Let's say I have following model structure:
#Entity
#Table(....)
public class AnnotationGroup{
...
private List<AnnotationOption> options;
#OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.EAGER, orphanRemoval = true)
#JoinColumn(name = "annotation_group_id", nullable = false)
public List<AnnotationOption> getOptions() {
return options;
}
}
#Entity
#Table(...)
public class AnnotationOption {
private Long id;
#Id
#GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY)
#Override
public Long getId() {
return id;
}
}
At the moment I have group1 with AnnotationOptions opt1 opt2 and opt3
Then I want to replace all option with only one option opt1
Additionally I have constraint in database:
CONSTRAINT "UQ_ANNOTATION_OPTION_name_annotation_group_id" UNIQUE (annotation_option_name, annotation_group_id)
And this one fires:
Caused by: org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "UQ_ANNOTATION_OPTION_name_annotation_group_id"
Detail: Key (name, annotation_group_id)=(opt1, 3) already exists.
Actually isuue that hibernate removes orphans after update.
Can you suggest something t resolve issue?
There are so many things that are wrong in this example:
EAGER fetching on the #OneToManycollection is almost always a bad idea.
Unidirectional collections are also bad, use the bidirectional one.
If you get this exception, most likely you cleared all the elements and re-added back the ones that you want to be retained.
The best way to fix it is to explicitly merge the existing set of children with the incoming ones so that:
New child entities are being added to the collection.
The child entities that are no longer needed are removed.
The child entities matching the business key (annotation_group_name, study_id) are updated with the incoming data.
According to Hibernate documentation hibernate perform in the following order to preserve foreign-key constraint:
Inserts, in the order they were performed
Updates
Deletion of collection elements
Insertion of collection elements
Deletes, in the order they were performed
For your special need you should manually flush the transaction to force the deletion in database before.
On a bidirectional relationship beetwen two entities (a ControlTable made up of ControlSteps), i'm simply trying by different ways to request a ControlTable by knowing the collection ControlSteps of it. I know that it's not recommended to have this bidirectionnal mapping but i need to know each childs of a parent, and the parent for each child.
I configured it like this in ControlTable class:
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "controlTable",cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch=FetchType.EAGER)
#Cache(usage = CacheConcurrencyStrategy.NONSTRICT_READ_WRITE)
#Fetch(FetchMode.JOIN)
private Set<ControlStep> controlSteps;
And like this for ControlStep class :
#ManyToOne(optional=false, fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name="ctrl_table_id", referencedColumnName = "id")
private ControlTable controlTable;
When i use the default JPA query findAll(), it's not working to get the list of ControlTables (or only one) because it's requesting recursively the parent in the child's parent (infinite response).
In another way, itried to put all in LAZY loading, with an HQL query fetching the childs, but the result is the same.
Do you have any idea of how to get these collections without problems?
Thank you very much by advance
Found it. The problem was Spring Data Rest and JSON transformation, for more details :
Infinite Recursion with Jackson JSON and Hibernate JPA issue
I am using Hibernate 3.5.4 version as Orm I have two tables which have many to one relationship , Like Table 'Book' can have many 'Authors' associated with It.
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "key.bookId", fetch = FetchType.EAGER, cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
public Set<BookAuthor> getAuthors() {
return authors;
}
But we use soft delete for deleting the association (we maintain a column named isDeleted) , i want to fetch the entity based on isDeleted check if its 1 it should not be loaded , else if 0 load it.
Is it possible by modifying this current fetching strategy to provide above support or there is another better solution that can be applied please let me know.
Have a look at the #Filter or #Where Annotation.
As far as I know this is the usual way to restrict collection fetching.
I got this error message:
error: Found shared references to a collection: Person.relatedPersons
When I tried to execute addToRelatedPersons(anotherPerson):
person.addToRelatedPersons(anotherPerson);
anotherPerson.addToRelatedPersons(person);
anotherPerson.save();
person.save();
My domain:
Person {
static hasMany = [relatedPersons:Person];
}
any idea why this happens ?
