Related
For example, in Spring/SpringBoot you can use Spring Data JPA for adding and deleting data in the database.
Does it make sense before deleting an entity to first check if the entity exists? What are the advantages or disadvantages of doing so?
In general it is a bad idea to check first before doing something e.g., check whether a file exists before opening it, or in this case, check whether a record in a database exists before deleting it. Most if not all systems are multi-threaded, multi-user systems, and just because a file existed a millisecond ago doesn't mean it will still exist when you try to open it, and just because a row in a table existed a millisecond ago doesn't mean it will still exist when you try to delete it.
For instance, it is possible that some other process or thread was in the middle of deleting it when you checked and was just about to commit the transaction. You check for the row; you see it exists. The transaction gets committed. You try to delete it, but it fails because there is no such row.
No amount of checking in advance can avoid a failure. Because of this, you always have to handle the case where failure occurs. So it is always better to simply try the operation and handle the case where it fails.
If you use Spring Data and delete a non-exist Entity using deleteById(), you will get an Exception.
So if better to handle this exception in your code.
#Transactional
public void deleteById(ID id) {
Assert.notNull(id, "The given id must not be null!");
this.delete(this.findById(id).orElseThrow(() -> {
return new EmptyResultDataAccessException(String.format("No %s entity with id %s exists!", this.entityInformation.getJavaType(), id), 1);
}));
}
You can avoid this by rewriting the query
#Modifying
#Query(nativeQuery =true, value = "DELETE from reservation r WHERE r.id = ?1")
void deleteById(Long id);
Also, no exception thrown if you use derived methods,such as
void deleteByReservationNumber(String reservationNumber);
Spring will throw an error for the built in functionality for deleting if the entity doesn't exist, but if you write a custom query it will no throw an error. It will also simplify your code.
in your repository you can have a query like this:
#Modifying
#Transactional
#Query("DELETE from f FROM foo f WHERE f.id = ?1")
void deleteById(int Id);
This will take advantage of how the Database handles empty entities instead of Spring/Hibernate
It depends on the use case. I think the only main disadvantage for doing so is one extra database access, which always costs way more than RAM access.
Spring hibernate JPA will already throw an EmptyResultDataAccessException if you try to delete something that does not exist, so you can do this:
try {
repository.deleteById(id);
} catch (EmptyResultDataAccessException e) {
// some log or business logic here
}
Warning: for example, if you use MongoDB, Spring hibernate will not throw an exception, so if you really want to know if the record exists before deletion you have to explicit check it (costing an extra DB access).
The system I'm currently working on has a policy in which objects that have no relationships can be freely deleted, while those that do must be logically deleted. This is meant to prevent historical information from being deleted.
So basically, what I was trying to do was determine whether an object's key is currently present in another table. If it isn't I would simply call delete(), otherwise I would set a property that indicates a logical delete, and call update().
I'm using Spring transaction management, so I'm trying to mess with the session itself as least as possible. My initial approach seemed to work at first, but you'll see that it has a major flaw:
#Transactional
public void deleteObject(SomeEntity object)
{
//try to delete
this.someEntityDAO.delete(object);
try //force foreign key constraint check
{
this.someEntityDAO.flush();
}
catch (ConstraintViolationException e)
{
//reload object
object= this.someEntityDAO.loadById(object.getId());
//save as inactive instead of deleting
object.setActive(false);
this.someEntityDAO.update(object);
}
}
Since Hibernate exceptions are fatal, this is completely unreliable (even though it works). I was wondering if there is a way to do a sort of "peek" operation in which I could test if the delete will fail due to a constraint, without actually performing the operation (and thus invalidating the session). The only thing I can think of is to manually check each related table to see if the id is present, but this would be very tedious and error-prone in tables with many relationships. I want to leverage the constraints that are already in place in the database, if possible.
