Develop Reference

JPA, Start with entities vs database schema

Which is better when using JPA, especially when starting a new project?
Start with designing entities and then let JPA generate the database or
Start with the database schema and let tools generate entity classes?
im part of a small company. im both the software developer and DBA. i have complete freedom for the application and db design
im just starting the project

If you want to design a database, then start with the schema. If you want to write software, then start with the entities. The point of an ORM is to let you think about an object model without having to worry about the database that stores it, so questions of this type actually confuse the issue somewhat by insinuating crossover between the realms. Are you a software developer or a DBA? That, much more than the fact that you're using JPA, is what will determine the correct answer for you.

Um - neither? The power of JPA is that you don't have to generate one from the other! Generation of entities or database schema might be a good starting place if you have one already in place; but the generated stuff is not something you will want to use long term.
You cannot simply design one side of the mapping without any consideration of the other. If you will share the database with other applications, you will need to give more weight to the database schema. If your application has a complex model, you will want to focus on the object model first, allowing it to be driven by the use cases you uncover as you develop your application.
I tend to start with the object model first (even without a backing database to start) because that allows me to see the application in action earlier and get a feel for what we really want to build. But integration with the database must happen earlier rather than later; as its constraints will quickly impose themselves on your object model. :-)

It depends on one's needs . Usually in a product development environment , there are different teams which work on database design , interface design and implementation . So in that case , you have no option than generating the JPA entities from the already database design.
Secondly , if you are starting from the scratch and you know what are you upto then you can probably start writing your own entities (java class) and then generate the database from that.

Better go for database Scheme. Because some of the features r not available in JPA generated database.In JPA We cant give default values for our column. Check HERE for the allowable attributes in JPA.

Its upto you. whether to go top-down or bottom up approach. In case this schema would be exclusive to your application, see how your team members and analysts understand ORM or DB. In my experience analysts are better understand in terms of tables. But if they are good to discuss in terms of classes or UML diagrams go with JPA. Also, take into consideration views of your DBA and build engineer.

If you have complete flexibility and are not restricted to a DB schema and want a clean object model in your java application then start with with the model first and generate the schema from the model. This also allows you to generate clean JSON representations from the clean model to serve as on-the-wire format for your objects using technologies like Jackson (or GSON).
Doing DB Schema first and reverse engineering model classes from it will result in relational concepts seeping into your model classes resulting in poor (polluted) model.
In summary do model first unless your hands are tied and you must map to some existing schema.

Using Hibernate for Existing Database

We have an application thats already running for a long time. Now we are migrating it to Spring and possibly using Hibernate or any other ORM.
But we caught up with a question. Is it not recommended / bad idea to use Hibernate for the already existing Database and model the object around Schema?
Most people advocate NOT using Hibernate and instead of go with some other ORMs like iBatis. But in our company, all are proponents of Hibernate.
Any experiences?

I would say that it's irresponsible to choose Hibernate, iBatis, or anything else without knowing your requirements.
If you don't have a solid object model, I'd say that Hibernate is a terrible choice.
If you use stored procedures as the interface to your database, I'd say that Hibernate is a terrible choice.
If you don't like the dynamic SQL that Hibernate generates for you, I'd say that Hibernate is a terrible choice.
Get it? Knee-jerk reactions like the ones from those Hibernate proponents aren't a good idea.
It might be that iBatis or Spring JDBC template is a better choice than Hibernate. You ought to become more informed about that decision and make it for your application rather than blindly listen to a mob.
You don't have to be all or none about it, either. It's possible to implement part of your solution with one technology and the rest in another.
I'd recommend making your persistence layer interface-based so you can swap implementations without affecting clients.

I recommend looking at SansORM (a NoORM object mapper). It is designed for SQL-first development, which fits well with retrofitting an existing schema.

Hibernate works well if you can model your database under your objects.
Vice versa, you are likely to get the database model as your your domain model. You need to evaluate how distant those two models are, otherwise you are going to map the database => ORM objects => your domain model. I would avoid that.
If I want to skip the ORM part, I find myself quite happy with JDBI which I prefer over Spring JDBC Template

As others have pointed out an ORM is only a good choice if your database is not far from an object model.
If that is the case then an option would be Hibernate through JPA for two resons:
Netbeans has a tool to generate JPA Entities from an existing database. This entities are not dependant on Netbeans so you could use a different IDE after the initial reverse engineering.
Spring Data JPA can avoid writing trivial queries and focus on the hard ones.