Hibernate shows this error when you attempt to persist more than one entity instance sharing the same collection reference (i.e. the collection identity in contrast with collection equality).
Note that it means the same collection, not collection element - in other words relatedPersons on both person and anotherPerson must be the same. Perhaps you're resetting that collection after entities are loaded? Or you've initialized both references with the same collection instance?
I had the same problem. In my case, the issue was that someone used BeanUtils to copy the properties of one entity to another, so we ended up having two entities referencing the same collection.
Given that I spent some time investigating this issue, I would recommend the following checklist:
Look for scenarios like entity1.setCollection(entity2.getCollection()) and getCollection returns the internal reference to the collection (if getCollection() returns a new instance of the collection, then you don't need to worry).
Look if clone() has been implemented correctly.
Look for BeanUtils.copyProperties(entity1, entity2).
Explanation on practice. If you try to save your object, e.g.:
Set<Folder> folders = message.getFolders();
folders.remove(inputFolder);
folders.add(trashFolder);
message.setFiles(folders);
MESSAGESDAO.getMessageDAO().save(message);
you don't need to set updated object to a parent object:
message.setFiles(folders);
Simple save your parent object like:
Set<Folder> folders = message.getFolders();
folders.remove(inputFolder);
folders.add(trashFolder);
// Not set updated object here
MESSAGESDAO.getMessageDAO().save(message);
Reading online the cause of this error can be also an hibernate bug, as workaround that it seems to work, it is to put a:
session.clear()
You must to put the clear after getting data and before commit and close, see example:
//getting data
SrReq sr = (SrReq) crit.uniqueResult();
SrSalesDetailDTO dt=SrSalesDetailMapper.INSTANCE.map(sr);
//CLEAR
session.clear();
//close session
session.getTransaction().commit();
session.close();
return dt;
I use this solution for select to database, for update or insert i don't know if this solution can work or can cause problems.
My problem is equal at 100% of this: http://www.progtown.com/topic128073-hibernate-many-to-many-on-two-tables.html
I have experienced a great example of reproducing such a problem.
Maybe my experience will help someone one day.
Short version
Check that your #Embedded Id of container has no possible collisions.
Long version
When Hibernate instantiates collection wrapper, it searches for already instantiated collection by CollectionKey in internal Map.
For Entity with #Embedded id, CollectionKey wraps EmbeddedComponentType and uses #Embedded Id properties for equality checks and hashCode calculation.
So if you have two entities with equal #Embedded Ids, Hibernate will instantiate and put new collection by the first key and will find same collection for the second key.
So two entities with same #Embedded Id will be populated with same collection.
Example
Suppose you have Account entity which has lazy set of loans.
And Account has #Embedded Id consists of several parts(columns).
#Entity
#Table(schema = "SOME", name = "ACCOUNT")
public class Account {
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "account")
private Set<Loan> loans;
#Embedded
private AccountId accountId;
...
}
#Embeddable
public class AccountId {
#Column(name = "X")
private Long x;
#Column(name = "BRANCH")
private String branchId;
#Column(name = "Z")
private String z;
...
}
Then suppose that Account has additional property mapped by #Embedded Id but has relation to other entity Branch.
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinColumn(name = "BRANCH")
#MapsId("accountId.branchId")
#NotFound(action = NotFoundAction.IGNORE)//Look at this!
private Branch branch;
It could happen that you have no FK for Account to Brunch relation id DB so Account.BRANCH column can have any value not presented in Branch table.
According to #NotFound(action = NotFoundAction.IGNORE) if value is not present in related table, Hibernate will load null value for the property.
If X and Y columns of two Accounts are same(which is fine), but BRANCH is different and not presented in Branch table, hibernate will load null for both and Embedded Ids will be equal.
