We are examining 2 different methods to do our entities updates:
"Standard" updates - Fetch from DB, set Fields, persist.
We have a Query for each entity that looks like this:
String sqlQuery = "update Entity set entity.field1 = entity.field1, entity.field2 = entity.field2, entity.field3 = entity.field3, .... entity.fieldn = entity.fieldn"
We receive the fields that changed (and their new values) and we replace the string fields (only those required) with the new values. i.e. something like :
for each field : fields {
sqlQuery.replace(field.fieldName, getNewValue(field));
}
executeQuery(sqlQuery);
Any ideas if these options differ in performance to a large extent? Is the 2nd option even viable? what are the pros / cons?
Please ignore the SQL Injection vulnerability, the example above is only an example, we do use PreparedStatements for the query building.
And build a mix solution?
First, create a hasmap .
Second, create a new query for a PreparedStament using before hasmap (for avoid SQL injection)
Third, set all parameters.
The O(x)=n, where n is the number of parameters.
The first solution is much more flexible You can rely on Hibernate dirty checking mechanism for generating the right updates. That's one good reason why an ORM tool is great when writing data.
The second approach is no way way better because it might generate different update plans, hence you can't reuse the PreparedStatement statement cache across various column combinations. Instead of using string based templates (vulnerable to SQL injections) you could use JOOQ instead. JOOQ allows you to reference your table columns in Java, so you can build the UPDATE query in a type-safe fashion.
Related
I'm extending on my last question I asked about jOOQ. In the Hibernate models the #Filter annotation gets used, and I want to apply this same 'default filter' to the jOOQ queries. As I'm passing a jOOQ query to the nativeQuery(org.jooq.Query query, Class<E> type) I was wondering if it's possible to extract the table (TableImpl<?,?>) used from the FROM clause in the jOOQ query (org.jooq.Query).
This is what I've tried:
private static <E> SelectConditionStep<Record> applyDefaultFilters(Class<E> type, SelectConditionStep<Record> query)
{
if (BaseOrganizationModel.class.isAssignableFrom(type)) {
query
.getQuery()
.addConditions(
query
.getQuery()
.asTable()
.field("organization_id", Long.class)
.eq(currentOrganization().id));
if (SoftDeletableModel.class.isAssignableFrom(type)) {
query
.getQuery()
.addConditions(query.getQuery().asTable().field("deleted", Boolean.class).eq(false));
}
}
return query;
}
The result is this SQL, which is not what I want. I want it to filter the corresponding table.
select distinct `EventGroup`.*
from `EventGroup`
where (
...
and `alias_100341773`.`organization_id` = ?
and `alias_17045196`.`deleted` = ?
)
I want this
select distinct `EventGroup`.*
from `EventGroup`
where (
...
and `EventGroup`.`organization_id` = ?
and `EventGroup`.`deleted` = ?
)
Is this possible at all? And if not, what possible other routes are there? (aside from the obvious passing the table to the function)
Using jOOQ 3.16 query object model API
jOOQ 3.16 introduced a new, experimental (as of 3.16) query object model API, which can be traversed.
On any Select, just call Select.$from() to access an unmodifiable view of the contained table list.
An alternative, dynamic SQL approach for the ad-hoc case
Every time you're trying to mutate an existing query, ask yourself, is there a more elegant way to do this using a more functional, immutable approach do dynamic SQL? Rather than appending your additional predicates to the query, why not produce predicates from a function?
private static Condition defaultFilters(Class<?> type, Table<?> table) {
Condition result = noCondition();
if (BaseOrganizationModel.class.isAssignableFrom(type)) {
result = result.and(table.field("organization_id", Long.class)
.eq(currentOrganization().id));
if (SoftDeletableModel.class.isAssignableFrom(type))
result = result.and(not(table.field("deleted", Boolean.class)))
}
return result;
}
And now, when you construct your query, you can add the filters:
ctx.select(T.A, T.B)
.from(T)
.where(T.X.eq(1))
.and(defaultFilters(myType, T))
.fetch();
A generic way to transform your SQL
If you really want to mutate your query (e.g. in a utility for all queries), then a transformation approach might be better suited. There are different ways to approach this.
Using views
Some RDBMS can access session variables in views. In Oracle, you'd be setting some SYS_CONTEXT variable to your organization_id inside of a view, and then query only the (possibly updatable) views instead of the tables directly. MySQL unfortunately can't do the equivalent thing, see Is there any equivalent to ORACLE SYS_CONTEXT('USERENV', 'OS_USER') in MYSQL?
I've described this approach here in this blog post. The advantage of this approach is that you will never forget to set the predicate (you can validate your view source code with CI/CD tests), and if you ever forget to set the session context variable, the view will just not return any data, so it's quite a secure approach.
