I'm working on a query together that needs to load a list of entities that have a many-to-one relationship with another entity, which itself has a many-to-one relationship with another entity. I don't need any of the data loaded by the association, but when reviewing the query log I'm finding that JPA is automatically loading it anyways. My understanding is that this happens because my JPA implementation can't create a proxy to represent the associated entity like it can do with collections.
Let's say my entity is Ham, which has a many-to-one association with a Sandwich. My JPQL to get a list of ham might look like so:
Select H from Ham H
Is there a way to explicitly ignore Ham's association with sandwich in JPQL so my database doesn't get pelted with a superfluous series of select sandwich queries without resorting to a join fetch?
When defining the ManyToOne relationship, mark it as "lazy loading" (by using anotations, it is something like):
#ManyToOne(fetch=FetchType.LAZY)
That way the PQL above will work as expected. But, when you require Sandwich to be loaded, you will have to add a FETCH JOIN
Related
I have a Customer Entity with a OneToMany relationship to an Invoice Entity.
In plain old sql i can do "select customer_name,customer_age,[some other fields] from customer, invoice where ... [put some filtering here]", which gets me exactly one record with the fields i need.
In JPA i use "select c from Customer c join c.invoiceCollection where ... [same filtering as above]"
This works, but i get the Customer entity with all its associated invoices.
This is nonsense, because i pull a huge amount of (invoices) data from the database, which i do not need. I need only my customer data with exactly one invoice, as specified in the where clause.
To make things worse, i have to loop over the Customer.invoiceCollection in order to find the one specific invoice needed. This costs me even more time plus it exposes my "where" clause to the middle-tier.
Question: is there a JPA select syntax which fetches exactly one record from a one-to-many relationship, as defined in the where clause?
Things tried so far:
a) lazy loading. This does not work, throws an exception whenever i try to access Customer.invoiceCollection.
Even if it worked, i'd get a Collection with some 1000 entries, which i do not need.
b) changed my jpa statement to "select c,i from Customer c join c.invoiceCollection i where ...". This returns me an array of objects, which i have to manually map to a Customer / Invoice entity.
It works, but it makes the ORM philosophy obsolete. If i perform all the mapping from relational database records/fields to java objects manually in my code, why do i need JPA?
This is one of the most infuriating things about JPA. For example, you NEED the OneToMany side if you want Customer to cascade delete Invoices. In most cases you'd like to tell Invoices to delete itself when a Customer is deleted so that Customer does not necessarily need to know about Invoice.
My suggestion for you is that you keep the OneToMany there but get the Lazy Loading working. In your code, do not access "Customer#getInvoices" directly (unless you really need all of them).
This will allow you to do queries on customers that join to invoices without loading them.
I'm guess the exception you are getting just has to do with transaction boundaries which can be easily fixed.
For a lot of these relationships I often add the OneToMany as a private instance variable but I don't create the #getter method. That way I can use it in queries, setup cascade delete, etc. but I don't provide a way to accidentally load thousands of invoices from a customer.
Oh, and for those queries where you need exactly one invoice with its associated customer you should just do the JPA query on the Invoice and then call #getCustomer on that invoice object. That will be eagerly fetched for you.
If you need exactly one invoice with the related customer, why don't you create a query simply based on Invoice?
select i from Invoice i where [same filtering..]
You should not use one-to-many relationship in this case.
One-to-many relationships are suitable for situations when objects at "many" side are logical parts of object at "one" side (e.g. relationship from Invoice to InvoiceLine).
In you case you need a unidirectional many-to-one relationship from Invoice to Customer, so that you can query it as follows:
select i from Invoice i where ...
Then you can use customer field of Invoice to access Customer or filter by its properties.
Is it possible to include a computed field in an EF entity? Example, lets say I have a shop selling products, and the products are grouped into categories.
When the list of categories is displayed for editing to the administrator of the shop I wish to list the number of products in each category as part of the list.
In NHibernate I would use a formula e.g.
<property name="Products" formula="dbo.Category_NumProducts(id)" />
I can't work out if something similar is possible for EF. I know I could make a category view and map this to a second entity but that seems wrong as its almost a complete duplication.
EDIT: If this isn't possible in EF, then what is the best way to accomplish this?
Unfortunately if your Category table doesn't have this as computed column you will not be able to map it without creating second entity - it leads to database view, defining query in EDMX or perhaps Query view in EDMX (but Query view may not work because you require aggregate function to be computed).
