There is a table with 3 foreign keys to three tables.
To do an insert using JPA, is it suggested/performant to
query individual tables(having foreign key relations) and create
respecitve objects and do a .save()
?
or
use native #Query(), with #Transactional and #Modifying?
for making an insert, i am making 3 calls to DB to get respective objects/details and use them for insertion. so total 4 calls.
If i use native Query, i have the id's required(getting from client) i can do it in one query.
so, is it good to do in JPA way or use native query? which is good in view of performance?
If you have the primary keys of the dependencies you can call EntityManager.getReference().
This will return a placeholder that you can use to set as the dependencies in your entity. That way no SQL statement is executed for the dependencies.
From the API Doc:
<T> T getReference(Class<T> entityClass,
Object primaryKey)
Get an instance, whose state may be lazily fetched.
If the requested instance does not exist in the database, the EntityNotFoundException
is thrown when the instance state is first accessed.
(The persistence provider runtime is permitted to throw the EntityNotFoundException when getReference is called.)
The application should not expect that the instance state will be available upon detachment,
unless it was accessed by the application while the entity manager was open.
Parameters:
entityClass - entity class
primaryKey - primary key
Returns:
the found entity instance
Throws:
IllegalArgumentException - if the first argument does not denote an entity type or the second argument is not a valid type for that entity's primary key or is null
EntityNotFoundException - if the entity state cannot be accessed
https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/persistence/EntityManager.html#getReference-java.lang.Class-java.lang.Object-
Related
my situtation is as follows:
I have #Entity class Ingredient in my Spring JPA Project.
I would like to implement a method performing delete operation on DB record by record Id
public boolean deleteIngredient(String id) and if possible avoid handling exceptions for non-existent Ids.
Unfortunately the only recommendations I can find in this area are based on the fact of querying by Id before deleting record e.g.
ingredientRepository.findById(id).ifPresent(x -> ingredientRepository.deleteById(id));
or
if(ingredientRepository.existsById(id)){
ingredientRepository.deleteById(id);
}
which I believe are prone to race conditions (other thread may delete record after this one queries for existence.
Is the best approach really just wrapping it in a try-catch block and handling EmptyResultDataAccessException in case record with given Id does not exist?
If you are using JPA, you need the entity to be marked for deletion in the persistence context (e.g. not in the Database). Keep in mind JPA Repository follows the ORM paradigm and is not acting on the record directly.
Any race conditions will be handled on the persistence context level.
If you use #Transactional and you will be safe.
Also if you don't want the explicit error thrown by deleteById, when the ID is not known to the EntityManager, consider using delete (which will just return with no exception being thrown in case the ID is unknown).
I am working on a spring application.
We have a specific requirement where when we get a specific event, we want to look it up in the DB. If we find the record in the DB, then we delete it from DB, create another event using the details and trigger it.
Now my concern is:
I do not want to use two different calls, one to find the record and another to
delete the record.
I am looking for a way where we can delete the record using a custom
query and simultaneously fetch the deleted record.
This saves two differnet calls to DB, one for fetch and another for delete.
What I found on the internet so far:
We can use the custom query for deletion using the annotation called #Modifying. But this does not allow us to return the object as a whole. You can only return void or int from the methods that are annotated using #Modifying.
We have removeBy or deleteBy named queries provided by spring. but this also returns int only and not the complete record object that is being deleted.
I am specifically looking for something like:
#Transactional
FulfilmentAcknowledgement deleteByEntityIdAndItemIdAndFulfilmentIdAndType(#Param(value = "entityId") String entityId, #Param(value = "itemId") String itemId,
#Param(value = "fulfilmentId") Long fulfilmentId, #Param(value = "type") String type);
Is it possible to get the deleted record from DB and make the above call work?
I could not find a way to retrieve the actual object being deleted either by custom #Query or by named queries. The only method that returns the object being deleted is deleteById or removeById, but for that, we need the primary key of the record that is being deleted. It is not always possible to have that primary key with us.
So far, the best way that I found to do this was:
Fetch the record from DB using the custom query.
Delete the record from DB by calling deleteById. Although, you can now delete it using any method since we would not be requiring the object being returned by deleteById. I still chose deleteById because my DB is indexed on the primary key and it is faster to delete it using that.