Together with the WITH CHECK OPTION clause, you can even prevent insertions into wrong organization_id, which improves security.
Using a VisitListener in jOOQ
This is the most powerful approach to do this in jOOQ, and exactly what you want, but also quite a tricky one to get right for all edge cases. See this post about implementing row level security in jOOQ. Starting from jOOQ 3.16, there will be better ways to transform your SQL via https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/12425.
Note, it won't work for plain SQL templates that do not use any jOOQ query parts, nor for JDBC based queries or other queries that you may have in your system, so be careful with this approach as you might leak data from other organisations.
Of course, you could implement this step also on the JDBC layer, using jOOQ's ParsingConnection or ParsingDataSource, that way you can intercept also third party SQL and append your predicates.
This can work for all DML statements, including UPDATE, DELETE. It's a bit harder for INSERT, as you'd have to transform INSERT .. VALUES into INSERT .. SELECT, or throw an exception if someone wants to insert into the wrong organization_id.
Using a ExecuteListener in jOOQ
A bit more hackish than the above VisitListener approach, but generally easier to get right, just regex-replace the WHERE clause of all your statements by WHERE organization_id = ... AND in an ExecuteListener.
To play it safe, you could reject all queries without a WHERE clause, or do some additional trickery to add the WHERE clause at the right place in case there isn't already one.
Using jOOQ's equivalent of Hibernate's #Filter
jOOQ's equivalent of Hibernate's #Filter is the Table.where(Condition) clause. It's not an exact equivalent, you'd have to prevent direct access to T in your code base and make sure users access T only via a method that replaces T by T.where(defaultFilters(myType, T)) instead.
This approach currently loses type safety of the T table, see: https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/8012
While building a query using Hibernate, I noticed something rather odd. If I use sequential named parameters for the ORDER BY clause, Hibernate throws a QuerySyntaxException (the colon prefix being an unexpected token):
createQuery("FROM MyEntity ORDER BY :orderProperty :orderDirection");
However, when this is done with a plain SQL query the query is created without a problem:
createSQLQuery("SELECT * FROM my_entity_table ORDER BY :orderProperty :orderDirection");
I know Hibernate is doing more String evaluation for the HQL query, which is probably why the SQL query is created without an error. I am just wondering why Hibernate would care that there are two sequential named parameters.
This isn't a huge issue since it is simple to work around (can just append the asc or desc String value to the HQL instead of using a named paramater for it), but it struck my curiosity why Hibernate is preventing it (perhaps simply because 99% of the time sequential named parameters like this result in invalid SQL/HQL).
I've been testing this in my local, and I can't get your desired outcome to work with HQL.
Here is quote from the post I linked:
You can't bind a column name as a parameter. Only a column value. This name has to be known when the execution plan is computed, before binding parameter values and executing the query. If you really want to have such a dynamic query, use the Criteria API, or some other way of dynamically creating a query.
Criteria API looks to be the more useful tool for your purposes.
Here is an example:
Criteria criteria = session.createCriteria(MyEntity.class);
if (orderDirection.equals("desc")) {
criteria.addOrder(Order.desc(orderProperty));
}
else {
criteria.addOrder(Order.asc(orderProperty));
}
According to the answer accepted in this question, you can only define parameters in WHERE and HAVING clauses.
The same answer also gives you some ways to have a workaround for your problem, however I will add one more way to do this:
Use the CASE - WHEN clause in your ORDER BY, this would work by the following way:
SELECT u FROM User u
ORDER BY
CASE WHEN '**someinputhere**' = :orderProperty
AND '**someotherinput**' = :orderDirection
THEN yourColumn asc
ELSE yourColumn desc END
Please, note that in this approach would required you to write all the possible inputs for ordering. Not really beautiful but really useful, especially because you would not need to write multiple queries with different orderings, plus with this approach you can use NamedQueries, which would be possible by writing the query dinamically using string concats.
Hope this can solve your problem, good luck!
Any one tell me the HQL for this SQL code
UPDATE ModelClassname SET ClassVariablename=ClassVariablename+10 WHERE ClassVariableId=001;
There is no point using HQL to do that, you can use direct SQL if you want to do that, through a JDBC query (or even through a Hibernate query, you can use SQL queries).
Using HQL queries to update is only recommended when doing batch updates, not a single row.
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/3.3/reference/en/html/batch.html#batch-direct
A more object-oriented way would be to load your object using HQL, do what you need to do in the Java world (columnValue +=10, whatever else you need to do), and then persist it back using hibernate session flush.
I suppose it involves more operations so it's less efficient (in pure performance) but depending on your Hibernate configuration (caching, clustering, second-level cache, etc.) it could be a lot better. Not to mention more testable, of course.
