Hi I am a newbie using persistence API, and have also read few posts related to the same and got a very few understanding between these two. the below post really helped me clear my concepts for #NamedQuery
What is a named query? I now wanted to learn all the important key differences between NamedQuery and NamedNativeQuery, and which one is preferred most while dealing with JPA-QL, and performance wise.
Thanks!
A native query isn't JPQL. A regular query is converted by the persistence provider into something the underlying persistence system understands (such as SQL SELECT, or a NoSQL retrieval). A native query, while not portable, is written directly in the native language of the store so that you can use special features (like PostgreSQL's IP address manipulation) at the cost of portability.
Related
I am currently learning spring data can anyone explain what the difference between them #NamedQuery vs #NamedNativeQuery and When to use them?
Can we use native SQL in #NamedQuery?
#NamedQueryis for writing your queries in JPQL, the standard query language of the JPA standard. This is the default and you should stick to these queries whenever possible, because they are independent of the exact DBMS which you use.
#NamedNativeQuery on the other hand is for writing native queries (in SQL) which potentially can be DBMS specific.
It is a tradeoff. #NamedQuery gives you portability because you stick to the standard. #NamedNativeQuery gives you flexibility but you leave the standard and potentially lose portability. In case you switch to another DBMS, it is likely you would need to rewrite some of your #NamedNativeQuery definitions.
So we should only use #NamedNativeQuery if it is really necessary.
#NamedNativeQuery is for writing SQL query, while #NamedQuery is for writing HQL query.
So in your case, for writing native SQL query you would be needing #NamedNativeQuery.
However, be aware that writing native SQL will make your application less flexible and a portability nightmare because you are tying your application to work only for a particular database. If you are absolutely sure that you won't be needing to migrate to a different database, then this might not be a big concern for you. Otherwise prefer native HQL over native SQL.
I am working on a project which uses Activiti1 Library and, for these reason, I am using MyBatis API to execute some native queries against Activiti data base.
The problem is: For some builds I am using Oracle and, for other, MySQL database then, as the dialect of this two data bases is different, it would be necessary to use the MyBatis multi vendor support, however, I didn't like it, because I have to deal with specific statments of each type of data base which makes the maintance a hard task, mainly if necessary to add another data base in the future.
So I would like to know if somehow it is possible to use HQL together with MyBatis or if there are another generic SQL engine that can be used in this case.
Or if someone know a free Java API that converts MySQL queries to Oracle queries. I tried to use Hibernate translation, however it didn't work, because Activiti classes is not using JPA, so it is not mapped :(.
Thanks in advance!
Sandro
In Activiti, we do use the multi-vendor support of MyBatis. However, there are only a few cases where we really needed. Do you have that much 'special' queries?
In my current project, I am trying to unify query language for accessing heterogeneous database. Heterogeneous database means their query language for accessing data is different. For instance, SQL is a query language for accessing data from Apache Derby, while nonSQL for MongoDB.
My question is "Is there any domain specific language, which have been proposed to unify heterogeneous databases ? "
Please feel free to direct me other efforts as well.
That's quite an interesting question. There is at least one proposed solution called UnQL (Unstructured Data Query Language) - http://www.couchbase.com/press-releases/unql-query-language.
I suppose out of the box UnQL will work at least for CouchDB and SQLite. This just seems to be a great step ahead.
Personally I would say such a task seems to be a tricky one because of the conceptual differences between structured and unstructured data approaches. Anyway, it should be relatively easy to develop such a DSL for a well defined SQL and NoSQL data models used by a certain application.
There is a project called Hibernate OGM, which aims to generalize JPQL to NoSQL databases.
From their web page:
Hibernate Object/Grid Mapper (OGM) aims at providing Java Persistence (JPA) support for NoSQL solutions. It reuses Hibernate Core's engine but persists entities into a NoSQL data store instead of a relational database. It reuses the Java Persistence Query Language (JP-QL) to search their data.
I don't tried it out for myself, so I cannot say how usefull it is.
JSONiq can process data from different SQL and NoSQL products.
The open source implementation of JSONiq has connectors for Couchbase, Oracle NoSQL, SQLite, and JDBC.
