I am fairly new to using Spring JDBC and I am going to retrieve objects from the database now which have associations to other objects (one-to-many, one-to-one...). I wonder what is the proper way of doing it? I have read this answer Spring Framework JDBC DAO with agrgegation/composition which basically recommends using a ORM framework which I won't cause of performance and I find Spring JDBC quite pleasant to work with.
The original poster of the question showed an example of using one repository/dao method inside another dao/repository class. That would have been my guess of doing it too, but from what I understand you then use two different connections, and it could increase if you have other repositories as well. Is this bad even though using connection pooling provided by Glassfish?
I am not sure if I understand the answer given to the question either, nor if this is the proper way of doing it?
Spring JDBC always used the same connection in the scope of a transaction, so you should not worry about the number of connections, you only need to ensure that the load of the object occurs within a single transaction.
see DataSourceUtils.doGetConnection() if you are interested on how connections are retrieved from data source.
Related
I am starting with a new project and currently evaluating whether to use JPA or JDBC. Our operations mostly are going to be an bulk-insert and bulk-read and very rarely single insert/read.
I checked a prototype with JPA and JDBC and realized that both has its own merits and limitations.
Considering the current use case that for a fact I will only have always a bulk read and bulk write, which one will be a better option to go with ?
Spring JPA Repository gives a simple method save(Collection) which can take a collection and save as well.
Also Validations are also not be considered here, as the payload will already be validated in the layers above and the database layer should just do the read/write operations.
Does the JPA save(Collection<>) method in turn uses the jdbc templates or is it entirely a different implementation ?
Thanks in advance !
We use both JPA and JDBC in one application wiht no problem. Preferably we use JPA/JPQL and fall back to JDBC if needed. For JPA we use Spring Data JPA and for JDBC Spring JDBC Template.
I am shifting back from hibernate to plain JDBC in order to overcome the overheads incurred in using hibernate.I wanted to know how to deal with the sessions associated with hibernate.How should i convert back to Plain JDBC so that all my sessions are replaced with the JDBC connections.And please let me know if I am wrong in my thoughts that replacing a session with a connection converts back to plain JDBC as I am not well versed in these concepts and dont know if i am going in the right way.
I have used Hibernate extensively in high-performance tasks, including batch insertion of millions of records. Your problem is not with Hibernate, but with the way you are using it.
Above all, do not use Hibernate as a persistent state manager; use it as a thin layer above the raw SQL and you won't complain about performance.
Always prefer StatelessSession (it works for everything you need except save operations)`;
never use lazy fetching, use explicit joins for everythng;
never fetch whole objects, use SELECT to fetch exactly what you need;
fetch as much as possible in a single statement, avoid n+1 selects at all costs;
for large result sets, never use list, use iterate or scroll.
The list goes on, but this is what I have come up with at this moment.
As far as your direct question, it depends on the application. If it is a Spring application, then you will certainly want to use its declarative transaction management. Basically, you just put a few lines of XML config and you'll have an open DataSource in your DAO code ready to be used, with no management on your part.
If you are doing something more raw, then by all means use a connection pool library, such as the great BoneCP. You acquire connections from it and later return them to it, again with no explicit management.
Lastly, if you really want a bare-bones, unsafe and non-scalable approach, then you can create connections directly from the JDBC driver. This approach is really only for schoolwork and it is not recommended even in the smallest of production-worthy projects.
A Hibernate session is much more than a JDBC connection. It contains multiple such connections (usually managed via a JDBC Connection Pool which recycles JDBC Connection instances), a bunch of entities which are attached to, and managed by said session and other things as well (caching, etc).
Removing Hibernate and doing everything with the JDBC API-only will imply more than just replacing Hibernate Session instances with one or more JDBC connections followed by a duplication of the Hibernate code into analogous JDBC API calls. If you'd only do that, you'd simply do a lot of work for nothing, as you'd lose all of Hibernate's advantages (less verbose code, a higher level of abstraction, etc) and gain nothing of JDBC's advantages (less heap memory used, fewer method calls (yes, even with Hibernate's Javassist magic, this still counts towards performance in some cases), finer grained control of the database interactions, etc).
