I'm working on a Spring Boot Application with Hibernate and I'm just trying to understand the correct way to approach a OneToOne mapping when it comes to using cascade delete.
So, we have a User table and a PasswordResetToken table. A user has standard user columns: id, username, password, email.
A password reset token has an id, a FK to userId, and a string for a token.
So, my question now is: how do I correctly model this so we can properly cascade delete?
My thought process is that we have a unidirectional mapping since password reset token has a FK to user, and user does NOT have a FK to password reset token.
So I would think that we would place the #OneToOne on our PasswordResetToken class in Java and not have a reference to PasswordResetToken in our User class, but then the PasswordResetToken class will have a reference to a User object.
But, through some stackoverflowing, I found that people would have the child object (PasswordResetToken) inside the parent object (User) despite the parent object's table not having a reference to the child object's table (since the User table doesn't have a PasswordResetToken in it) which allows for adding the cascade remove to the #OneToOne annotation which means that when a User gets deleted, all children will get deleted as well.
So, which way is the right way to model this relationship?
Thanks for your time
There are many ways to solve your problem. Some are less, some are more efficient.
Bidirectional with foreign key
#Entity
public class PasswordResetToken {
#OneToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "user_id")
private User User;
// other fields
}
#Entity
public class User {
#OneToOne(mappedBy = "user", cascade = CascadeType.ALL,
fetch = FetchType.LAZY, optional = false)
private PasswordResetToken passwordResetToken;
// other fields
}
Bidirectional with principal/parent's primary key as foreign key
Since it's 1-1 relationship, you could use User's ID as a primary key for PasswordResetToken table.
#Entity
public class PasswordResetToken {
#OneToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#MapsId
private User User;
// other fields
}
#Entity
public class User {
#OneToOne(mappedBy = "user", cascade = CascadeType.ALL,
fetch = FetchType.LAZY, optional = false)
private PasswordResetToken passwordResetToken;
// other fields
}
Unidirectional
If you want to have unidirectional mapping, and to have PasswordResetToken entity as part of User entity, you'll have to move the foreign key to User table, since #JoinColumn has to be applied on entity owning the foreign key.
#Entity
public class User {
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL,
fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn("password_reset_token_id") // FK in User table
private PasswordResetToken passwordResetToken;
// other fields
}
As for performance, the most efficient is bidirectional with #MapsId. Bidirectional with #JoinColumn is less efficient, and I'm not sure about unidirectional mapping. One to one mappings are not that common in practice, and I'm not sure how often people use unidirectional mapping. Probably not at all, since the foreign key is usually on dependent side.
I don't know how big the token is, but what is wrong with storing the token in the User entity as simple column? You can abstract some parts by using an #Embeddable but really this should IMO be in the same table. If you are concerned with the amount of data fetched, you should be using DTOs to reduce the amount of data.
Related
What is the difference between:
#Entity
public class Company {
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL , fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "companyIdRef", referencedColumnName = "companyId")
private List<Branch> branches;
...
}
and
#Entity
public class Company {
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL , fetch = FetchType.LAZY,
mappedBy = "companyIdRef")
private List<Branch> branches;
...
}
The annotation #JoinColumn indicates that this entity is the owner of the relationship (that is: the corresponding table has a column with a foreign key to the referenced table), whereas the attribute mappedBy indicates that the entity in this side is the inverse of the relationship, and the owner resides in the "other" entity. This also means that you can access the other table from the class which you've annotated with "mappedBy" (fully bidirectional relationship).
In particular, for the code in the question the correct annotations would look like this:
#Entity
public class Company {
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "company",
orphanRemoval = true,
fetch = FetchType.LAZY,
cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
private List<Branch> branches;
}
#Entity
public class Branch {
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "companyId")
private Company company;
}
#JoinColumn could be used on both sides of the relationship. The question was about using #JoinColumn on the #OneToMany side (rare case). And the point here is in physical information duplication (column name) along with not optimized SQL query that will produce some additional UPDATE statements.