Speaking specifically to:
So basically, what I was trying to do was determine whether an object's key is currently present in another table. If it isn't I would simply call delete(), otherwise I would set a property that indicates a logical delete, and call update().
and:
I was wondering if there is a way to do a sort of "peek" operation in which I could test if the delete will fail due to a constraint, without actually performing the operation (and thus invalidating the session).
I have only worked occasionally with Hibernate, but the general answer is: This is what SQL is for. It's all in your where clause!
For clarity: You do your delete with a sufficient where clause that it does the check in the transaction itself; The delete deletes whatever it is that meets the constraints given.
Update:
When you write:
"So basically, what I was trying to do was determine whether an object's key is currently present in another table. If it isn't I would simply call delete(), otherwise I would set a property that indicates a logical delete, and call update()."
the problem is that YOU are trying to do this when you should let (direct) the database engine to do it for you in your SQL. Investigate use of the "not exists" clause...
I know i´m late but this is how you can do it:
Create a procedure in your DB:
PROCEDURE CHECK_DELETABLE(pk in SomeTable.pk%type,
CHECK_OUT OUT NUMBER)
is
BEGIN
CHECK_OUT := 1;
begin
EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'delete from SomeTable where pk = ' || pk;
EXCEPTION WHEN OTHERS THEN
begin
CHECK_OUT := 0;
end;
end;
rollback;
end;
Then you can write a JPA Function, which tells you if the record is deletable:
public boolean checkDeletable(Long pk) {
if (pk == null || pk < 1) {
return false;
}
return new CheckDeletableProcedure(getDataSource()).execute(pk);
}
And the CheckDeletableProcedure:
public class CheckDeletableProcedure extends StoredProcedure {
private static final String STORED_PROC_NAME = "SOME_PACKAGE.CHECK_DELETABLE";
public CheckDeletableProcedure(DataSource ds) {
super(ds, STORED_PROC_NAME);
declareParameter(new SqlParameter("pk", Types.BIGINT));
declareParameter(new SqlOutParameter("CHECK_OUT", Types.INTEGER));
}
public boolean execute(Long pk) {
HashMap<String, Object> inParams = new HashMap<>();
inParams.put("pk", pk);
Map<String, Object> result = execute(inParams);
return ((Integer) result.get("CHECK_OUT")) == 1;
}
}
I'm trying to write a method that will return a Hibernate object based on a unique but non-primary key. If the entity already exists in the database I want to return it, but if it doesn't I want to create a new instance and save it before returning.
UPDATE: Let me clarify that the application I'm writing this for is basically a batch processor of input files. The system needs to read a file line by line and insert records into the db. The file format is basically a denormalized view of several tables in our schema so what I have to do is parse out the parent record either insert it into the db so I can get a new synthetic key, or if it already exists select it. Then I can add additional associated records in other tables that have foreign keys back to that record.
The reason this gets tricky is that each file needs to be either totally imported or not imported at all, i.e. all inserts and updates done for a given file should be a part of one transaction. This is easy enough if there's only one process that's doing all the imports, but I'd like to break this up across multiple servers if possible. Because of these constraints I need to be able to stay inside one transaction, but handle the exceptions where a record already exists.
The mapped class for the parent records looks like this:
#Entity
public class Foo {
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = IDENTITY)
private int id;
#Column(unique = true)
private String name;
...
