Develop Reference

Hibernate select with birectionnal mapping

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

Spring Data JPA: Batch insert for nested entities

I have a test case where I need to persist 100'000 entity instances into the database. The code I'm currently using does this, but it takes up to 40 seconds until all the data is persisted in the database. The data is read from a JSON file which is about 15 MB in size.
Now I had already implemented a batch insert method in a custom repository before for another project. However, in that case I had a lot of top level entities to persist, with only a few nested entities.
In my current case I have 5 Job entities that contain a List of about ~30 JobDetail entities. One JobDetail contains between 850 and 1100 JobEnvelope entities.
When writing to the database I commit the List of Job entities with the default save(Iterable<Job> jobs) interface method. All nested entities have the CascadeType PERSIST. Each entity has it's own table.
The usual way to enable batch inserts would be to implement a custom method like saveBatch that flushes every once in a while. But my problem in this case are the JobEnvelope entities. I don't persist them with a JobEnvelope repository, instead I let the repository of the Jobentity handle it. I'm using MariaDB as database server.
So my question boils down to the following: How can I make the JobRepository insert it's nested entities in batches?
These are my 3 entites in question:
Job
#Entity
public class Job {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private int jobId;
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.EAGER, cascade = CascadeType.PERSIST, mappedBy = "job")
#JsonManagedReference
private Collection<JobDetail> jobDetails;
}
JobDetail
#Entity
public class JobDetail {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private int jobDetailId;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER, cascade = CascadeType.PERSIST)
#JoinColumn(name = "jobId")
#JsonBackReference
private Job job;
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.EAGER, cascade = CascadeType.PERSIST, mappedBy = "jobDetail")
#JsonManagedReference
private List<JobEnvelope> jobEnvelopes;
}
JobEnvelope
#Entity
public class JobEnvelope {
#Id
#GeneratedValue
private int jobEnvelopeId;
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.EAGER, cascade = CascadeType.PERSIST)
#JoinColumn(name = "jobDetailId")
private JobDetail jobDetail;
private double weight;
}

Make sure to configure Hibernate batch-related properties properly:
<property name="hibernate.jdbc.batch_size">100</property>
<property name="hibernate.order_inserts">true</property>
<property name="hibernate.order_updates">true</property>
The point is that successive statements can be batched if they manipulate the same table. If there comes the statement doing insert to another table, the previous batch construction must be interrupted and executed before that statement. With the hibernate.order_inserts property you are giving permission to Hibernate to reorder inserts before constructing batch statements (hibernate.order_updates has the same effect for update statements).
jdbc.batch_size is the maximum batch size that Hibernate will use. Try and analyze different values and pick one that shows best performance in your use cases.
Note that batching of insert statements is disabled if IDENTITY id generator is used.
Specific to MySQL, you have to specify rewriteBatchedStatements=true as part of the connection URL. To make sure that batching is working as expected, add profileSQL=true to inspect the SQL the driver sends to the database. More details here.
If your entities are versioned (for optimistic locking purposes), then in order to utilize batch updates (doesn't impact inserts) you will have to turn on also:
<property name="hibernate.jdbc.batch_versioned_data">true</property>
With this property you tell Hibernate that the JDBC driver is capable to return the correct count of affected rows when executing batch update (needed to perform the version check). You have to check whether this works properly for your database/jdbc driver. For example, it does not work in Oracle 11 and older Oracle versions.
You may also want to flush and clear the persistence context after each batch to release memory, otherwise all of the managed objects remain in the persistence context until it is closed.
Also, you may find this blog useful as it nicely explains the details of Hibernate batching mechanism.

To complete the previous answer of Dragan Bozanovic. Hibernate sometimes silently deactivates the order of execution of the batches if for example it encounters cyclic relations between the entities when it builds the graph of dependencies between the batches (see InsertActionSorter.sort(..) method). It would have been interesting for hibernate to trace this behavior when this happens.

cascade type save update in Hibernate

I am using hibernate with JPA annotations for relationship mapping.
I have three entities in my code User Group & User_Group
User & Group are in a ManyToMany relationship.
User_Group is a kinda bridge table but with some additional fields. So here is the modified mapping code.
User
#Entity
#Table(name = "USERS")
public class User {
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "user")
private Set<UserGroup> userGroups
}
Group
#Entity
#Table(name = "GROUPS")
public class Group {
#OneToMany(mappedBy = "group")
private Set<UserGroup> userGroups
}
UserGroup
#Entity
#Table(name = "USERS_GROUPS")
public class UserGroup {
#ManyToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "USER_ID")
private User user;
#ManyToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL)
#JoinColumn(name = "GROUP_ID")
private Group group;
}
When I set the user & group object to the usergroup & save it.
User user = new User("tommy", "ymmot", "tommy#gmail.com");
Group group = new Group("Coders");
UserGroup userGroup = new UserGroup();
userGroup.setGroup(group);
userGroup.setUser(user);
userGroup.setActivated(true);
userGroup.setRegisteredDate(new Date());
session.save(userGroup);
Things work fine. With CascadeType.ALL the group object & user object are updated too. But when I delete the userGroup object. The child object are deleted too.
Deletion of child objects is a strict no no.
There is no CascadeType.SAVE-UPDATE in JPA, which just does save or update but no delete. How do I achieve this.
If I remove the CascadeType.ALL from the mapping the child objects don't get updated & I need them to be updated.