According to documentation:
Since many to one are (almost) always the owner side of a bidirectional relationship in the JPA spec, the one to many association is annotated by #OneToMany(mappedBy=...)
#Entity
public class Troop {
#OneToMany(mappedBy="troop")
public Set<Soldier> getSoldiers() {
...
}
#Entity
public class Soldier {
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name="troop_fk")
public Troop getTroop() {
...
}
Troop has a bidirectional one to many relationship with Soldier through the troop property. You don't have to (must not) define any physical mapping in the mappedBy side.
To map a bidirectional one to many, with the one-to-many side as the owning side, you have to remove the mappedBy element and set the many to one #JoinColumn as insertable and updatable to false. This solution is not optimized and will produce some additional UPDATE statements.
#Entity
public class Troop {
#OneToMany
#JoinColumn(name="troop_fk") //we need to duplicate the physical information
public Set<Soldier> getSoldiers() {
...
}
#Entity
public class Soldier {
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name="troop_fk", insertable=false, updatable=false)
public Troop getTroop() {
...
}
Unidirectional one-to-many association
If you use the #OneToMany annotation with #JoinColumn, then you have a unidirectional association, like the one between the parent Post entity and the child PostComment in the following diagram:
When using a unidirectional one-to-many association, only the parent side maps the association.
In this example, only the Post entity will define a #OneToMany association to the child PostComment entity:
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, orphanRemoval = true)
#JoinColumn(name = "post_id")
private List<PostComment> comments = new ArrayList<>();
Bidirectional one-to-many association
If you use the #OneToMany with the mappedBy attribute set, you have a bidirectional association. In our case, both the Post entity has a collection of PostComment child entities, and the child PostComment entity has a reference back to the parent Post entity, as illustrated by the following diagram:
In the PostComment entity, the post entity property is mapped as follows:
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
private Post post;
The reason we explicitly set the fetch attribute to FetchType.LAZY is because, by default, all #ManyToOne and #OneToOne associations are fetched eagerly, which can cause N+1 query issues.
In the Post entity, the comments association is mapped as follows:
#OneToMany(
mappedBy = "post",
cascade = CascadeType.ALL,
orphanRemoval = true
)
private List<PostComment> comments = new ArrayList<>();
The mappedBy attribute of the #OneToMany annotation references the post property in the child PostComment entity, and, this way, Hibernate knows that the bidirectional association is controlled by the #ManyToOne side, which is in charge of managing the Foreign Key column value this table relationship is based on.
For a bidirectional association, you also need to have two utility methods, like addChild and removeChild:
public void addComment(PostComment comment) {
comments.add(comment);
comment.setPost(this);
}
public void removeComment(PostComment comment) {
comments.remove(comment);
comment.setPost(null);
}
These two methods ensure that both sides of the bidirectional association are in sync. Without synchronizing both ends, Hibernate does not guarantee that association state changes will propagate to the database.
Which one to choose?
The unidirectional #OneToMany association does not perform very well, so you should avoid it.
You are better off using the bidirectional #OneToMany which is more efficient.
I disagree with the accepted answer here by Óscar López. That answer is inaccurate!
It is NOT #JoinColumn which indicates that this entity is the owner of the relationship. Instead, it is the #ManyToOne annotation which does this (in his example).
The relationship annotations such as #ManyToOne, #OneToMany and #ManyToMany tell JPA/Hibernate to create a mapping. By default, this is done through a seperate Join Table.
#JoinColumn
The purpose of #JoinColumn is to create a join column if one does
not already exist. If it does, then this annotation can be used to
name the join column.
MappedBy
The purpose of the MappedBy parameter is to instruct JPA: Do NOT
create another join table as the relationship is already being mapped
by the opposite entity of this relationship.
Remember: MappedBy is a property of the relationship annotations whose purpose is to generate a mechanism to relate two entities which by default they do by creating a join table. MappedBy halts that process in one direction.
