple read/load for I entity as I record does not exist yet. How can I do to create this missing I part entity?
PS I will adjust the question if you point me the unclear things
One approach that will certainly work for you (while is isn't clean one) is to create I records with SQL inserts directly: insert into I_table values (...).
When there are corresponding records in I_table, ORM will start load your objects with I type.
If you have to stay with your ORM and you can delete S records then you can
Load S by id
Delete S (flush? based on your flush mode)
Create I
Copy S values into I
Save I
What you're trying to create is an entity hierarchy. So have to map the entities correctly. The following is probably what you need:
#Entity
#Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
#DiscriminatorColumn(discriminatorType = DiscriminatorType.CHAR)
#DiscriminatorValue("S")
public class S {
#Id
//........
private long id;
....
}
#Entity
#DiscriminatorValue("I")
public class I extends S {
....
}
With this setting the table S will contain a column named DTYPE (for discriminator type) which identifies whether a row belongs to S or I; this is the default; if you don't want that you have to give a name for the DiscriminatorColumn annotation.
Create an instance of S and save
Create an instance of 'I' by populating the inherited properties (i.e., the properties of S) and its own properties, and save.
When you create a query targeting I, you'll get only instances of I, but if your query targets the S, you'll get instances of both entities.
We have a few entities with a bunch of properties annotated with Hibernate's #Formula annotation. The SQL snippets in the annotations mainly run scalar sub-queries (e.g. COUNT queries). As an example, we have a one-to-many relationship hierarchy that's four levels deep: A <- B <- C <- D (where <- marks a one-to-many association). Pretty often when fetching an entity of type A, we'd like to know the amount of associated entities of type D. For this we use a #Formula-annotated property in A.
As we don't need these values every time, we've declared the #Formula properties as lazy-loaded (we've enabled Hibernate's bytecode enhancement to make this possible). But for some queries, we'd like to load these properties eagerly. We often load hundreds of entities of type A in one query, and it'd be important performance-wise to control the eager/lazy loading of these properties dynamically. We already use JPA's entity graphs to control which properties get loaded eagerly for certain queries, but entity graphs don't seem to work here. Even if we list the #Formula properties in the entity graph, they're still loaded lazily.
Is it possible to control lazy/eager loading of #Formula columns dynamically on a per query basis? We're currently restricted to the JPA Criteria Query API, and named queries are not a possibility here.
Update:
The properties in question are not associations to other entities, but just some calculated values. This means that e.g. fetch profiles don't apply here, as they're only applicable to entity associations (or at least that's how I understood the Hibernate manual). Here's an example of one of our #Formula properties:
#Entity
public class A {
#Basic(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#Formula("(select count(*) from entity_D_table where ...)")
private int associatedDCount;
...
}
You could use the Critria api to make it return a DTO instead of an Entity.
In your criteria query use a Projection to select only the column you need.
ProjectionList properties = Projections.projectionList();
properties.add(Projections.property("id").as("id"));
properties.add(Projections.property("name").as("name"));
properties.add(Projections.property("lazyField").as("lazyField"));
criteria.setProjection(properties);
criteria.setResultTransformer(new AliasToBeanResultTransformer(MyEntityDTO.class));
That way the select query will only contains the fields you ask, whatever the mapping EAGER or LAZY.
You can try to have a look at Hibernate's fetch profiles https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/4.2/manual/en-US/html/ch20.html#performance-fetching-profiles.
You can for example annotate an entity like that
#Entity
#FetchProfile(name = "country_states", fetchOverrides = {
#FetchProfile.FetchOverride(entity = Country.class, association = "states", mode = FetchMode.JOIN)
})
public class Country implements Serializable {...
and activate the JOIN mode when querying, like this:
session=getSession();
session.beginTransaction();
//enable fetch profile for EAGER fetching
session.enableFetchProfile("country_states");
As shown in http://www.concretepage.com/hibernate/fetchprofile_hibernate_annotation
It turns out it's not hard to pull this off without having to resort to bytecode instrumentation.
Create a "formula" entity mapped to the same table:
#Entity
#Table("A")
public class ACounts {
#Id
private Long id;
#Formula("(select count(*) from entity_D_table where ...)")
private int dCount;
public int getDCount() {
return dCount;
}
}
Then in your parent entity, A, use #ManyToOne to relate lazily to this "formula" entity:
#Entity
public class A {
#Id
private Long id;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "id", nullable = false, insertable = false, updatable = false)
private ACounts counts;
public ACounts getCounts() {
return counts;
}
...
}
Now the count query will only be issued when the count is requested (i.e. it's lazy!):
A a = ...
// lazily invoke count query now:
a.getCounts().getDCount()
ref: https://stackoverflow.com/a/55581854/225217
I want to rewrite the call delete operation (on association table) on a many-to-many association sending by EclipseLink when we use only java code.
Let me explain the goal.
I have 3 tables, person, unit and an associative one : PerInUnit, so a person can be in multiple units and a units can contains many people. But I have some dependances on the PeInUnit table (If the person was present or not on a specific date, another table (Participations)), so I can't (and I don't want) delete a record. For that, I make softs deletes, so I can keep records to make some statistics.
I read already about the Customizer and AdditionalCriteria and I setted them to the PerInUnit class. It works perfectly => when I make an em.remove(myPerInUnit); the sql query sent to the db is Update PER_IN_UNIT SET STATUS='delete' WHERE id = #id; and the specified row as "delete" for status. Also, when I read all records, I don't have them with status "delete". But I use explicitly the PeeInUnit class.