SAVE_UPDATE is for save(), update(), and saveOrUpdate(), which are 3 Hibernate-proprietary methods. JPA only has persist() and merge(). So, if you want to use cascading on Hibernate-proprietary methods, you'll need to use Hibernate-proprietary annotations. In this case, Cascade.
Or you could stop using the Hibernate Session, and use the standard JPA API instead.

CascadeType.ALL includes CascadeType.REMOVE too.
The solution is to use all CascadeType.* you need except CascadeType.REMOVE, like so:
#ManyToOne(cascade = {CascadeType.PERSIST, CascadeType.REFRESH, CascadeType.MERGE}))
in your UserGroup definitions.

It's almost always a code smell when propagating from child to parent entity, it should be the other way round.
From Cascading best practices:
Cascading only makes sense only for Parent – Child associations (the
Parent entity state transition being cascaded to its Child entities).
Cascading from Child to Parent is not very useful and usually, it’s a
mapping code smell.
From Hibernate best practices:
Avoid cascade remove for huge relationships
Most developers (myself included) get a little nervous when they see a
CascadeType.REMOVE definition for a relationship. It tells Hibernate
to also delete the related entities when it deletes this one. There is
always the fear that the related entity also uses cascade remove for
some of its relationships and that Hibernate might delete more
database records than intended. During all the years I’ve worked with
Hibernate, this has never happened to me, and I don’t think it’s a
real issue. But cascade remove makes it incredibly hard to understand
what exactly happens if you delete an entity. And that’s something you
should always avoid. If you have a closer look at how Hibernate
deletes the related entities, you will find another reason to avoid
it. Hibernate performs 2 SQL statements for each related entity: 1
SELECT statement to fetch the entity from the database and 1 DELETE
statement to remove it. This might be OK, if there are only 1 or 2
related entities but creates performance issues if there are large
numbers of them.

JPA: implicit cascades for relationships mapped as #ManyToMany #JoinTable?

I have the following mapping:
#Entity
#Table(name = "Prequalifications")
public class Prequalification implements Serializable
{
...
#ManyToMany
#JoinTable(name = "Partnerships", joinColumns = #JoinColumn(name = "prequalification_id", referencedColumnName = "id"), inverseJoinColumns = #JoinColumn(name = "company_id", referencedColumnName = "id"))
private Set<Company> companies;
...
}
In a #ManyToMany + #JoinTable mapped relationship, isn't it kind of implicit that the association (link) entities (here Partnerships) are automatically persisted, removed, etc. even though
by default, relationships have an empty cascade set
? The above quote was taken from "Pro JPA 2, by Mike Keith".
Executing
em.merge(prequalification);
on the above entity does persist the associated partnerships without any cascade types specified.
Am I correct that this implicit cascade has to be performed? This isn't mentioned anywhere I looked...

The rows in the join table will be inserted/deleted as part of the owning Entity (if bi-directional the side without the mappedBy). So if you persist or remove or update the Prequalification the join table rows will also be inserted or deleted.
The target Company objects will not be cascaded to. So on remove() they will not be deleted, if the list is updated they will not be deleted unless orphanRemovla is set. Persist should also not be cascaded, but what happens when you have references to "detached" objects is somewhat of a grey area. Technically an error should be thrown, because the object is new and the relationship was not cascade persist. It may also try to insert and get a constraint error. It should not cascade the persist, although your object model is technically in an invalid state, so what occurs may depend on the provider.

Wanted to add a comment, but don't have enough rep for it.
I had the same question as #D-Dᴙum: "Where in the docs can we find a reference to this behaviour?"
I found it in the Hibernate docs (many-to-many).
If you scroll just a bit just below the code example there, you will find:
When an entity is removed from the #ManyToMany collection, Hibernate simply deletes the joining record in the link table. Unfortunately, this operation requires removing all entries associated with a given parent and recreating the ones that are listed in the current running persistent context.
Where the "link table" refers to the "join table".
Hope this helps.

OptimisticLocking and #OneToMany(mappedBy=...) handling?

I have an AbstractEntity class as superclass for all my entites that defines an optimistic lock column like this:
#Version
private long lockVersion;
Now I often get OptimisticLockingExceptions on entities, that are only changed in one the mappedBy relations similar to the following:
#OneToMany(mappedBy = Property.PROPERTY_DESCRIPTOR, cascade = { CascadeType.REMOVE })
private Set<Property> properties = new HashSet<Property>();
Is it possible to exclude those collections from Hibernate optimistic locking? The entity is not changed in the database at all... only others referencing it.

You can exclude a particular property (and / or collection) from increasing the version number if it's dirty by explicitly excluding it via #OptimisticLock annotation:
#OptimisticLock(excluded=true)
#OneToMany(mappedBy = Property.PROPERTY_DESCRIPTOR, cascade = { CascadeType.REMOVE })
private Set<Property> properties = new HashSet<Property>();
Be aware that it's a Hibernate extension to JPA standard.

i think the accepted answer in this question should help you:link
I havn't tried it myself though, but it could be possible to detect changes not requiring version update and not increment the version.