The entity not using MappedBy is said to be the owner of the relationship because the mechanics of the mapping are dictated within its class through the use of one of the three mapping annotations against the foreign key field. This not only specifies the nature of the mapping but also instructs the creation of a join table. Furthermore, the option to suppress the join table also exists by applying #JoinColumn annotation over the foreign key which keeps it inside the table of the owner entity instead.
So in summary: #JoinColumn either creates a new join column or renames an existing one; whilst the MappedBy parameter works collaboratively with the relationship annotations of the other (child) class in order to create a mapping either through a join table or by creating a foreign key column in the associated table of the owner entity.
To illustrate how MapppedBy works, consider the code below. If MappedBy parameter were to be deleted, then Hibernate would actually create TWO join tables! Why? Because there is a symmetry in many-to-many relationships and Hibernate has no rationale for selecting one direction over the other.
We therefore use MappedBy to tell Hibernate, we have chosen the other entity to dictate the mapping of the relationship between the two entities.
#Entity
public class Driver {
#ManyToMany(mappedBy = "drivers")
private List<Cars> cars;
}
#Entity
public class Cars {
#ManyToMany
private List<Drivers> drivers;
}
Adding #JoinColumn(name = "driverID") in the owner class (see below), will prevent the creation of a join table and instead, create a driverID foreign key column in the Cars table to construct a mapping:
#Entity
public class Driver {
#ManyToMany(mappedBy = "drivers")
private List<Cars> cars;
}
#Entity
public class Cars {
#ManyToMany
#JoinColumn(name = "driverID")
private List<Drivers> drivers;
}
The annotation mappedBy ideally should always be used in the Parent side (Company class) of the bi directional relationship, in this case it should be in Company class pointing to the member variable 'company' of the Child class (Branch class)
The annotation #JoinColumn is used to specify a mapped column for joining an entity association, this annotation can be used in any class (Parent or Child) but it should ideally be used only in one side (either in parent class or in Child class not in both) here in this case i used it in the Child side (Branch class) of the bi directional relationship indicating the foreign key in the Branch class.
below is the working example :
parent class , Company
#Entity
public class Company {
private int companyId;
private String companyName;
private List<Branch> branches;
#Id
#GeneratedValue
#Column(name="COMPANY_ID")
public int getCompanyId() {
return companyId;
}
public void setCompanyId(int companyId) {
this.companyId = companyId;
}
#Column(name="COMPANY_NAME")
public String getCompanyName() {
return companyName;
}
public void setCompanyName(String companyName) {
this.companyName = companyName;
}
#OneToMany(fetch=FetchType.LAZY,cascade=CascadeType.ALL,mappedBy="company")
public List<Branch> getBranches() {
return branches;
}
public void setBranches(List<Branch> branches) {
this.branches = branches;
}
}
child class, Branch
#Entity
public class Branch {
private int branchId;
private String branchName;
private Company company;
#Id
#GeneratedValue
#Column(name="BRANCH_ID")
public int getBranchId() {
return branchId;
}
public void setBranchId(int branchId) {
this.branchId = branchId;
}
#Column(name="BRANCH_NAME")
public String getBranchName() {
return branchName;
}
public void setBranchName(String branchName) {
this.branchName = branchName;
}
#ManyToOne(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name="COMPANY_ID")
public Company getCompany() {
return company;
}
public void setCompany(Company company) {
this.company = company;
}
}
I'd just like to add that #JoinColumn does not always have to be related to the physical information location as this answer suggests. You can combine #JoinColumn with #OneToMany even if the parent table has no table data pointing to the child table.
How to define unidirectional OneToMany relationship in JPA
Unidirectional OneToMany, No Inverse ManyToOne, No Join Table
It seems to only be available in JPA 2.x+ though. It's useful for situations where you want the child class to just contain the ID of the parent, not a full on reference.
Let me make it simple.
You can use #JoinColumn on either sides irrespective of mapping.
Let's divide this into three cases.
1) Uni-directional mapping from Branch to Company.
2) Bi-direction mapping from Company to Branch.
3) Only Uni-directional mapping from Company to Branch.
So any use-case will fall under this three categories. So let me explain how to use #JoinColumn and mappedBy.