}
My initial attempt at writting this method is as follows:
public Foo findOrCreate(String name) {
Foo foo = new Foo();
foo.setName(name);
try {
session.save(foo)
} catch(ConstraintViolationException e) {
foo = session.createCriteria(Foo.class).add(eq("name", name)).uniqueResult();
}
return foo;
}
The problem is when the name I'm looking for exists, an org.hibernate.AssertionFailure exception is thrown by the call to uniqueResult(). The full stack trace is below:
org.hibernate.AssertionFailure: null id in com.searchdex.linktracer.domain.LinkingPage entry (don't flush the Session after an exception occurs)
at org.hibernate.event.def.DefaultFlushEntityEventListener.checkId(DefaultFlushEntityEventListener.java:82) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.event.def.DefaultFlushEntityEventListener.getValues(DefaultFlushEntityEventListener.java:190) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.event.def.DefaultFlushEntityEventListener.onFlushEntity(DefaultFlushEntityEventListener.java:147) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.event.def.AbstractFlushingEventListener.flushEntities(AbstractFlushingEventListener.java:219) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.event.def.AbstractFlushingEventListener.flushEverythingToExecutions(AbstractFlushingEventListener.java:99) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.event.def.DefaultAutoFlushEventListener.onAutoFlush(DefaultAutoFlushEventListener.java:58) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.impl.SessionImpl.autoFlushIfRequired(SessionImpl.java:1185) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.impl.SessionImpl.list(SessionImpl.java:1709) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.impl.CriteriaImpl.list(CriteriaImpl.java:347) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
at org.hibernate.impl.CriteriaImpl.uniqueResult(CriteriaImpl.java:369) [hibernate-core-3.6.0.Final.jar:3.6.0.Final]
Does anyone know what is causing this exception to be thrown? Does hibernate support a better way of accomplishing this?
Let me also preemptively explain why I'm inserting first and then selecting if and when that fails. This needs to work in a distributed environment so I can't synchronize across the check to see if the record already exists and the insert. The easiest way to do this is to let the database handle this synchronization by checking for the constraint violation on every insert.
I had a similar batch processing requirement, with processes running on multiple JVMs. The approach I took for this was as follows. It is very much like jtahlborn's suggestion. However, as vbence pointed out, if you use a NESTED transaction, when you get the constraint violation exception, your session is invalidated. Instead, I use REQUIRES_NEW, which suspends the current transaction and creates a new, independent transaction. If the new transaction rolls back it will not affect the original transaction.
I am using Spring's TransactionTemplate but I'm sure you could easily translate it if you do not want a dependency on Spring.
public T findOrCreate(final T t) throws InvalidRecordException {
// 1) look for the record
T found = findUnique(t);
if (found != null)
return found;
// 2) if not found, start a new, independent transaction
TransactionTemplate tt = new TransactionTemplate((PlatformTransactionManager)
transactionManager);
tt.setPropagationBehavior(TransactionDefinition.PROPAGATION_REQUIRES_NEW);
try {
found = (T)tt.execute(new TransactionCallback<T>() {
try {
// 3) store the record in this new transaction
return store(t);
} catch (ConstraintViolationException e) {
// another thread or process created this already, possibly
// between 1) and 2)
status.setRollbackOnly();
return null;
}
});
// 4) if we failed to create the record in the second transaction, found will
// still be null; however, this would happy only if another process
// created the record. let's see what they made for us!
if (found == null)
found = findUnique(t);
} catch (...) {
// handle exceptions
}
return found;
}
You need to use UPSERT or MERGE to achieve this goal.
However, Hibernate does not offer support for this construct, so you need to use jOOQ instead.
private PostDetailsRecord upsertPostDetails(
DSLContext sql, Long id, String owner, Timestamp timestamp) {
sql
.insertInto(POST_DETAILS)
.columns(POST_DETAILS.ID, POST_DETAILS.CREATED_BY, POST_DETAILS.CREATED_ON)
.values(id, owner, timestamp)
.onDuplicateKeyIgnore()
.execute();
return sql.selectFrom(POST_DETAILS)
.where(field(POST_DETAILS.ID).eq(id))
.fetchOne();
}
Calling this method on PostgreSQL:
PostDetailsRecord postDetailsRecord = upsertPostDetails(
sql,
1L,
"Alice",
Timestamp.from(LocalDateTime.now().toInstant(ZoneOffset.UTC))
);
Yields the following SQL statements:
INSERT INTO "post_details" ("id", "created_by", "created_on")
VALUES (1, 'Alice', CAST('2016-08-11 12:56:01.831' AS timestamp))
ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING;
SELECT "public"."post_details"."id",
"public"."post_details"."created_by",
"public"."post_details"."created_on",
"public"."post_details"."updated_by",
"public"."post_details"."updated_on"
FROM "public"."post_details"
WHERE "public"."post_details"."id" = 1
On Oracle and SQL Server, jOOQ will use MERGE while on MySQL it will use ON DUPLICATE KEY.
