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 am developing an REST API to a pizzeria store. And here i'm trying to delete a Flavor and all data related to it. Further explained below:
Classes:
Flavor have at least one Filling, each one taking a position on it.
i.e: Souce (at pos. 1), mozzarela (at pos. 2) tomato (at pos. 3)
Flavors must have a price to each Size
With that in mind, we can conclude that exist two many-to-many relationships:
Flavor to many Filling
Flavor to many Size
Class diagram of actual implementation
The requirement is to: delete a Flavor, and automatically delete all the FillingPositionFlavor and FlavorPriceSize.
But,I'm confused on use of CascadeType.REMOVE and orphanRemoval = true:
When I use Cascade and OrphanRemoval on Flavor.sizePrices, get a HibernateException when trying to edit a Flavor, exclusion works fine:
A collection with cascade="all-delete-orphan" was no longer referenced by the owning entity instance: com.pkg.Flavor.sizePrices
When I use Cascade on Flavor.sizePrices, get a PSQLException when excluding a Flavor, editing works fine:
ERROR: update or delete on table "tb_flavor" violates foreign key constraint "fk9orw0yhtc0e06ka84dbcd2c82" on table "tb_flavor_size_price"
I'm doing unit testing of services in Spring Boot to test all the CRUD operations.
Below is the actual code, I hid properties like id and others to facilitate the read.
#Entity
#Table(name = "tb_flavor")
class Flavor {
#OneToMany(cascade = {CascadeType.PERSIST,CascadeType.REMOVE},orphanRemoval = true)
private Set<FlavorPositionFilling> flavors = new HashSet<FlavorPositionFilling>();
#OneToMany(cascade = {CascadeType.PERSIST, CascadeType.REMOVE},orphanRemoval = true)
private Set<FlavorPriceSize> priceSizes;
// other properties and methods
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "tb_flavor_price_size")
class FlavorPriceSize {
#EmbeddedId
private FlavorPriceSizeEmbeddeId id;
private float price;
// other properties and methods
}
#Embeddable
class FlavorPriceSizeEmbeddeId implements Serializable {
#ManyToOne(cascade = { CascadeType.ALL })
#JoinColumn(name = "ID_FLAVOR_FK", referencedColumnName = "id_flavor")
private Flavor flavor;
#ManyToOne(cascade = { CascadeType.ALL })
#JoinColumn(name = "ID_SIZE_FK", referencedColumnName = "id_size")
private Size size;
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "tb_flabor_position_filling")
class FlaborPositionFilling {
#EmbeddedId
private FlaborPositionFillingEmbeddedId id;
private Integer position;
}
#Embeddable
class FlaborPositionFillingEmbeddedId implements Serializable {
#ManyToOne(cascade = CascadeType.REMOVE)
#JoinColumn(name="ID_FLAVOR_FK", referencedColumnName="id_flavor")
private Flavor sabor;
#ManyToOne()
#JoinColumn(name="ID_FILLING_FK", referencedColumnName="id_filling")
private Filling filling;
}
I've read a lot about both, but still not understand the right use of each and their effect on operations. Can anyone explain it to me? Show videos, images, code...
Let's assume that you have a parent -> child relationship.
If you set CacadeType.REMOVE on the relationship every EntityManager.remove call on the parent will also remove the children.
orphanRemoval = true is used to delete orphan children.
So if remove a child from the parent reference or collection and save the parent the child will be deleted because its no longer attached to the parent.
Posting this here as I wasn't seeing much interest here: http://www.java-forums.org/jpa/96175-openjpa-one-many-within-one-many-merge-problems.html
Trying to figure out if this is a problem with OpenJPA or something I may be doing wrong...
I'm facing a problem when trying to use OpenJPA to update an Entity that contains a One to Many relationship to another Entity, that has a One to Many relationship to another. Here's a quick example of what I'm talking about:
#Entity
#Table(name = "school")
public class School {
#Column(name = "id")
protected Long id;
#Column(name = "name")
protected String name;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "school", orphanRemoval = true, cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
protected Collection<ClassRoom> classRooms;
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "classroom")
public class ClassRoom {
#Column(name = "id")
protected Long id;
#Column(name = "room_number")
protected String roomNumber;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "school_id")
protected School school;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "classRoom", orphanRemoval = true, cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
protected Collection<Desk> desks;
}
#Entity
#Table(name = "desk")
public class Desk {
#Column(name = "id")
protected Long id;
#ManyToOne
#JoinColumn(name = "classroom_id")
protected ClassRoom classRoom;
}
In the SchoolService class, I have the following update method:
#Transactional
public void update(School school) {
em.merge(school);
}
I'm trying to remove a Class Room from the School. I remove it from the classRooms collection and call update. I'm noticing if the Class Room has no desks, there are no issues. But if the Class Room has desks, it throws a constraint error as it seems to try to delete the Class Room first, then the Desks. (There is a foreign key constraint for the classroom_id column)
Am I going about this the wrong way? Is there some setting I'm missing to get it to delete the interior "Desk" instances first before deleting the Class Room instance that was removed?