1) Uni-directional mapping from Branch to Company.
Use JoinColumn in Branch table.
2) Bi-direction mapping from Company to Branch.
Use mappedBy in Company table as describe by #Mykhaylo Adamovych's answer.
3)Uni-directional mapping from Company to Branch.
Just use #JoinColumn in Company table.
#Entity
public class Company {
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL , fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name="courseId")
private List<Branch> branches;
...
}
This says that in based on the foreign key "courseId" mapping in branches table, get me list of all branches. NOTE: you can't fetch company from branch in this case, only uni-directional mapping exist from company to branch.
JPA is a layered API, the different levels have their own annotations. The highest level is the (1) Entity level which describes persistent classes then you have the (2) relational database level which assume the entities are mapped to a relational database and (3) the java model.
Level 1 annotations: #Entity, #Id, #OneToOne, #OneToMany, #ManyToOne, #ManyToMany.
You can introduce persistency in your application using these high level annotations alone. But then you have to create your database according to the assumptions JPA makes. These annotations specify the entity/relationship model.
Level 2 annotations: #Table, #Column, #JoinColumn, ...
Influence the mapping from entities/properties to the relational database tables/columns if you are not satisfied with JPA's defaults or if you need to map to an existing database. These annotations can be seen as implementation annotations, they specify how the mapping should be done.
In my opinion it is best to stick as much as possible to the high level annotations and then introduce the lower level annotations as needed.
To answer the questions: the #OneToMany/mappedBy is nicest because it only uses the annotations from the entity domain. The #oneToMany/#JoinColumn is also fine but it uses an implementation annotation where this is not strictly necessary.
#Entity
public class Company {
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "company_id_ref", referencedColumnName = "company_id")
private List<Branch> branches;
...
}
That Will give below Hibernate logs
Hibernate: select nextval ('hibernate_sequence')
Hibernate: select nextval ('hibernate_sequence')
Hibernate: insert into company (name, company_id) values (?, ?)
Hibernate: insert into branch (company_id_ref, name, id) values (?, ?, ?)
Hibernate: update branch set company_id_ref=? where id=?
And
#Entity
public class Company {
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL , fetch = FetchType.LAZY,
mappedBy = "company")
private List<Branch> branches;
...
}
That will give below Hibernate logs
Hibernate: select nextval ('hibernate_sequence')
Hibernate: select nextval ('hibernate_sequence')
Hibernate: insert into company (name, company_id) values (?, ?)
Hibernate: insert into branch (company_id_ref, name, id) values (?, ?, ?)
We can clearly see that #joinColumn will cause additional update queries.
so you do not need to set parent entity explicitly to child entity,
That we have to do while using mappedBy
to save children with a parent
I'm having issues with defining a foreign key field within an entity. One specific thing that I can't find an answer to, is how to define such field but as a Long type, and not as that target entity type, and also set it up as ON DELETE CASCADE.
E.g.
#Entity
#Table(name = "user")
public class UserEntity {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
}
and
#Entity
#Table(name = "address")
public class AddressEntity {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
#JoinColumn(
table = "user",
name = "user_id",
referencedColumnName = "id")
private Long userId;
}
This example works fine, but now one can't easily define this DELETE ON CASCADE for the userId field i.e. Address entity.
One specific thing that I can't find an answer to, is how to define
such field but as a Long type, and not as that target entity type, and
also set it up as ON DELETE CASCADE.
It stands to reason that you cannot find an answer, because JPA does not provide one. If you want JPA to manage relationships between entities, then you must define those relationships in the JPA way, with entities holding references to other entity objects and declaring appropriate relationship annotations.* And if you want cascading deletes in your persistence context then you definitely do want them to be managed / recognized by JPA, for any other kind of approach is likely to create problems involving the context falling out of sync with the underlying data store.
It's unclear what problem you are trying to solve by avoiding JPA-style relationship management, but I'm inclined to think that there must be a better way. For example, if you want to avoid requiring the persistence context to load the associated UserEntity whenever an AddressEntity is loaded, then you would define the relationship with a lazy fetch strategy:
#Entity
public class AddressEntity {
// ...