So two CollectionKey objects will be equal and will have same hashCode for different Accounts.
result = {CollectionKey#34809} "CollectionKey[Account.loans#Account#43deab74]"
role = "Account.loans"
key = {Account#26451}
keyType = {EmbeddedComponentType#21355}
factory = {SessionFactoryImpl#21356}
hashCode = 1187125168
entityMode = {EntityMode#17415} "pojo"
result = {CollectionKey#35653} "CollectionKey[Account.loans#Account#33470aa]"
role = "Account.loans"
key = {Account#35225}
keyType = {EmbeddedComponentType#21355}
factory = {SessionFactoryImpl#21356}
hashCode = 1187125168
entityMode = {EntityMode#17415} "pojo"
Because of this, Hibernate will load same PesistentSet for two entities.
In my case, I was copying and pasting code from my other classes, so I did not notice that the getter code was bad written:
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "credito")
public Set getConceptoses() {
return this.letrases;
}
public void setConceptoses(Set conceptoses) {
this.conceptoses = conceptoses;
}
All references conceptoses but if you look at the get says letrases
I too got the same issue, someone used BeanUtils.copyProperties(source, target). Here both source and target, are using the same collection as attribute.
So i just used the deep copy as below..
How to Clone Collection in Java - Deep copy of ArrayList and HashSet
Consider an entity:
public class Foo{
private<user> user;
/* with getters and setters */
}
And consider an Business Logic class:
class Foo1{
List<User> user = new ArrayList<>();
user = foo.getUser();
}
Here the user and foo.getUser() share the same reference. But saving the two references creates a conflict.
The proper usage should be:
class Foo1 {
List<User> user = new ArrayList<>();
user.addAll(foo.getUser);
}
This avoids the conflict.
I faced similar exception in my application. After looking into the stacktrace it was clear that exception was thrown within a FlushEntityEventListener class.
In Hibernate 4.3.7 the MSLocalSessionFactory bean no longer supports the eventListeners property. Hence, one has to explicitly fetch the service registry from individual Hibernate session beans and then set the required custom event listeners.
In the process of adding custom event listeners we need to make sure the corresponding default event listeners are removed from the respective Hibernate session.
If the default event listener is not removed then the case arises of two event listeners registered against same event. In this case while iterating over these listeners, against first listeners any collections in the session will be flagged as reached and while processing the same collection against second listener would throw this Hibernate exception.
So, make sure that when registering custom listeners corresponding default listeners are removed from registry.
My problem was that I had setup an #ManyToOne relationship. Maybe if the answers above don't fix your problem you might want to check the relationship that was mentioned in the error message.
Posting here because it's taken me over 2 weeks to get to the bottom of this, and I still haven't fully resolved it.
There is a chance, that you're also just running into this bug which has been around since 2017 and hasn't been addressed.
I honestly have no clue how to get around this bug. I'm posting here for my sanity and hopefully to shave a couple weeks of your googling. I'd love any input anyone may have, but my particular "answer" to this problem was not listed in any of the above answers.
I had to replace the following collection initilization:
challenge.setGoals(memberChallenge.getGoals());
with
challenge.setGoals(memberChallenge.getGoals()
.stream()
.map(dmo -> {
final ChallengeGoal goal = new ChallengeGoalImpl();
goal.setMemberChallenge(challenge);
goal.setGoalDate(dmo.getGoalDate());
goal.setGoalValue(dmo.getGoalValue());
return goal;
})
.collect(Collectors.toList()));
I changed
#OneToMany( cascade= CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(
name = "some_id",
referencedColumnName = "some_id"
)
to
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "some_id", cascade= CascadeType.ALL)
You're using pointers(indirectly), so sometimes you're copying the memory address instead of the object/collection you want. Hibernate checks this and throw that error. Here's what can you do:
Don't copy the object/collection;
Initiate a new empty one;
Make a function to copy it's content and call it;
For example:
public Entity copyEntity(Entity e){
Entity copy = new Entity();
e.copy(name);
e.setCollection2(null);
e.setCollection3(copyCollection(e.getCollection3());
return copy;
}
In a one to many and many to one relationship this error will occur. If you attempt to devote same instance from many to one entity to more than one instance from one to many entity.