Any help would be appreciated. If you need any more info, please just let me know.
Thanks,
There are various bug reports around FK violations in OpenJPA when cascading remove operations to child entities:
The OpenJPA FAQ notes that the following:
http://openjpa.apache.org/faq.html#reorder
Can OpenJPA reorder SQL statements to satisfy database foreign key
constraints?
Yes. OpenJPA can reorder and/or batch the SQL statements using
different configurable strategies. The default strategy is capable of
reordering the SQL statements to satisfy foreign key constraints.
However ,you must tell OpenJPA to read the existing foreign key
information from the database schema:
It would seem you can force the correct ordering of the statements by either setting the following property in your OpenJPA config
<property name="openjpa.jdbc.SchemaFactory"> value="native(ForeignKeys=true)"/>
or by adding the org.apache.openjpa.persistence.jdbc.ForeignKey annotation to the mapping:
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "classRoom", orphanRemoval = true, cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#org.apache.openjpa.persistence.jdbc.ForeignKey
protected Collection<Desk> desks;
See also:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-1936
I'm starting my first project with Hibernate 4.2.21 and first with JPA 2.0, I want to create a relationship OneToMany Unidirectional. I saw a lot examples in version of Hibernate 3 but not much in 4.2.21 This example works perfectly but I don't know if is a good practice, I want to know the Opinion from another members about that?
Relationship One To Many:
-Parent Template:
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "template_id")
private Set<Variable> variables = new LinkedHashSet<Variable>();
-Child: Variable
#Column(name = "template_id", nullable = false)
Integer templateId;
According with this another post's.
Hibernate unidirectional one to many association - why is a join table better?
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/annotations/reference/en/html_single/#entity-mapping-association-collections
A unidirectional one to many using a foreign key column in the owned entity is not that common and not really recommended. We strongly advise you to use a join table for this kind of association (as explained in the next section). This kind of association is described through a #JoinColumn
#Entity
public class Customer implements Serializable {
#OneToMany(cascade=CascadeType.ALL, fetch=FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinColumn(name="CUST_ID")
public Set<Ticket> getTickets() {
...
}
#Entity
public class Ticket implements Serializable {
... //no bidir
}
Unidirectional with join table
A unidirectional one to many with join table is much preferred. This association is described through an #JoinTable.
#Entity
public class Trainer {
#OneToMany
#JoinTable(
name="TrainedMonkeys",
joinColumns = #JoinColumn( name="trainer_id"),
inverseJoinColumns = #JoinColumn( name="monkey_id")
)
public Set<Monkey> getTrainedMonkeys() {
...
}
#Entity
public class Monkey {
... //no bidir
}
Finally the only way it's implement the bidirectional method... yes or no?
I have a Person object. Person has a manager property which is again of type Person.
#OneToOne(optional = true, cascade = { CascadeType.ALL })
private Person manager;
Say John is the manager and Bob is the employee. When I am trying to delete John, it fails since Bob becomes orphan (without Manager). That should be allowed in my use case. But marking this relationship "optional" doesn't help. And Cascade doesn't seem to have any significance here.
I presume this is possible with JPA. Any help?
#Entity
public class Person {
#Id
private String id;
private String name;
private Integer age;
private Address address;
#JoinColumn(name = "manager_id", nullable = true, insertable = true, updatable = true)
#OneToOne(optional = true, cascade = { CascadeType.ALL })
private Person manager;
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "manager", cascade = { CascadeType.ALL })
public Collection<Person> reportees;
You should set null as Bob's manager, before trying to delete John. Also, #Andrei is right, you should map this as bidirectional #ManyToOne relation (although your code will work if you know all the persons that have John as their manager).
I doubt the relationship is #OneToOne, as there are many employees that have the same manager.
If you insist that it is #OneToOne, then make the relationship bidirectional, by adding the property in the Person Java class:
#OneToOne(mappedBy="manager", cascade = { CascadeType.ALL })
private Person employee;
I deleted the parent entity before deleting children. Not the ideal solution but works for me.
I also tried the bidirectional relationship (by adding #ManyToOne reportees property of type Person) and marked the relationship "optional" using #JoinColumn also marked nullable=true. But nothing worked.