#OneToOne(optional = true, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
private UserEntity user;
}
#Entity
public class UserEntity {
// ...
#OneToOne(optional = true, fetch = FetchType.LAZY, cascade = CascadeType.ALL,
mappedBy = user)
AddressType address;
}
(Do note, however, that FetchType.LAZY is a hint, not a constraint. The context might sometimes still load the user together with its address if that's convenient.)
If you want to get the associated user id from an address, then the best way to do so is to read it from the user:
// ...
public Long getUserId() {
return (user == null) ? null : user.getId();
}
That does require the UserEntity to define an accessible getId() method, but since you are using JPA field-based access, you do not need also to provide a setter, and you may give the method default access. Or you could just declare UserEntity.id such that it is directly accessible by AddressEntity.
On the other hand, if you want to provide for the user ID to be accessible without loading the user entity then instead of a method such as the above getUserId(), in addition to the relationship field you could define a persistent, read-only AddressEntity.userId field, mapped to the appropriate column. It must be read-only because the value of the id in the underlying data store will necessarily be managed via the entity relationship, so it cannot also be managed via this separate field. For example:
#Entity
public class AddressEntity {
// ...
#OneToOne(optional = true, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
private UserEntity user;
#Column(name = "user_id", insertable = false, updatable = false, nullable = true)
public Long userId;
}
This is a brittle approach, and I do not recommend it. It will be prone to problems with the userId field falling out of sync with the user entity. That may be bearable for the usage you have in mind, but this sort of weirdness is fertile ground for future bugs.
*Side note: as far as I know or can determine, JPA does not define semantics for a #JoinColumn annotation on a non-relationship field such as in your original code. That doesn't mean that your particular persistence provider can't interpret it in a way that you characterize as "works fine", but at minimum you are on thin ice with that.
I have a relationship one-to-one between two tables, but the foreign key is on the one I don't need to map, the DBA did this in favor of future changes.
Let's imagine we have User and Address, today every user has only one address, and it will be mapped this way, but DBA believe in the future it could be a one to many mapping, so the foreign key of user is on the address, but the application have instances of users, which is important to fetch address automatically.
We did it right, as follow:
#Entity
#Table(name = "user")
class User {
#Id
#Column(name = "user_id")
private Long id;
//...
#OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.MERGE, mappedBy = "user")
private Address address; // this attribute is crucial
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "address")
class Address {
#Id
#Column(name = "address_id")
private Long id;
#OneToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "user_id")
private User user; // this attribute is not needed for the business at all, but mappedBy requires it
//...
}
Database:
-- SQL:
CREATE TABLE user
(
user_id INT NOT NULL,
-- ...
CONSTRAINT user_pk PRIMARY KEY (user_id)
);
CREATE TABLE address
(
address_id INT NOT NULL,
user_id INT NOT NULL,
-- ...
CONSTRAINT address_pk PRIMARY KEY (address_id),
CONSTRAINT address_user_id_fk FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES user (user_id),
CONSTRAINT address_user_id_uk UNIQUE (user_id) -- it says it's a one to one relation for now, if in the future it won't be anymore, just remove this constraint
);
The problem is when save a instance of user with a new instance of address, the user's attribute of address is null, so I was expecting Hibernate was smart enough to set it the value from the user's instance it comes from.
I'd been looking for a solution for a couple of days, but still didn't find how to solve this, meanwhile I'm setting the value manually, but I expect I don't need to do so.
The standard solution is to properly update both sides of the bidirectional association (although only the owning side needs to be updated for the association to be saved to the database). Add to the Address setter in the User class:
public void setAddress(Address address) {
this.address = address;
address.setUser(this);
}
Also, you may want to extend cascading options for the address property to include PERSIST as well, so that it is always persisted together with its user:
#OneToOne(cascade = {CascadeType.PERSIST, CascadeType.MERGE}, mappedBy = "user")
private Address address;
Then you can set an address to a user and persist both:
user.setAddress(address);
session.persist(user);
If "private User user" is not needed, delete it and delete also mappedBy in 'User' entity. Use a uni-directional relation.
