My understanding of JDBC is that it automatically sets the Oracle NLS_LANGUAGE/NLS_TERRITORY session parameters based on the default Locale of the JVM. This is handy for a stand-alone swing app, but seems useless for a java webapp. The only solution I can come up with is to specifically set the session parameters right before actually doing a database query, something similar to:
Connection c = // However you get it.
Statement s = c.createStatement();
s.execute("alter session set NLS_LANGUAGE = 'SPANISH'");
// Do actual query here
My questions:
Is this the best way to set the Oracle language/country parameters from a webapp?
Since the Oracle parameters take language names rather than codes, is there a mapping from java/ISO language codes to Oracle language names? For example, can I use Locale.getDisplayLanguage() and be safe?
Can depend on your architecture.
Some places opt to have multiple geographically local web-apps against a single database (ie one in the France, one in the UK, one in Spain).
Or you pull data (eg dates, numbers) in 'computer' format from the database and have the web-app convert it to the end-user's preferences (or possibly based on browser information if you don't have user logins).
Or you have separate connection pools for different 'territories'.
Bear in mind that queries changing territories can affect index usage and sorting.
If you're using connection pooling, it's the best way to make sure that Johnny's results are in American and Johann's results are in German.
You could store the user's preferred NLS value for LANGUAGE, TERRITORY, CHARACTERSET, and SORT, using V$NLS_VALID_VALUES as a data source, assuming you store login/user information.
Related
I have a web application in which I'm maintaining many static Maps to store my relevant information. Since the application is deployed on a server. Each and every hit to the server side java uses these maps to match the key and get appropriate result and send back to the client side. My code contains a rank and retrieval feature so I have to read the entire keySet of each of these Maps.
My question is:
1. Is working with static variables better than storing this data in a local embedded DB like Apache Derby and then using it?
2. The use of this data is very frequent. So if I use database will that be faster approach? Since I read the full keyset the where clause may not come handy in many operations.
3. How does the server's memory gets impacted on holding data in static variables?
My no. of maps are fixed but the size of the Maps keeps increasing? Please suggest the better solution.
If you want the data to be saved regularly an embedded database like H2 makes sense. You then also have snapshots of the data, and development, structural changes are a bit more safe.
A real database also has an incredible power behind it: concurrency, caching and so on. An embedded (when file based) database less so.
The problem with maps is that the data extraction can become several indirections. It is more versatile to have SQL queries with joins on the tables.
So SQL is more abstract (does not prescribe the actual query implementation), and easier to test. SQL for instance releases the developer of programming reports.
So go for a database IMHO, when you are really doing hard work.
What you might want to consider is to store the data searched in map when it's searched.
For instance, if a user searches for something specific, that something is stored in the map so that the next user who searches for that gets the data directly from the map rather than the database.
There are some downsides though, as you need to make sure that if the data is changed on the database, the hashmap/cache should be cleared or updated with the new data, as to prevent feeding outdated data to the user.
As for the impact on the server's memory, it depends on the size of the data you're storing. It's hard to give you a precise answer, but you can however test that on your own:
long memoryBefore = Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory();
// populate your map
long memoryAfter = Runtime.getRuntime().freeMemory();
System.out.println(memoryBefore - memoryAfter);
That should give you the amount of bytes used (more or less, depending on the operations you run between memoryBefore and memoryAfter, as you may have instantiated other classes/variables unrelated to the hashmap)
I have a table from which I extract 8 columns, said columns will be properties of a pojo, say MyPojo.
I want to remove duplicates.
I came up with two strategies.
1-Let oracle take care of this with distinct keyword
select distinct c1,c2...c8 from TABLE where...`
2-Do this in java with cqengine (https://code.google.com/p/cqengine/wiki/DeduplicationStrategies#Logical_Elimination_Strategy):
DeduplicationOption deduplication = deduplicate(DeduplicationStrategy.LOGICAL_ELIMINATION);
ResultSet<Car> results = cars.retrieve(query, queryOptions(deduplication));
3-Do this in java with a set
simply storing rows inside of a Set<MyPojo>
From a performance point of view which one is better?
Let the database do the work. In this case you don't send unnecessary data over the network which will - probably - have the biggest positive impact on performance.
Also it is the most compact solution in terms of code size.
The best way to decide these things is to model it.
What are the access patterns in your application?
If this is would be a one-off request: have the database do the filtering.
If you expect to get many such identical requests: have the database do the filtering, and consider caching results in the application.
If you expect to get a variety of queries on the same dataset, consider caching the unfiltered dataset into the application tier, and querying it with CQEngine.
There is no rule of thumb such as "always have the database do the work". If your application operates at any kind of scale, you will not want every request to hit the database. You need to scale out your application tier.
On the other hand, you should not over-engineer. The answer depends on the traffic volume and data access patterns that you expect.
I am making a Java gui and web application which will use the same mysql database.
It's a DTh management system where all the information will be stored and retrieved dynamically depending on input.
I believe that views are static by nature and thus would be useless as all my queries will have a different where condition (userid).
Do I need to use triggers? I mean I could code the java to execute multiple statements instead of using a inbuilt trigger (e.g. Insert in customers name and family members name both will have a duplicate copy for head of the family). Is there a performance hit? Am I wrong in some way?
And same thing what is the use of stored procedures? Can't I use methods in java to do everything?