Here is the code :
#Entity
#Table(name = "PER_IN_UNIT")
#AdditionalCriteria("this.status is null")
#Customizer(PIUCustomizer.class)
public class PerInUnit implements Serializable {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.SEQUENCE, generator = "GEN_SEQ_PIU")
#SequenceGenerator(name = "GEN_SEQ_PIU", sequenceName = "SEQ_PIU", initialValue = 1, allocationSize = 1)
#Column(name = "ID")
private Long id;
#ManyToOne(cascade=javax.persistence.CascadeType.PERSIST)
#JoinColumn(name = "PER_ID")
private Person person;
#ManyToOne(cascade=javax.persistence.CascadeType.PERSIST)
#JoinColumn(name = "UNI_ID")
private Unit unit;
#Column(name = "STATUS")
private String status;
//Constructor, getters, setters
}
And the code for the PIUCustomizer :
public class PIUCustomizer implements DescriptorCustomizer {
#Override
public void customize(ClassDescriptor descriptor) {
descriptor.getQueryManager().setDeleteSQLString("UPDATE PER_IN_UNIT SET STATUS = 'delete' WHERE ID = #ID");
}
}
Here come the problem : As I use EclipseLink with bidirectionnal relationship I want to make some instruction like myUnit.getPeople.remove(currentPerson); (remove the current person from the unit "myUnit"). But EclipseLink sent the following instruction (during commit !) :
DELETE FROM PER_IN_UNIT WHERE ((UNI_ID = ?) AND (PER_ID = ?))
instead of the
Update PER_IN_UNIT SET STATUS='delete' WHERE ((UNI_ID = ?) AND (PER_ID = ?))
that I expected and raise (obviously, because of dependances (FKs)) the following exception :
Query: DataModifyQuery(sql="DELETE FROM PER_IN_UNIT WHERE ((UNI_ID = ?) AND (PER_ID = ?))")
at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.transaction.EntityTransactionImpl.commit(EntityTransactionImpl.java:157)
at test.Crud.update(Crud.java:116)
at test.Test.runTest(Test.java:96)
at test.Test.main(Test.java:106)
Caused by: Exception [EclipseLink-4002] (Eclipse Persistence Services - 2.5.2.v20140319-9ad6abd): org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException
Internal Exception: java.sql.SQLIntegrityConstraintViolationException: ORA-02292: integrity constraint (PEOPLE.FK_PAR_PIU) violated - child record found
Other problem (in the same kind), when I make something like System.out.prinln(myUnit.getPeople()) I have all the people in the unit "myUnit", including them having status 'delete'.
Is it possible to change some code/instructions/Customizer/etc in eclipseLink to change the delete call from person for PerInunit table, or I have to make my own queries and use them instead of using powerful of orm ?
Thanks for your answers and please forgive me for my poor english !
Fab
You should not be getting a delete when you call myUnit.getPeople.remove(currentPerson) unless you mapped Unit to Person with a ManyToMany using the PER_IN_UNIT table. Since you have an entity for the PER_IN_UNIT table, this would be wrong, as it really should be a Unit-> PerInUnit OneToMany mapping and then a PerInUnit -> Person ManyToOne mapping. The myUnit.getPeople.remove(currentPerson) call would then simply be getting the PerInUnit instance and marking its status as deleted, or dereferencing it and letting JPA call remove, thereby using your soft delete SQL query.
By using a ManyToMany mapping for the PER_IN_UNIT table, this mapping is completely independent to your PerInUnit entity mapping, and knows nothing about the entities that maybe cached or the soft deletes required to remove them. If you don't want to map the PER_IN_UNIT table as an entity, see http://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/t/243467/ which shows how to configure a ManyToMany mapping for soft deletes.
I have a relatively complex entity. Something like this:
#Entity
public class MyEntity {
/// some fields
///...
#OneToMany(/*cascade = CascadeType.ALL, */fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#Fetch(FetchMode.SELECT)
#Cascade({CascadeType.ALL})
protected Set<ParameterValue> parameterValues
//...
}
#Entity
public class ParameterValue {
// ...
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#Cascade({org.hibernate.annotations.CascadeType.MERGE, org.hibernate.annotations.CascadeType.SAVE_UPDATE, org.hibernate.annotations.CascadeType.REFRESH})
private Parameter parameter
}
MyEntity has String id, ParameterValue has generated long Id and Parameter has string id
My Entity has parameter values, each of whose has parameter, which is shared among other parameter values from different entities
Parameter is abstract class with different implementations
My problem is that when I call hibernate session saveOrUpdate for such objects
1) it is very slow
2) sometimes I receive org.hibernate.NonUniqueObjectException: a different object with the same identifier value was already associated with the session: [com.xxx.entities.content.EnumParameter#-1672482954]
What is correct way to save/update such entities ?
I inherited the schema from previous developer, so if it is required to simplify saving, I can change it
well, transitioning to long unique IDs that are proper primary key (unique, indexed) in database can speed up updates significantly.
depending on what you're updating, getting rid of eager fetch is another way of speeding things up - maybe you only need to update some ParamValue in some MyEntity? Retrieve just that ParamValue and store it after modification (select p from ParamValue p where p.entity=:entity).
It really depends on what your code actually does, but those two things (lazy loading and proper unique keys) will speed things up - though lazy loading might need reviewing some code.