In the case of your example, mappedBy means that the owner of the association is the 'Address' entity, so save the instance of Adress and not User. Like :
adress.setUser(user);
session.save(adress);
You need to add CasecadeType.PERSIST to make the creation Address casecade with creation of User.
In your java code, you need to do:
user.setAddress(address);
address.setUser(user);
session.persist(user);
Then your user will be created with an address.
If when you just want to read the Address of a new created User, then you need to do :
// your code to persist a new User and Address
session.flush();
session.refresh(user);
If it's not what you want, then you need to share your own Java code and give a detailed description on what you're expecting.
I'm creating an application where one large aspect is the ability for users to share content with friends. I'm trying to represent this in the object model and I'm having trouble getting the association to work properly. I'm using a mapping table that records the friender and the friendee, both of which are represented by the primary key (id) of the user. A user can have many friends, and also be referenced by other users. This is what the schema looks like:
Users:
int user_id (PK)
varchar(32) email
varchar(64) password
Users_Map:
int users_map_id (PK)
int friendee_id (FK references users(user_id))
int friender_id (FK references users(user_id))
And this is how I have the User entity set up:
#Data
#Entity
#Table(name = "users")
public class User extends AbstractPersistable<Long> {
#Id
#Column(name = "user_id")
private Long id;
#Column
private String email;
#Column
private String password;
#OneToMany
#JoinTable(name = "users_map",
joinColumns = { #JoinColumn(name = "friender_id") },
inverseJoinColumns = { #JoinColumn(name = "friendee_id") })
private List<User> friends;
}
I run into the following error when deploying the application:
org.hibernate.AnnotationException: A Foreign key refering
com.x.webapp.data.entity.User from
com.x.webapp.data.entity.User has the wrong number of
column. should be 2
I've tried quite a few other configurations, including adding a "referencedColumnName" attribute to each #JoinColumn, but they have also yielded errors. I'm also not entirely sure whether the schema I currently have is the best way to go about mapping users together.
I appreciate any help!
Removing the extension of AbstractPersistable fixed the problem - that contained an #Id reference and clashed with the #Id reference I put inside of User.
I have following unidirectional ManyToOne relation:
#Entity
#Table(name = "Child")
public class Child {
#Id
private Integer id;
#ManyToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
private Parent parent;
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "parent")
public class Parent{
#Id
private Integer id;
}
When I am trying to delete parent Entity from database I have constraint violation.
ORA-02292: integrity constraint violated - child record found
What I need is that parent Entity is deleted even if it has children, but children Entity should stay.
How do I change this relation?
You can't with JPA if using a relationship. Making it a ManyToOne indicates that a value in the foreign key field will exist in the Parent table. JPA will not be able to distinguish between a null fk value and there being a fk value that just doesn't have an associated row in the Parent table.
If it really must be done (and it shouldn't IMO), you would need to map the Integer foreign key value in Child with a basic mapping instead of the ManyToOne. This allows it to be set independently of there being an existing Parent entity - null means null, a value means a value. You can then query for the associated Parent entity if the entity itself is needed.
Maybe an optional=true parameter on the ManyToOne would help?
#Entity
#Table(name = "Child")
public class Child {
#Id
private Integer id;
#ManyToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.EAGER, optional = true)
private Parent parent;
}
I'm assuming you create the schema straight from Hibernate. The goal is to have the foreign key field nullable in the database.
Actually, it can be done.
#JoinColumn(foreignKey = #ForeignKey(name = "none"))
It's only logical to specify a foreign key as lacking referential integrity constraint when you are describing the table that contains this foreign key column.
Surely it's not a best practice to remove the referential integrity constraints in your presistence layer when you are developing some OLTP system; but for data warehouse-alike solutions (first-load-data-then-check-it-as-a-whole) this may be the correct approach.