Does Hibernate have to drive database design?

I spent all of yesterday reading various articles/tutorials on Hibernate and although I am blown-away by how powerful it is, I have one major concern with it.
It seems that the standard practice is to allow Hibernate to design/generate your DB schema for you, which is a new and scary concept that I am choking on. From the tutorials I read, you just add a new entity to your hibernate.cfg.xml config file, annotate any POJO you want with #Entity, and voila - Hibernate creates the tables for you. Although this is very cool, it has me wondering about a handful of scenarios:
What if you already have a DB schema and the one Hibernate wants to generate for you does not conform to it? What if you have a crazy DBA that refuses to budge on the pre-defined (non-Hibernate) schema?
What if you have reference tables with tens of thousands of records in it (like all the cities in the world)? Would you have to instantiate and save() tens of thousands of unique POJOs or is there a way to configure Hibernate so it will honor and not overwrite data already existing in your tables?
What if you want to do perf tuning on your schema/tables? This includes indexing, normalizing above and beyond what Hibernate creates automatically?
What if you want to add constraints or triggers to your tables? Indexes?
I guess at the root of this is the following:
It looks like Hibernate creates and forces a particular schema/config on your DB. I am wondering how this agenda will conflict with our platform standards, our DBA philosophies, and our ability to perf tune/tweak tables that Hibernate interacts with.
Thanks in advance.

I think you're attributing too much power to Hibernate.
Hibernate does have an idiom that may influence database implementation.
Hibernate does not generate a schema for you unless you ask it to do so. It's possible to start with an existing schema and map it to Java objects using Hibernate. But it might not be possible or optimal if the schema conflicts with Hibernate requirements.
If the DBA won't budge - as they shouldn't - or Hibernate can't accomodate you, then you have your answer: you can't use Hibernate.
Your DBA might consent, but your app might find that the dynamic SQL that's generated for you by Hibernate isn't what you want.
Fortunately for you, it's not the only game in town.
I don't think implementations have to be all or none. If you use simple JDBC to access reference data, what's the harm?
Database design considerations should be independent of Hibernate. Constraints, triggers, normalization, and indexes should be driven by business needs, not your middleware choices.
If you don't have a solid object model, or the schema can't accomodate it, then you should reconsider Hibernate. There's straight JDBC, stored procedures, Spring JDBC, and iBatis as alternatives.

Hibernate comes with a default way to map objects to tables - like several tools/libraries, it favours convention over configuration for simplicity.
However, if you want to map the entities to database tables differently, you can explicitly tell Hibernate how these are mapped (from simple attributes such as changing the table name, through to redefining the foreign-key relationships between related entities and how this is persisted).
If you do this correctly, you don't need to instantiate and save existing data, as this would be pointless - the database already contains the information about the entities in exactly the form that Hibernate understands. (Think about it - to load and then immediately save an entity should always be a no-op, and so can be skipped altogether.)
So the short answer to your question is "no". If you don't care for designing tables, you can let Hibernate adopt a reasonable default. If you do want to design your schema explicitly though, you can do this and then describe that exact schema to Hibernate.

As someone who's worked on java and hibernate in the enterprise for a long time, I have seen very few projects which use this capability. You'll see some build tools and other things do this, but for a real enterprise app, i've never seen this.
Most DBA's won't let the application user create tables. They rely on a privileged user to do those things, and the user that the app connects as would have r/w privs on the data but not the schema itself.
As a result, you write the SQL yourself, and you do the hibernate mappings to match. It doesn't mean your object design won't influence your SQL, but you should still always create your schema upfront.

No. You can use hibernate tools to generate the entities from existing database.
There are 2 ways you can go about in using Hibernate. If you have good DBA or database designer, then it is better to design the database and then map it into hibernate.
On the other hand if you don't have DBA and have good developer then let Hibernate generate Database for you.
The concept behind Hibernate is to map Database and the Objects. So it is called as ORM (Object-Relational Mapping) tool.
Read here for Object Relational Impedance.