The concurrency mechanism is ensured by the row-level locking mechanism employed when inserting, updating, or deleting a record, which you can view in the following diagram:
Code avilable on GitHub.
Two solution come to mind:
That's what TABLE LOCKS are for
Hibernate does not support table locks, but this is the situation when they come handy. Fortunately you can use native SQL thru Session.createSQLQuery(). For example (on MySQL):
// no access to the table for any other clients
session.createSQLQuery("LOCK TABLES foo WRITE").executeUpdate();
// safe zone
Foo foo = session.createCriteria(Foo.class).add(eq("name", name)).uniqueResult();
if (foo == null) {
foo = new Foo();
foo.setName(name)
session.save(foo);
}
// releasing locks
session.createSQLQuery("UNLOCK TABLES").executeUpdate();
This way when a session (client connection) gets the lock, all the other connections are blocked until the operation ends and the locks are released. Read operations are also blocked for other connections, so needless to say use this only in case of atomic operations.
What about Hibernate's locks?
Hibernate uses row level locking. We can not use it directly, because we can not lock non-existent rows. But we can create a dummy table with a single record, map it to the ORM, then use SELECT ... FOR UPDATE style locks on that object to synchronize our clients. Basically we only need to be sure that no other clients (running the same software, with the same conventions) will do any conflicting operations while we are working.
// begin transaction
Transaction transaction = session.beginTransaction();
// blocks until any other client holds the lock
session.load("dummy", 1, LockOptions.UPGRADE);
// virtual safe zone
Foo foo = session.createCriteria(Foo.class).add(eq("name", name)).uniqueResult();
if (foo == null) {
foo = new Foo();
foo.setName(name)
session.save(foo);
}
// ends transaction (releasing locks)
transaction.commit();
Your database has to know the SELECT ... FOR UPDATE syntax (Hibernate is goig to use it), and of course this only works if all your clients has the same convention (they need to lock the same dummy entity).
The Hibernate documentation on transactions and exceptions states that all HibernateExceptions are unrecoverable and that the current transaction must be rolled back as soon as one is encountered. This explains why the code above does not work. Ultimately you should never catch a HibernateException without exiting the transaction and closing the session.
The only real way to accomplish this it would seem would be to manage the closing of the old session and reopening of a new one within the method itself. Implementing a findOrCreate method which can participate in an existing transaction and is safe within a distributed environment would seem to be impossible using Hibernate based on what I have found.
The solution is in fact really simple. First perform a select using your name value. If a result is found, return that. If not, create a new one. In case the creation fail (with an exception), this is because another client added this very same value between your select and your insert statement. This is then logical that you have an exception. Catch it, rollback your transaction and run the same code again. Because the row already exist, the select statement will find it and you'll return your object.
You can see here explanation of strategies for optimistic and pessimistic locking with hibernate here : http://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/core/3.3/reference/en/html/transactions.html
a couple people have mentioned different parts of the overall strategy. assuming that you generally expect to find an existing object more often than you create a new object:
search for existing object by name. if found, return
start nested (separate) transaction
try to insert new object
commit nested transaction
catch any failure from nested transaction, if anything but constraint violation, re-throw
otherwise search for existing object by name and return it
just to clarify, as pointed out in another answer, the "nested" transaction is actually a separate transaction (many databases don't even support true, nested transactions).
Well, here's one way to do it - but it's not appropriate for all situations.
In Foo, remove the "unique = true" attribute on name. Add a timestamp that gets updated on every insert.
In findOrCreate(), don't bother checking if the entity with the given name already exists - just insert a new one every time.