For instance, the following slidedeck showcase the same query being executed on both Couchbase and MongoDB: https://speakerdeck.com/wcandillon/jsoniq-the-sql-of-nosql
SPARQL is a W3C-standardized query language that works on top of an abstract data model (RDF), rather than a specific type of database, which makes it very suitable as an enabler for heterogeneous database querying.
Implementations of SPARQL exist on top of various NoSQL databases, including native RDF databases (often referred to as triplestores), as well as on top of relational databases.
I am learning Java EE and I downloaded the eclipse with glassfish for the same. I saw some examples and also read the Oracle docs to know all about Java EE 5. Connecting to a database was very simple. I opened a dynamic web project, created a session EJB , I used EntityManager and with the get methods could access the stored data table.
For my next project I had create a simple class and then access some DB table. The very first problem I encountered was that the PersistenceUnit attribute would only be recognized by EJB,Servlet etc and not a simple java class. So then I could not use the EntityManager way(or can I?)
I was asked to go via the "JDBC" way. The very first problem I encountered was to get the connection to the DB. It seems all this must be hardcoded. I had a persistence.xml with which I could easily configure the data base connection. Even setting up a driver for the DB was easy. Also there no get/set methods in the JDBC for accessing table entities.
How do I understand JPA and persistence in relation to JDBC? What was JPA thought for? Why is there set/get methods? Can someone throw some light on the essence of these two and what are the pros/cons without "jargons"?? Please also suggest some links. A simple google search for JPA and JDBC differences led me to some sites full of "terminology" I couldn't follow :(
In layman's terms:
JDBC is a standard for Database Access
JPA is a standard for ORM
JDBC is a standard for connecting to a DB directly and running SQL against it - e.g SELECT * FROM USERS, etc. Data sets can be returned which you can handle in your app, and you can do all the usual things like INSERT, DELETE, run stored procedures, etc. It is one of the underlying technologies behind most Java database access (including JPA providers).
One of the issues with traditional JDBC apps is that you can often have some crappy code where lots of mapping between data sets and objects occur, logic is mixed in with SQL, etc.
JPA is a standard for Object Relational Mapping. This is a technology which allows you to map between objects in code and database tables. This can "hide" the SQL from the developer so that all they deal with are Java classes, and the provider allows you to save them and load them magically. Mostly, XML mapping files or annotations on getters and setters can be used to tell the JPA provider which fields on your object map to which fields in the DB. The most famous JPA provider is Hibernate, so it's a good place to start for concrete examples.
Other examples include OpenJPA, toplink, etc.
Under the hood, Hibernate and most other providers for JPA write SQL and use JDBC to read and write from and to the DB.
Main difference between JPA and JDBC is level of abstraction.
JDBC is a low level standard for interaction with databases. JPA is higher level standard for the same purpose. JPA allows you to use an object model in your application which can make your life much easier. JDBC allows you to do more things with the Database directly, but it requires more attention. Some tasks can not be solved efficiently using JPA, but may be solved more efficiently with JDBC.
JDBC is a much lower-level (and older) specification than JPA. In it's bare essentials, JDBC is an API for interacting with a database using pure SQL - sending queries and retrieving results. It has no notion of objects or hierarchies. When using JDBC, it's up to you to translate a result set (essentially a row/column matrix of values from one or more database tables, returned by your SQL query) into Java objects.
Now, to understand and use JDBC it's essential that you have some understanding and working knowledge of SQL. With that also comes a required insight into what a relational database is, how you work with it and concepts such as tables, columns, keys and relationships. Unless you have at least a basic understanding of databases, SQL and data modelling you will not be able to make much use of JDBC since it's really only a thin abstraction on top of these things.
JDBC is the predecessor of JPA.
JDBC is a bridge between the Java world and the databases world. In JDBC you need to expose all dirty details needed for CRUD operations, such as table names, column names, while in JPA (which is using JDBC underneath), you also specify those details of database metadata, but with the use of Java annotations.
So JPA creates update queries for you and manages the entities that you looked up or created/updated (it does more as well).
If you want to do JPA without a Java EE container, then Spring and its libraries may be used with the very same Java annotations.