This is the preferred way for a quick'n dirty prototype or a simple tutorial, but it's far from being the preferred way for any production application. I largely prefer designing the database independently, using scripts to generate the schema, tables, views, indexes, etc., and map the schema to entities.
As long as the mapping finds the tables and columns in the database, everything is fine.
As soon as you have data in your database and the schema must change, you'll have to write migration scripts anyway. You can't just drop everything and restart from scratch. The tutorials are written for developers starting with Hibernate and who must discover Hibernate as quick as possible, without dealing with complex SQL scripts.

What if you already have a DB schema ...
I don't know where you get that impression. Hibernate can use existing schema. It is quite flexible.
What if you have reference tables ...
Make the relationship LAZY, and it won't load automatically. Only changed object will be saved.
What if you want to do perf tuning ...
Just don't use the generated schema. It is just a starting point. You can customize as you need.
What if you want to add constraints or triggers to your tables? Indexes?
Some as above.

You can use hibernate with an existing database schema.
You can use various annotations to map to existing tables and columns, for example:
#Table(name = "dbschema.dbTable") - should be placed before your class file to map it
#Column(name = "colName") - to map a column
Just be sure that the hibernate is configured with this option:
hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto=update
If you set this to create it will create the schema, so do not do this in your case.

Use hibernate/jpa when appropiate. A common practice when designing apps is to extract the draft and alter it manually after needs (indices etc). However, it will be a pain for you if you change the db layout from hibernate way to do things. Lots of the beauty of JPA will be lost. For tasks which require heavy performance tuning and full control - just go for reguar jdbc.

Some answers:
A. It is possible to add an index annotation : see the table annotation.
B. If you have reference tables, you may choose to have lazy fetching or eager fetching (i.e - if your tables represent a person and a its books - whether to load a person without its book, or with its books)
C. Hibernate can be used to work on existing schema. The schema might not be trivial to work with , but as other have said, you should design db only according to business needs, and not according to framework conventions
D. I would like to encourage you also to read what hibernate does "under the hood" - it uses lots of usage of proxies, which hurts performance, you must understand well the scope of session , and the usages of 1st level and 2nd level cache .
E. Following what I wrote at section D - working with triggers will cause your DB to change "under the hood" when it comes to hibernate. Consider a case where updating a record will create (using a trigger) an entry in some archiving table , and let's say this table is also annotated via hibernate - your hibernate caching will not be aware of the change that happend outside of the application scope.
F. It is important to me to state that I'm not against Hibernate, but you should not use it for all solutions, this is a mistake I did in the past. I now work with Spring-JDBC and I'm quite pleased (for our application needs it will be hard to use Hibernate, and I assume we will consider this only in the case we need to support more than one DB flavor).

Database Layer non-ORM (Java)

I want to write Java code to work with a database, no matter which database is used. My problem is that it wouldn't be Object related. There are some insertions and queries that are but most of them aren't.
Right now we are using Postgresql and pure JDBC, but we may have to make it work with Oracle.
Can Hibernate (which I've never used) solve my problem or should I go for something else ?

I have created jOOQ precisely for that. jOOQ models SQL itself as a domain-specific language in Java. It embraces using standard and vendor-specific features, such as built-in functions, window functions, stored procedures, hierarchical queries, etc. Whenever possible, a vendor-specific functionality from one database is simulated for other databases. That way, most of jOOQ-generated SQL is compatible with any of its 13 supported databases.
See also this related question here:
ORM frameworks used for insert only / query only apps

I like #unludo's JPA answer but I thought I'd add some additional details.
I would recommend changing your code to use persistance interface that you define.
public interface DataPersister {
public void saveFoo(Foo foo);
public void findFooById(int id);
...
}
Your first implementation of the interface would then be using JDBC/Postgresql. If you want to use JPA under the covers then fine. Or if you want to switch to some no-SQL database or even flat files then fine.
Once you have the separation in your own code between the usage of the data and the persistence implementation, then it is significantly easier to switch to a different persister. You can use a cheap database like H2 for testing and switch to Postgresql in production while migrating to a new database in the near future.
Hope this helps.

Problems with Hibernate is that you need to modelize your relational database like object model. Sometimes this make difficult working with existing database. So it depends your relational database.
Other framework (not JPA) is Ibatis. Try to look at this framework.