When looking up Foo instances by name, there may be 0 or more with a given name, so you just select the newest one.
The nice thing about this method is that it doesn't require any locking, so everything should run pretty fast. The downside is that your database will be littered with obsolete records, so you may have to do something somewhere else to deal with them. Also, if other tables refer to Foo by its id, then this will screw up those relations.
Maybe you should change your strategy:
First find the user with the name and only if the user thoes not exist, create it.
I would try the following strategy:
A. Start a main transaction (at time 1)
B. Start a sub-transaction (at time 2)
Now, any object created after time 1 will not be visible in the main transaction. So when you do
C. Create new race-condition object, commit sub-transaction
D. Handle conflict by starting a new sub-transaction (at time 3) and getting the object from a query (the sub-transaction from point B is now out-of-scope).
only return the object primary key and then use EntityManager.getReference(..) to obtain the object you will be using in the main transaction. Alternatively, start the main transaction after D; it is not totally clear to me in how many race conditions you will have within your main transaction, but the above should allow for n times B-C-D in a 'large' transaction.
Note that you might want to do multi-threading (one thread per CPU) and then you can probably reduce this issue considerably by using a shared static cache for these kind of conflicts - and point 2 can be kept 'optimistic', i.e. not doing a .find(..) first.
Edit: For a new transaction, you need an EJB interface method call annotated with transaction type REQUIRES_NEW.
Edit: Double check that the getReference(..) works as I think it does.
See this related question for Postgres. For some reason, the solution doesn't work for me - the return value of the insert statement is always "1".
See this other question for an XML based solution. I would like to do the same without XML - insert a record and find the new auto-generated id of the record I just insreted.
I didn't find a matching annotation to <selectkey> (see this open issue)
How do I proceed?
Examining mybatis code reveals that INSERT is implemented via UPDATE, and always returns the number of inserted rows! So ... unless I'm completely missing something here, there's no way to do this using the current (3.0.3) implementation.
Actually, it's possible to do it, with the #Options annotation (provided you're using auto_increment or something similar in your database) :
#Insert("insert into table3 (id, name) values(null, #{name})")
#Options(useGeneratedKeys=true, keyProperty="idName")
int insertTable3(SomeBean myBean);
Note that the keyProperty="idName" part is not necessary if the key property in SomeBean is named "id". There's also a keyColumn attribute available, for the rare cases when MyBatis can't find the primary key column by himself. Please also note that by using #Options, you're submitting your method to some default parameters ; it's important to consult the doc (linked below -- page 60 in the current version) !
(Old answer) The (quite recent) #SelectKey annotation can be used for more complex key retrieval (sequences, identity() function...). Here's what the MyBatis 3 User Guide (pdf) offers as examples :
This example shows using the #SelectKey annotation to retrieve a value from a sequence before an
insert:
#Insert("insert into table3 (id, name) values(#{nameId}, #{name})")
#SelectKey(statement="call next value for TestSequence", keyProperty="nameId", before=true, resultType=int.class)
int insertTable3(Name name);
This example shows using the #SelectKey annotation to retrieve an identity value after an insert:
#Insert("insert into table2 (name) values(#{name})")
#SelectKey(statement="call identity()", keyProperty="nameId", before=false, resultType=int.class)
int insertTable2(Name name);
The <insert>, <update>and <delete> statements return the number of affected rows, as is common with database APIs.
If a new ID is generated for the inserted row, it is reflected in the object you passed as a parameter. So for example, if you call mapper.insert(someObject) inside your annotated insert method, after inserting, you can call someObject.getId (or similar) to retrieve it.
Using the options of <insert>, you can tweak how (by providing an SQL statement) and when (before or after the actual insertion) the id is generated or retrieved, and where in the object it is put.