So, I am asking is it possible to shift all the calculation intensive stuff to java and web script instead of the sql. If yes, does this mean I only have to create the backend structure of Database(i.e. all the different tables and FK,PK) and do rest without using any sql stuff on mysql workbench?
Thank you for helping.
There is (as always) one correct answer: It depends.
If you only want to show and query some data, you probably won't need trigger or stored procedures.
Views are a different thing: They are pretty helpful if you want a static viesw to a join-table or something like that. If you don't need this, just don't use it.
Keys are really important. They make your data robust against wrong input.
What you shoud use is PrepearedStatement instead of Statement. If you only use PreparedStatements, you are (nearly ?) safe in the question of SQL-Injection.
We use Views because it just faster than select query and for just showing data (not edit-update) it is faster and preferable.
Trigger are fired at database side so it is faster because it just execute 2 or more queries in single execution.
Same in Stored procedures, because we can execute more than one queries in single database connection. If we execute different queries than it take more time on every execution for database connection (find database server, authenticate, find database,... etc.).
For a thick-client project I'm working on, I have to remotely connect to a database (IBM i-series) and perfom a number of SQL related tasks:
Download/Update a set of local/offline 'control' data - this data may have changed between runs unnoticed.
On command, download data from multiple (15-20) tables and store separately into a single Java object. The names of the tables are known, but the schema name changes between runs and can change inter-run (as far as I know, PreparedStatements do not allow one to dynamically insert the schema).
I had considered using joins/unions/etc to perform all of these queries as one, but the project requires me to have in-memory separations between table data (instead of one big joined lump).
Perform between 2 and 100+ repetitions of (2)
The last factor is that this needs to be run on high-latency (potentially dial-up) network connections using Java 1.5 on the oldest computers possible.
Currently I run 15-20 dynamically constructed PreparedStatements but I know this to be rather inefficient (I measured, so as to avoid premature optimization ala Knuth).
What would be the most efficient and error-tolerant method of performing these tasks?
My thoughts:
Regarding (1), I really have no idea other than checking the entire table against the new table, at which point I feel I might as well just download the new (potentially and likely unchanged) table and replace the old one, but this takes more time.
For (2): Ideally I'd be able to construct something similar to an array of SELECT statements, send them all at once, and have the database return one ResultSet per internal query. From what I understand, however, neither Statement nor PreparedStatement support returning multiple ResultSet objects.
Lastly, the best way I can think of doing (3) is to batch a number of (2) operations.
There is nothing special about having moving requirements, but the single most important thing to use when talking to most databases is having a connection pool in your Java application and use it properly.
This also applies here. The IBM i DB2/400 database is quite fast, and the database driver available in the jt400 project (type 4, no native code) is quite good, so you can pull over quite a bit of data in a short while simply by generating SQL on the fly.
Note that if you only have a single schema you can tell in the conneciton which one you need, and can then use non-qualified table names in your SQL statements. Read the JDBC properties in the InfoCenter very carefully - it is a bit tricky to get right. If you need multiple schemaes, the "naming=system" allows for library lists - i.e. a list of schemaes to look for the tables, which can be very useful when done correctly. The IBM i folks can help you here.
That said, if the connection is the limiting factor, you might have a very strong case for running the "create object from tables" Java code directly on the IBM i. You should already now prepare for being able to measure the traffic to the database - either with network monitoring tooling, using p6spy or simply going through a proxy (perhaps even a throtteling one)
Ideally, you would have the database group provide you with a set of stored procedures to optimize the access to the database.
Since you don't have access, you may want to ask them if they have timestamp data in the database at the row level to see when records were modified, this way you can select only the data that's changed since some point in time.
What #ThorbjørnRavnAndersen is suggesting is moving the database code on to the IBM host and connecting to it via RMI or JMS from the client. So the server code would be a RMI or JMS Server that accesses the database on your behalf and returns you java objects instead of bringing SQL resultsets across the wire.
I would pass along your requirements to the database team and see if they can't do something for you. I'm sure they don't want all these remote clients bringing all the data down each time, so it would benefit them as much as it would benefit you.
I can create a table and its columns in Java by using the statement:
CREATE TABLE table_name(column1 int, column2 double, etc...)
What I would like to do is to add descriptions to each of these columns with an appropriate statement, I found a stored procedure sp_addextendedproperty that looks like it can be used to accomplish this I just have no idea how to use it in java with jdbc.
Are you creating the table dynamically at runtime (e.g. as part of your application) - perhaps that's even user-driven? If that's the case, you already have that "documentation" (column comments) somewhere and I doubt the utility of adding them to SQL Server.
But if you're just trying to automate your build, take a look at LiquiBase. It's a pretty decent DB change management system that uses XML as backbone. It's written in java and integrates well with Hibernate (useful if you ever decide to use ORM instead of straight JDBC).
Update: If you do decide to go forward with calling stored procedure via JDBC, I would strongly recommend using CallableStatement to invoke it. Dynamically building SQL queries in the application should be avoided if possible.
There are a number of ways to call a stored procedure (essentially, preparing the statement and binding the variables, or sending a string of SQL), but the simplest is to just send rhe SQL statement
exec sp_addextendedproperty list, of, arguments, the, sp, needs;
Skipping your try/finally boilerplate, and assuming connection is a java.sql.Connection, that's:
connection
.createStatement()
.execute( "exec sp_addextendedproperty arguments;");
But ChssPly76 has a good point: doing this from Java isn't a good idea (unless you're developing some database manager in Java).