The standard for Java is JPA and it is very powerful. Hibernate is the industry standard as a JPA provider.
JPA helps you write a clean persistence layer. You may write queries which are sure not to break, because they are validated at compilation time. I like to use spring for this, it's so easy to unit test. But CDI now provides the same I believe.
It's also easy to write test classes. As a coworker once teached me, the model is the most important thing you have. You don't want it to break or you have problems.
With JPA you may also generate the schema from the entities, for any database you want to use. From experience, it's also very good.
JPA helps you put good practices at work. That's a lot of value.
Regarding #hvgotcodes answer, yes you have to be careful with the cost but you may also mix jdbc and jpa. That's what Dao's are for.

The problem with writing your own sql is you need to manually optimize it for your RDBMS. Some RDBMS support varying sql constructs.
So you need to balance that against the overhead of switching to an ORM based solution. Or, make sure you sql is 100% standard so you don't use any constructs that work in one RDBMS solution and not in another.
In your particular situation, it's probably going to be easier to just fix your sql than rework your entire persistence layer to use ORM. Sometimes the best tool is the one you know. If your current application doesn't have a concise model layer, switching to ORM is going to require a lot of work. You could of course use hibernate and just use strait sql queries, but what's the point if you are not going to model your data.
Hopefully, all your persistence concerns are in one DAO layer, with lots of integration tests, so you can quickly identify what breaks when you switch RDBMS. If you don't have integration tests that focus on persistence, then now is the time to start writing them.

Easy Java ORM for small projects

I'm currently searching for a really easy way to get simple Java Objects persistent in Databases and/or XML and/or other types of data stores.
For big projects in the company i would use hibernate, ibatis, datanucleus or something like that. But with small private projects this will take over 80% of the worktime.
I also found "simpleORM" but this one requires to code data-related stuff pretty hardly into the data-model classes. I don't really like that style so this is no option for me.
Do you have a suggestion for some library which simply takes my objects and saves / loads them as they are or with very little configuration?

You could try my ORMLite library, which was designed as a simple replacement for hibernate and iBatis. I'm the main author. It supports a number of JDBC databases and has an Android backend. Here is the getting started section of the manual which has some code examples. Here also are working examples of simple usage patterns.

Try Norm. It's a lightweight layer over JDBC. It adds almost zero overhead to JDBC calls and is very easy to learn.

You could just serialize your objects into a file/database whatsoever.
If you want to define the mapping then you'd have to go for more configuration and the standard OR mappers out there (like Hibernate) don't really add that much on top.

You could try xstream. It's really simple OXM library working without upfront configuration.
Sample code:
XStream xstream = new XStream();
// marshalling
String xml = xstream.toXML(domainObject);
// unmarshalling
domainObject = xstream.fromXML(xml);

For relational database persistence try one of the JPA implementations, such as OpenJPA.
The setup overhead is minimal. You can let JPA to create your schema & tables for your from your object definitions, so you don't need to hand crank any sql. All you need to supply is some annotations on your entities and a single config file, persistence.xml.

You can also use jEasyORM (http://jeasyorm.sourceforge.net/).
In most cases it automatically maps objects to database tables with no need for configuration.

You may want to consider www.sormula.org. Minimal programming/annotations and simple learning curve. It uses standard SQL and JDBC so will work with any relational db.

U could try SnakeORM http://sourceforge.net/p/selibs/wiki/Home/
It doesnt have many runtime dependencies, uses JPA annotations and follows DAO pattern.
Disclosure: I am the author of this project

Well if you want an ORM, then that implies that you want to map objects to tables, columns to fields etc. In this case, if you want to avoid the hassle of bigger ORM implementations, you could just use plain old JDBC, with simple DataAccessor patterns. But then this does not translated to XML directly.
If you want to just persist the object somewhere, and only care about "understanding" the object in Java, then serialization is a simple effective method, as Thomas mentioned earlier.

You could also try my little ORM library, Java2DB. I created it specifically for small projects that just want quick and easy access to their database. Check it out on GitHub.

Onyx Database is a very feature rich Java NoSQL database alternative. It's pure java with several persisting modes (caching, embedded-database, save-to-remote, and save-to-remote-cluster. It has an embedded ORM, and is probably the easiest persistence API I've used.