It may be instructive to use the MyBatis generator to generate classes from a database schema and have a look at how inserts and updates are handled. Specifically, the generator produces "example" classes that are used as temporary containers to pass around data.
you can get your generated ids from save methods,
lets say a bean with ID and name properties,
bean.setName("xxx");
mapper.save(bean);
// here is your id
logger.debug(bean.getID);
I didn't like most of the answers I found online for returning generated keys because
All of the solutions I found called a "setter" on the inbound object
None of the solutions returned the generated column from the method
I came up with the following solution which addresses points 1 & 2 above which
Passes two parameters to mybatis "in" & "out" (mybatis does not mutate "in", it calls a setter on "out")
Requires an additional default method on the interface to return the value
public interface MyMapper {
/**
* this method is used by the mybatis mapper
* I don't call this method directly in my application code
*/
#Insert("INSERT INTO MY_TABLE (FOO) VALUES ({#in.foo})")
#Options(useGeneratedKeys=true, keyColumn="ID", keyProperty = "out.value")
void insert(#Param("in") MyTable in, #Param("out") LongReference out);
/**
* this "default method" is called in my application code and returns the generated id.
*/
default long insert(MyTable tableBean) {
LongReference idReference = new LongReference();
insert(tableBean, idReference);
return idReference.getValue();
}
}
This requires an additional class which can be re-used on similar methods in future
public class LongReference {
private Long value;
// getter & setter
}
I'm just getting to grips with JPA in a simple Java web app running on Glassfish 3 (Persistence provider is EclipseLink). So far, I'm really liking it (bugs in netbeans/glassfish interaction aside) but there's a thing that I want to be able to do that I'm not sure how to do.
I've got an entity class (Article) that's mapped to a database table (article). I'm trying to do a query on the database that returns a calculated column, but I can't figure out how to set up a property of the Article class so that the property gets filled by the column value when I call the query.
If I do a regular "select id,title,body from article" query, I get a list of Article objects fine, with the id, title and body properties filled. This works fine.
However, if I do the below:
Query q = em.createNativeQuery("select id,title,shorttitle,datestamp,body,true as published, ts_headline(body,q,'ShortWord=0') as headline, type from articles,to_tsquery('english',?) as q where idxfti ## q order by ts_rank(idxfti,q) desc",Article.class);
(this is a fulltext search using tsearch2 on Postgres - it's a db-specific function, so I'm using a NativeQuery)
You can see I'm fetching a calculated column, called headline. How do I add a headline property to my Article class so that it gets populated by this query?
So far, I've tried setting it to be #Transient, but that just ends up with it being null all the time.
There are probably no good ways to do it, only manually:
Object[] r = (Object[]) em.createNativeQuery(
"select id,title,shorttitle,datestamp,body,true as published, ts_headline(body,q,'ShortWord=0') as headline, type from articles,to_tsquery('english',?) as q where idxfti ## q order by ts_rank(idxfti,q) desc","ArticleWithHeadline")
.setParameter(...).getSingleResult();
Article a = (Article) r[0];
a.setHeadline((String) r[1]);
-
#Entity
#SqlResultSetMapping(
name = "ArticleWithHeadline",
entities = #EntityResult(entityClass = Article.class),
columns = #ColumnResult(name = "HEADLINE"))
public class Article {
#Transient
private String headline;
...
}
AFAIK, JPA doesn't offer standardized support for calculated attributes. With Hibernate, one would use a Formula but EclipseLink doesn't have a direct equivalent. James Sutherland made some suggestions in Re: Virtual columns (#Formula of Hibernate) though:
There is no direct equivalent (please
log an enhancement), but depending on
what you want to do, there are ways to
accomplish the same thing.
EclipseLink defines a
TransformationMapping which can map a
computed value from multiple field
values, or access the database.
You can override the SQL for any CRUD
operation for a class using its
descriptor's DescriptorQueryManager.
You could define a VIEW on your
database that performs the function
and map your Entity to the view
instead of the table.
You can also perform minor
translations using Converters or
property get/set methods.
Also have a look at the enhancement request that has a solution using a DescriptorEventListener in the comments.
All this is non standard JPA of course.