The difference between JPA and JDBC is often the deciding factor, as the two database technologies take very different approaches to work with persistent data. JDBC, allows developers to construct database-driven Java programs utilizing object-oriented semantics
JPA is database-agnostic, meaning that the same code can be used in a variety of databases with few modifications. JPA serves as a layer of abstraction that hides the low-level JDBC calls from the developer, making database coding considerably easier
hibernate is implementation of JPA
hibernate you can see further details from here about jpa Query
JDBC is a layer of abstraction on top of vendor-specific relational DB drivers. Without JDBC you would have to deal with peculiarities of a specific DB (not much fun). JDBC, however, is too low-level and entails a lot of boilerplate code.
JPA is a specification of an ORM (just an interface). It's useless without an implementation.
ORM is a kind of framework concerned with saving and retrieving objects to/from the relational DB. There are many ORMs out there with different levels of abstraction. Some of them require manually-written SQL.
Some of ORMs implement JPA (Hibernate or EclipseLink, for example). Most of them are built on top of JDBC.
Such ORMs provide the maximum level of abstraction to the point you almost never have to write SQL queries. Some people love JPA-based ORMs (they reduce boilerplate), some hate (abstraction is leaky, specification is overly complex and there are lots of corner cases).
Java analogy:
class ORM extends JDBC implements JPA {
}
Persistence layers have protocols versions so abstractions also have versions therefore you need ranges of supported versions. It is version hell
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
For our new product re-engineering, we are in the process of selecting the best framework from Java. As the consideration is to go for database agnostic approach for model, we are working on options between Struts + Spring with iBATIS or Hibernate. Please advice which is best as both offer persistence.
iBATIS and Hibernate are quite different beasts.
The way I tend to look at it is this: Hibernate works better if your view is more object-centric. If however you view is more database-centric then iBATIS is a much stronger choice.
If you're in complete control of your schema and you don't have an extremely high throughput requirement then Hibernate can work quite well. The object model makes for fairly convenient code but at a huge complexity cost.
If you're dealing with a "legacy" database schema where you need to write fairly complicated SQL queries then chances are iBATIS will work better.
HQL (Hibernate Query Language) is another language you'll have to learn and even then you'll probably find cases where you still need to write SQL. What's more, chances are you will at some spend half a day figuring out the right combination of XML, properties, annotations, etc to get Hibernate to generate a performant SQL query.
There is no universal "A is better than B" answer for this question.
Consider what you're trying to achieve. Typically, the Command Query Response Segregation
model works well for complex domains.
The reason is that you're trying to do one of two things typically:
Create/Update/Delete some complex domain entities
Run analytic fetch queries (i.e. summation/aggregation queries)
Hibernate works well for case 1 allowing you to just make a POJO and persist/update it. It also does this quickly, unless your domain is quite large.
myBatis is great for fetch queries (case 2) where you just want an answer. Hibernate would attempt to load the entire object graph and you'd need to start tuning queries with LazyLoading tricks to keep it working on a large domain. Conversely if you just want some analytic POJO page, the myBatis implementation of the same query would be trivial.
Because of this, myBatis is faster than Hibernate at SELECTS.
These two cases are the difference between Commands where you want to change the domain data and Responses where you just want to fetch some data.
So, consider these two cases and what your application does. If you have a simple domain and just fetch information, use myBatis. If you have a complex domain and persist entities, use Hibernate. If you do both, consider a hybrid approach. That's what we use on our project that has thousands of entities to keep it under control. ;)
ORM vs persistence framework
Hibernate is object-relation mapping framework (ORM) which maps Java classes to database tables. MyBatis is persistence framework - not ORM. It maps SQL statements to Java methods.
Database schema
Hibernate can create or validate database schema according to your Java model while MyBatis does not have such feature. Also it is convenient for testing environment when you're using in-memory DB. Related discussions:
Can MyBatis create the database schema?
Cache
Hibernate has first level cache which is impossible to disable. It means that if you query item through ORM and then delete it directly with SQL, it stays in the cache. You can explicitly clear the cache to get the most updated results from database. Related discussions:
Do Jpa& Hibernate load data which changes asynchronously in DB?