My advice is to first really look into the problems your app has (apparently due to Hibernate) and at least for the major ones, try to first see if you can't do something to optimize it without getting rid of Hibernate. Yes, Hibernate can become heavy and memory hungry, but more often than not, the issue with performance comes from improper use of the framework (are you sure you're fetching all the necessary associated entities in one query, or do you make Hibernate make hidden joins or pseudo joins in the background? Are you doing or you data operations on the database side, or is some of that done in Java code after a more-than-necessarily-generic Hibernate query is executed to fetch the data? etc.)
If you really need to get rid of Hibernate (maybe you need to use some very specific features of your database which are not standard SQL and which Hibernate doesn't let you access, like MySQL's ability to import big amounts of data via a custom flat-file format) then make sure that what ever it is you're replacing it with (plain JDBC, or maybe some other ORM like EclipseLink) can tackle the issue and solve it in a more performant way. Doing a small POC to test these before you start re hauling your code can save you a ton of time.
While I strongly urge you to heed the advice of Marko and Shivan, you could use hibernate to manage your connections/sessions/transactions and to execute your SQL queries without much overhead being generated.
a quick google search yielded this on executing SQL from a hibernate session.
http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=java&seqNum=575
While I agree with both of the earlier answers, if you truly want to go down the road of executing straight SQL, I would look into this option for two reasons.
1) your sessions are already in place. If you don't have hibernate load up all of your entities I don't see how hibernate would generate that much overhead.
2)If the problem is speed, and not overhead which I have run into before, you can implement this to quickly execute native SQL in your problem areas and keep all of hibernates ORM goodies in place.
All of that being said, I would also urge you to dig into the documentation for hibernate. I have used hibernate for several high performance solutions with great success. While the nuances can be hard to grapple with in the beginning, the benefits of using hibernate (or at least something that adheres to JPA standard) far outweigh the cost of not doing so down the road scalability wise.
There are technically two questions here, but are tightly coupled :)
I'm using Hibernate in a new project. It's a POS project.
It uses Oracle database.
We have decided to use Hibernate because the project is large, and because it provides (the most popular) ORM capabilities.
Spring is, for now, out of the question - the reason being: the project is a Swing client-server application, and it adds needless complexity. And, also, Spring is supposed to be very hungry on the hardware resources.
There is a possibility to throw away Hibernate, and to use JDBC. Why? The project requirement is precise database interaction. Meaning, we should have complete control over the connections, sessions and transactions(and, yes, going as low as unoptimized queries).
The first question is - what are your opinions on using the mentioned requrement?
The second question revolves around Hibernate.
We developed a simple Hibernate pilot project.
Another project requirement is - one database user / one connection per user / one session per user / transactions are flexibile(we can end them when we want, as sessions).
Multiple user can log in the application at the same time.
We achived something like that. To be precise, we achived the full described functionality without the multiple users requirement.
Now, looking at the available resources, I came to a conclusion that if we are to have multiple users on the database(on the same schema), we will end up using multiple SessionFactory, implementing a dynamic ConnectionProvider for new user connections. Why?
The users hashed passwords are in the database, so we need to dynamically add a user to the list of current users.
The second question is - can this be done a little easier, it seems weird that Hibernate doesn't support such configurations.
Thank you.
If you're pondering about weather to use Hibernate or JDBC, honestlly go for JDBC. If your domain model is not too complex, you don't really get a lot of advantages from using hibernate. On the other hand using JDBC will greatly improve performance, as you have better control on your queries, and you get A LOT less memory usage from not habing all the Hibernate overhead. Balance this my making an as detailed as possible first scetch of your model. If you're able to schetch it all from the start (no parts that are possible to change wildly in throughout the project), and if said model doesn't look to involved, JDBC will be your friend.
About your users and sessions there, I think you might be mistaking (tho it could just be me), but I don't think you need multiple SessionFactories to have multiple sessions. SessionFactory is a heavy object to initialize, but once you have one you can get multiple hibernate session objects from it which are lightweight.