As others say, there is better ways, but if you really have to, then for example with following syntax:
update EntityName m set m.salary = m.salary +10 where m.id = 1
In addition to Adam Batkin's answer, I would like to add that such queries are generally not used (except if you need to modify a whole loat of rows at once) in Hibernate. The goal of Hibernate is to work with objects. So you generally do:
MyEntity m = (MyEntity) session.get(MyEntity.class, "001");
m.setValue(m.getValue() + 10);
// and the new value will automatically be written to database at flush time
The HQL query should look pretty similar, except instead of using table and column names, you should use the entity and property names (i.e. whatever you use in Java).
Please try this one
Query q = session.createQuery("from ModelClassname where ClassVariableId= :ClassVariableId");
q.setParameter("ClassVariableId", 001);
ModelClassname result = (ModelClassname)q.list().get(0);
Integer i = result.getClassVariableName();
result.setClassVariableName(i+10);
session.update(result);
With Regards,
Lavanyavathi.Bharathidhasan
HQL will help you here with bringing object to you with its session's help that you can update easily.
//id of employee that you want to update
int updatedEmployeeID = 6;
//exact employee that you want to update
Employee updateEmployee = session.get(Employee.class, updatedEmployeeID);
//for debug to see is that exact data that you want to update
System.out.println("Employee before update: "+updateEmployee);
//basically we use setter to update from the #Entity class
updateEmployee.setCompany("Arthur House");
//commit
session.getTransaction().commit();
Let's depict the following use case: I have a JPQL Query which on the fly creates data objects using the new keyword. In the SELECT clause I would like to inject an attribute which is not known to the database but to the layer which queries it.
This could look like
EntityManager em; // Got it from somewhere
boolean editable = false; // Value might change, e.g. depending on current date
Query q = em.createQuery("SELECT new foo.bar.MyDTO(o, :editable) FROM MyObject o")
.setParameter("editable", editable);
List<MyDTO> results = (List<MyDTO>) q.getResultList();
Any ideas how this kind of attribute or parameter injection into the SELECT clause might work in JPQL? Both JPA and JPA 2.0 solutions are applicable.
Edit: Performance does not play a key role, but clarity and cleanness of code.
Have you measured a performance problem when simply iterating over the list of results and call a setter on each of the elements. I would guess that compared to
the time it takes to execute the query over the database (inter-process call, network communication)
the time it takes to transform each row into a MyObject instance using reflection
the time it takes to transform each MyObject instance into a MyDTO using reflection
your loop will be very fast.
If you're so concerned about performance, you should construct your MyDTO instances manually from the returned MyObject instances instead of relying on Hibernate and reflection to do it.
Keep is simple, safe, readable and maintainable first. Then, if you have a performance problem, measure to detect where it comes from. Then and only then, optimize.
It will not work without possible vendor extensions, because according specification:
4.6.4 Input Parameters
...
Input parameters can only be used in the
WHERE clause or HAVING clause of a query.
In legacy database tables we have numbered columns like C1, C2, C3, C100 or M1, M2, M3, M100.
This columns represent BLOB data.
It is not possible to change anything it this database.
By using JPA Embeddable we map all of the columns to single fields. And then during embedding we override names by using 100 override annotations.
Recently we have switched to Hibernate and I've found things like UserCollectionType and CompositeUserType. But I hadn't found any use cases that are close to mine.
Is it possible to implement some user type by using Hibernate to be able to map a bundle of columns to a collection without additional querying?
Edit:
As you probably noticed the names of columns can differ from table to table. I want to create one type like "LegacyArray" with no need to specify all of the #Columns each time I use this type.
But instead I'd use
#Type(type = "LegacyArrayUserType",
parameters =
{
#Parameter(name = "prefix", value = "A"),
#Parameter(name = "size", value = "128")
})
List<Integer> legacyA;
#Type(type = "LegacyArrayUserType",
parameters =
{
#Parameter(name = "prefix", value = "B"),
#Parameter(name = "size", value = "64")
})
List<Integer> legacyB;
I can think of a couple of ways that I would do this.