What are First and Second Level caching in Hibernate?
Optimistic lock management
Also there are differences for optimistic lock management:
MyBatis doesn't support optimistic concurrency control natively,
unlike ORM tools like Hibernate/JPA with the #Version annotation.
Related discussions:
Optimistic concurrency control
How to prevent concurrency issue in UPDATE via iBatis
Lazy loading
Hibernate will try to load entire object graph except objects which are marked for lazy loading. myBatis will load data according a SQL query. Lazy loading may improve performance but it may cause connection leaks if it used with
<property name="hibernate.enable_lazy_load_no_trans" value="true" />
properties. Related discussions:
org.hibernate.LazyInitializationException - could not initialize proxy - no Session
Solve Hibernate Lazy-Init issue with hibernate.enable_lazy_load_no_trans
Hibernate Session management
Entities operations like saving, updating or deleting are performed via Hibernate Session. It requires good understanding how to implement proper Hibernate Session management strategy to avoid detached entity passed to persist and other phenomenons related to Hibernate.
Sometimes it may take more time trying to understand underlying Hibernate behavior than add a little bit more work and write raw SQL statements for myBatis.
Cascading
Hibernate provides cascading, orphan removal and other features for object graphs while they not present in myBatis - to implement them you'll need to write SQL queries explicitly.
Queries
In myBatis you'll write almost plain SQL queries. Hibernate has multiple options to form query: SQL, HQL, Criteria API. Sometimes it may be suitable to use Criteria API when you have many optional fields in criteria. It would provide more structured approach to form query and maybe avoid related mistakes.
Cletus did a great job at summarizing this comparison. Hibernate works well when you control the data model and is more object-centric while iBATIS works well when you need to integrate with an existing database and is more data-centric.
Also I think that Hibernate has a bit more of learning curve. With iBATIS, it's pretty easy to know what is going on while more "magic" happens with Hibernate. In other words, newbies might find iBatis easier to use and to understand.
But I'm not saying that you should prefer iBatis, iBatis and Hibernate are just different as said above.
And by the way, if you go for Hibernate, maybe consider using standardized JPA and EJB 3.0 (JSR-220) object/relational mapping annotations provided by Hibernate Annotations.
Hibernate is an ORM, meaning (at its most basic level) it maps instances of java objects to actual rows in a database table. Generally, for pojo's retrieved via Hibernate: any manipulations and modifications to these pojo's will appear in the database. Hibernate will generate and execute the relevant SQL at an appropriate time.
Mybatis (at its most basic level) is simply a tool for piecing together and executing SQL that is stored in xml files. It does not map instances of Java objects to rows in a database table, rather it maps Java methods to SQL statements, and therefore it is not an ORM. It can also return pojo's of course, but they are not tied to any kind of a persistence context.
Both tools do a lot more than described above, but one is an ORM and one is not.
The criteria to enable you to choose which one to use, I believe, depends critically on the database model you have to work with.
For example imagine a large sprawling schema, representing some insurance model. Developers are required to retrieve
data, and interact with that data in a way that meets the business at hand.
Developer's come on go, and would never be expected to have the requisite business knowledge to write all
the sql by hand (which Mybatis would require). Hibernate would suit a scenario like that.
Business analysts define the datamodel, the entities, the relationships and the interactions, as is their expertise.
Java developer's then use Hibernate to "walk the model". The business developer's can become very productive
quickly without the need to write complicated error prone sql to run on a very complicated schema.
In my expierence, both Hibernate and Mybatis are used regularly on the same project.
Where Hibernate is being used for
General C.R.U.D functionality
'Walking' the 'domain object' relational model
Session management
and where Mybatis is being used for
ad hoc queries
kick off (and interact with) stored procedures
support very specific or intricate queries
support complicated search queries, where search criteria is dynamic, and paging of results
if you're already using Spring, I would start with Spring JDBC rather than plunging right into Hibernate or iBatis. If you write your persistence tier in terms of interfaces, you should have no problem switching implementations after you've gotten Hibernate or iBatis under your belt.
There's no reason why it has to be an "all or none" decision. Use what's best for your situation.