We can use reactor or executor service to run the processes asynchronously and parallelly.
My question is would Spring JPA throw exceptions for every query?
I mean, let say there are tables without any relation (FK) between them in database. It is bad design but you cannot change it and it is not up to you.
But you know that data itself should be as there are relations.
That's why you create Entity model with all relations like they are there.
But as I said there is no real relations in database.
And in one point data are inconsistent in database.
Would Spring JPA throw exceptions if there are inconsistency or it will just return you inconsistent data?
I assume with "relations" you mean "foreign keys".
JPA doesn't care about foreign keys.
All it cares about is if the data matches the mapping information on the entities.
So if you have an entity A that references an entity B with id b but such a B does not exist you might eventually get an exception.
Or you might just get an A with a null reference to B.
If the reference is marked as mandatory you might actually not be able to load the A in the first place, because a join is used and therefore not returning any data at all.
Side note: All this depends more on the JPA implementation you are using than on Spring Data JPA.
To the question "Save Differences with Entity ID" I found the following answer:
"For Entities, Id property cannot be null, so you need to map this class as ValueObject. If so,
Id property is treated as regular property and it not goes to GlobalId of this object."
My question is:
Why can't an entity be treated as NEW if the Id is NULL?
I have an object graph that is fetched from the database, and between two javers commits an entity is added to a list in the graph.
Two commits and in the second commit there is a new entity (Id NULL)
Get the change => exeption because Javers can't create a GlobalId.
I can get arround this by doing EntityManager - persist (creates Id:s), but I would like to avoid doing that. The present code may do a persist later or it just lets the transaction finish.
Because the Id is NULL, the entity is NEW. Would it be possible to generate a unigue temp Id (allow Id = NULL) to be able to create the GlobalId?
In the change list, the entity would be reported as NEW. No need to compare with earlier commits.
You should compare/commit your objects when they are fully initialized so when they have Ids.
An entity without Id can't be handled by JaVers for several reasons:
it can't be compared to other entity/version (diff algorithm is based on GlobalIds)
it can't be queried from JaVersRepository (queries use GlobalIds)
If you are using Hibernate, compare/commit your new objects after Hibernate assigns them Ids from sequences.
Another options:
don't use sequence-generated values as JaVers Id but some business identifiers
if an Entity doesn't have a business identifier you can generate UUID in a constructor and use it as JaVers id (and also database PK if you like)
I'm wondering what is best practice to update JPA entity in Spring project - update original entity or create new? I see these two approaches:
Use original - Actualize necessary fields in original entity and save this updated entity back to the repository.
Use copy - manually create new instance of entity, set all field from original entity (+ updated fields) into new entity and save the entity back to the repository.
What approach do you use / is recommended? And why?
When it comes to updating, the standard way would be to retrieve the entity reference(read below) and make changes within a transactional method:
private JpaRepository repo;
#Transactional(readOnly = false)
public void performChanges(Integer id){
Entity e = repo.getOne(id);
// alter the entity object
}
Few things regarding the example:
You would want to use the getOne method of JpaRepository as much as possible as it is in general faster than the findOne of the CrudRepository. The only trick is that you have to be sure that entity actually exists in the database with the given id. Otherwise you would get an exception. This does not occur regarding the findOne method so you would need to make that decision regarding each transactional method which alters a single entity within your application.
You do not need to trigger any persist or save methods on the EntityManager as the changes will be automatically flushed when the transaction is commited.. and that is on method return.
Regarding your second option, I dont think thats much of a use as you would need to get the data using above method anyway. If you intend to use that entity outside of the transaction, then again you could use the one retrieved from the exmaple above and then perform merge once it is again needed within the transactional context and thus Persistence Provider.
Getting an entity and then just updating that entity is the easiest way to do that. Also this is faster than a creation of a copy since EntityManager manages an entity and know that managed entity already exists in DB (so no need to execute additional query).
Anyway, there is third and the fastest approach: using executeUpdate on Query object.
entityManager
.createQuery("update EntityName set fieldName = :fieldName where id = :id")
.setParameter("fieldName", "test")
.setParameter("id", id)
.executeUpdate();
It is faster due to bypassing the persistent context