As a final remark, if you truly stick with an ORM solution (for whatever reason), if possible chose EclipseLink JPA2 implementation. JPA2 has more features over hibernate and the Eclipselink implementation is less buggy then hibernate.
So, as far as Hibernate goes, I still dont know if the only way to dynamicaly change database users(change database connections) was to create multiple session factories, but I presume it is.
We have lowered our requriements, and decided to use Hibernate, use only one user on the database(one connection), one session per user(multiple sessions/multiple "logical" users). We created a couple of Java classes to wrap that functionality. The resources how this can be done can be found here.
Why did we use Hibernate eventually? Using JDBC is more precise, and more flexibile, but the effort to once again map the ResultSet values into objects is, again, the same manual ORM approach.
For example, if I have a GUI that needs to save a Page, first I have to fetch all the Page Articles and then, after I save the Page, update all the Articles FK to that Page. Notice that Im speaking in nouns(objects), and I dont see any other way to wrap the Page/Articles, except using global state. This is the one thing I wouldnt like to see in my application, and we are, after all, using Java, a OO language.
When we already have an ORM mapper that can be configured(forced would be the more precise word to use in this particular example) to process these thing itself, why to go programming it?
Also, we decided to user google Guice - its much faster, typesafe, and could significantly simplify our development/maintence/testing.
I have a rather enormous project in which I'm trying to retrofit in-memory data. Essentially, I have a big collection of objects which contain primitives and other objects which exist in hibernate. Large sections of non-dao code rely on lazy-loading through hibernate to hydrate objects on the fly. However, since everything exists in memory, my object are not loaded, and I get hibernate lazy loading exceptions.
I could just manually implement hibernate lazy loading by dipping to hibernate and hydrating the hibernate object manually, but the object graph for that object is huge, containing hundreds of types that would need to be initialized and set. This seems impractical, and I'm looking for a viable solution to this problem. If anyone has ANY kind of tips, hints, solutions, or stories relating to this kind of problem or similar problems, I would be very grateful.
Thanks much.
If you are handling the sessions by hand, try passing object ids (row ids in the database) instead of full objects. Then preform a database read when you want to get the full blown ORM object and only keep the ORM object in a limited scope so it could be garbage collected when you were done with it. This would probably save you some memory.
This has a side effect of also limiting the amount of time you need an open session for. As you could open sessions (I would recommend a session factory) and close them as needed. However, I think there may be a significant database hit for opening and closing sessions (I think the underlying transaction is the real problem). You may want to look into JPA, which as far as I understand, doesn't need a transaction for reads. Spring also has some nice features to automate transaction and session management they may want to investigate.
You probably have session already closed. Try to keep the session open when data is lazy loaded or if this is not possible, do eager load by specifying lazy="false" attribute on the collection (lazy="true" is the default).
The most common cause of a LazyInitializationException is that the hibernate session is closed. Keep the hibernate session open and you should be fine.
Please note that if you're using the Spring HibernateTemplate to load objects, the objects that you load will necessarily be detached. If you're building a webapp using Spring MVC, an easy way around this is to use the OpenSessionInViewInterceptor.
Our application uses Hibernate for ORM, and stores data in several schemas, accessing them with a user whose grants are customized for the application.
The schema names are determined at runtime based on data; it's not feasible to include their names in the entity mapping documents. This means that I need a way to tell Hibernate to use a specific schema name when performing lookups. Is there a way to do this?
Here's a page that lists some ways you can manage multiple schemas in Hibernate. I'd probably go with implementing your own connection provider. You'll probably want to disable caching as well.
We ran into this problem at work. I fixed it, as Robert suggests, by creating a connection provider (ie, an implementation of DataSource), called ""OracleSchemaRemappingDataSource" and using spring to do the plumbing.
Basically, this datasource implements getConnection(). The implementation of that method works by getting a connection from some other data source by spring injection, which it assumes to be an oracle connection, and then executing
ALTER SESSION SET CURRENT_SCHEMA = 'someotherschema'
and them passing that connection back.
All of the hibernate config is careful to use names without specifying schemas for them.
Also: with this, you don't want to disable caching - allow hibernate to manage connections as normal, as we are not doing any magic within the app such as using different connections on a per-user basis.