1. Create views for the collection information that simulates a normalized table structure, and map it to Hibernate as a collection:
Assuming your existing table is called primaryentity, I would create a view that's similar to the following:
-- untested SQL...
create view childentity as
(select primaryentity_id, c1 from primaryentity union
select primaryentity_id, c2 from primaryentity union
select primaryentity_id, c3 from primaryentity union
--...
select primaryentity_id, c100 from primaryentity)
Now from Hibernate's perspective, childentity is just a normalized table that has a foreign key to primarykey. Mapping this should be pretty straight forward, and is covered here:
http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/stable/core/reference/en/html/collections.html
The benefits of this approach:
From Hibernate's point of view, the tables are normalized, it's a fairly simple mapping
No updates to your existing tables
The drawbacks:
Data is read-only, I don't think your view can be defined in an updatable manner (I could be wrong)
Requires change to the database, you may need to create lots of views
Alternately, if your DBA won't even let you add a view to the database, or if you need to perform updates:
2. Use Hibernate's dynamic model mapping facility to map your C1, C2, C3 properties to a Map, and have some code you your DAO layer do the appropriate conversation between the Map and the Collection property:
I have never done this myself, but I believe Hibernate does allow you to map tables to HashMaps. I'm not sure how dynamically Hibernate allows you to do this (i.e., Can you get away with simply specifying the table name, and having Hibernate automatically map all the columns?), but it's another way I can think of doing this.
If going with this approach though, be sure to use the data access object pattern, and ensure that the internal implementation (use of HashMaps) is hidden from the client code. Also be sure to check before writing to the database that the size of your collection does not exceed the number of available columns.
The benefits of this approach:
No change to the database at all
Data is updatable
O/R Mapping is relatively simple
The drawbacks:
Lots of plumbing in the DAO layer to map the appropriate types
Uses experimental Hibernate features that may change in the future
Personally, I think that design sounds like it breaks first normal form for relational databases. What happens if you need C101 or M101? Change your schema again? I think it's very intrusive.
If you add Hibernate to the mix it's even worse. Adding C101 or M101 means having to alter your Java objects, your Hibernate mappings, everything.
If you have 1:m relationships with C and M tables, you'd be able handle the cases I just cited by adding additional rows. Your Java objects contain Collection<C> or Collection<M>. Your Hibernate mappings are one-to-many that don't change.
Maybe the reason that you don't see any Hibernate examples to match your case because it's a design that's not recommended.
If you must, maybe you should look at Hibernate Component Mapping.
UPDATE: The fact that this is legacy is duly noted. My point in bringing up first normal form is as much for others who might find this question in the future as it is for the person who posted the question. I would not want to answer the question in such a way that it silently asserted this design as "good".
Pointing out Hibernate component mapping is pertinent because knowing the name of what you're looking for can be the key when you're searching. Hibernate allows an object model to be finer grained than the relational model it maps. You are free to model a denormalized schema (e.g., Name and Address objects as part of a larger Person object). That's just the name they give such a technique. It might help find other examples as well.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your problem here, I don't know much about Hibernate. But couldn't you just concatenate during selection from database to get something like what you want?
Like:
SELECT whatever
, C1||C2||C3||C4||...||C100 AS CDATA
, M1||M2||M3||M4||...||M100 AS MDATA
FROM ...
WHERE ...
(Of course, the concatenation operator differs between RDBMSs.)
[EDIT] I suggest to use a CompositeUserType. Here is an example. There is also a good example on page 228f in the book "Java Persistence With Hibernate".
That allows you to handle the many columns as a single object in Java.
The mapping looks like this:
#org.hibernate.annotations.Columns(columns = {
#Column(name="C1"),
#Column(name="C2"),
#Column(name="C3"),
...
})
private List<Integer> c;
Hibernate will load all columns at once during the normal query.
In your case, you must copy the int values from the list into a fixed number of columns in nullSafeSet. Pseudocode:
for (int i=1; i<numColumns; i++)
if (i < list.size())
resultSet.setInt(index+i, list.get(i));
else
resultSet.setNull(index+i, Hibernate.INTEGER.sqlType());
In nullSafeGet you must create a list and stop adding elements when a column is NULL. For additional safety, I suggest to create your own list implementation which doesn't allow to grow beyond the number of columns (inherit from ArrayList and override ensureCapacity()).
[EDIT2] If you don't want to type all the #Column annotations, use a code generator for them. That can be as simple as script which you give a name and a number and it prints #Column(...) to System.out. After the script ran, just cut&paste the data into the source.
The only other solution would be to access the internal Hibernate API to build that information at runtime but that API is internal, so a lot of stuff is private. You can use Java reflection and setAccessible(true) but that code probably won't survive the next update of Hibernate.
You can use UserTypes to map a given number of columns to any type you wish. This could be a collection if (for example) for collections are always bounded in size by a known number of items.
It's been a while (> 3 years) since I used Hibernate so I'm pretty rusty but I recall it being very easy to do; your BespokeUserType class gets passed the ResultSet to hydrate your object from it.
I too have never used Hibernate.
I suggest writing a small program in an interpreted language (such as Python) in which you can execute a string as if it were a command. You could construct a statement which takes the tedious work out of doing what you want to do manually.