For example, each person can have many books but each of these books can be owned by only one person if you consider more than one owner for a book this issue is raised.
I have a class called SynonymMapping which has a collection of values mapped as a CollectionOfElements
#Entity(name = "synonymmapping")
public class SynonymMapping {
#Id private String keyId;
//#CollectionOfElements(fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#CollectionOfElements
#JoinTable(name="synonymmappingvalues", joinColumns={#JoinColumn(name="keyId")})
#Column(name="value", nullable=false)
#Sort(type=SortType.NATURAL)
private SortedSet<String> values;
public SynonymMapping() {
values = new TreeSet<String>();
}
public SynonymMapping(String key, SortedSet<String> values) {
this();
this.keyId = key;
this.values = values;
}
public String getKeyId() {
return keyId;
}
public Set<String> getValues() {
return values;
}
}
I have a test where I store two SynonymMapping objects to the database and then ask the database to return all saved SynonymMapping objects, expecting to receive the two objects I stored.
When I change the mapping of values to be eager (as shown in in the code by the commented out line) and run the test again, I receive four matches.
I have cleared out the database between runs and I can duplicate this problem swapping between eager and lazy.
I think it has to do with the joins that hibernate creates underneath but I can't find a definite answer online.
Can anyone tell me why an eager fetch is duplicating the objects?
Thanks.
I stepped into the same problem - when you set the FetchType.EAGER for a #CollectionOfElements, the Hibernate tries to get everything in one shot, i.e. using one single query for each entry of element linked to a "master" object. This problem can be successfully solved at a cost of N+1 query, if you add the #Fetch (FetchMode.SELECT) annotation to your collection.
In my case I wanted to have a MediaObject entity with a collection of its metadata items (video codec, audio codec, sizes, etc.). The mapping for a metadataItems collection looks as follows:
#CollectionOfElements (targetElement = String.class, fetch = FetchType.EAGER)
#JoinTable(name = "mo_metadata_item", joinColumns = #JoinColumn(name = "media_object_id"))
#MapKey(columns = #Column(name = "name"))
#Column (name = "value")
#Fetch (FetchMode.SELECT)
private Map<String, String> metadataItems = new HashMap<String, String>();
It's generally not a good idea to enforce eager fetching in the mapping - it's better to specify eager joins in appropriate queries (unless you're 100% sure that under any and all circumstances your object won't make sense / be valid without that collection being populated).
The reason you're getting duplicates is because Hibernate internally joins your root and collection tables. Note that they really are duplicates, e.g. for 2 SynonymMappings with 3 collection elements each you would get 6 results (2x3), 3 copies of each SynonymMapping entity. So the easiest workaround is to wrap results in a Set thereby ensuring they're unique.
I have faced this problem and I solved it using
criteria.setResultTransformer(Criteria.DISTINCT_ROOT_ENTITY);
This clears out the duplicates which are caused by the join made to the child tables.
You could use a SELECT DISTINCT (Hibernate Query Language) clause as follows
SELECT DISTINCT synonym FROM SynonymMapping synonym LEFT JOIN FETCH synonym.values
DISTINCT clause removes duplicate references in Hibernate.
Although both component and value-type collection has its lifecycle bound to the owning entity class, you should declare them in select clause in order to retrieve them. (LEFT JOIN FETCH synonym.values)
ChssPly76's answer is another approach, but does not forget override equals and hashcode method according to Set semantic
regards,
Instead of FetchMode.SELECT with N+1 queries it is better using BatchSize e.q. #BatchSize(size = 200).
DISTINCT and Criteria.DISTINCT_ROOT_ENTITY doesn't help, if you have to fetch more than 1 association. For this case see other solutions: https://stackoverflow.com/a/46013654/548473
I have achieved it via simply add
session.createCriteria(ModelClass.class).setResultTransformer(Criteria.DISTINCT_ROOT_ENTITY);
This help to remove duplicate.