Edit:
IMHO the simplest solution (and also the best) is simply creating a ViewModel (some non mapped class) and use projection in Linq query:
var query = from c in context.Categories
where ...
select new CategoryView {
Id = c.Id,
Name = c.Name,
...
Products = c.Products.Count()
};
I'm fairly new to EF and STE's, but I've stumbled on a painful point recently, and I'm wondering how others are dealing with it...
For example, suppose I have two STE's: Employee and Project. It's a many-to-many relationship. Each entity has a navigation property to the other (i.e. Employee.Projects and Project.Employees).
In my UI, a user can create/edit an Employee and associate it with multiple Projects. When the user is ready to commit, a list of Employees is passed to the server to save. However, if an Employee is not added to the "save list" (i.e. it was discarded), but an association was made to one or more Projects, the ApplyChanges extension method is able to "resurrect" the Employee object because it was "connected" to the object graph via the association to a Project.
My "save" code looks something like this:
public void UpdateEmployees(IEnumerable<Entities.Employee> employees)
{
using (var context = new EmployeeModelContainer(_connectionString))
{
foreach (var employee in employees)
{
context.Employees.ApplyChanges(employee);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
I've been able to avoid this issue to now on other object graphs by using FKs to manipulate associations as described here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/diego/archive/2010/10/06/self-tracking-entities-applychanges-and-duplicate-entities.aspx
How does one handle this when a many-to-many association and navigation properties are involved?
Thanks.
While this answer's a year late, perhaps it will be of some help to you (or at least someone else)
The simple answer is this: do not allow Entity Framework to infer m:m relationships. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a way of preventing this, only how to deal with it after the fact.
By default, if I have a schema like this:
Employee EmployeeProject Project
----------- --------------- ----------
EmployeeId ---> EmployeeId |--> ProjectId
Name ProjectId ----- Name
... ...
Entity Framework will see that my EmployeeProject table is a simple association table with no additional information (for example, I might add a Date field to indicate when they joined a project). In such cases, it maps the relationship over an association rather than an entity. This makes for pretty code, as it helps to mitigate the oft-referenced impedence mismatch between a RDBMS and object-oriented development. After all, if I were just modeling these as objects, I'd code it the same way, right?
As you've seen, however, this can cause problems (even without using STE's, which cause even MORE problems with m:m relationships). So, what's a dev to do?
(The following assumes a DATABASE FIRST approach. Anything else and you're on your own)
You have two choices:
Add another column to your association table so that EF thinks it has more meaning and can't map it to an association. This is, of course, bad design, as you presumably don't need that column (otherwise you'd already have it) and you're only adding it because of the particular peculiarities of the ORM you've chosen. So don't.
After your context has been generated, map the association table yourself to an entity that you create by hand. To do that, follow the following steps:
Select the association in the designer and delete it. The designer will inform you that the table in question is no longer mapped and will ask you if you want to remove it from the model. Answer NO
Create a new entity (don't have it create a key property) and map it to your association table in the Mapping Details window
Right-click on your new entity and add an association
Correct the entity and multiplicity values (left side should have your association entity with a multiplicity of *, right should have the other entity with a multiplicity of 1)
Check the option that says "Add foreign key properties to the Entity"
Repeat for the other entity in the association
Fix the property names on the association entity (if desired...not strictly necessary but they're almost certainly wrong) and map them to the appropriate columns in the Mapping Details window
Select all of the scalar properties on your association entity and set them as EntityKey=True in the Properties window
Done!
so the story is very simple.
I have one table called Products and another Called categories. In addition, i have another table called ProductCategories that hold the relationship of catetories to their corresponding products (i.e, the table has two columns, ProductId, ColumnId).
For some reason, after adding all those table to my entity model, i don't have "Access" to it, hence i can do myentityModel.ProductCategories, so i could relational items between those two tables.
And yes, the ProductCategores table is added as "Association" to the entity model. i don't really understand that.
EDIT:
I do see that as part of creating new "Product" i can pass EntityCollection of "Category". So i do query from my entity model for a list of the matching categories that the user selected (on the webpage). so for example, i get (after query the model), an Objectset of "Category". However, i encountered two issues:
the 'AddObject' accept only EntityCollection, hence i need to re-create a set and then add all the objects from the ObjectSet to the entityCollection, in this process i need to detach it from the previous model and add it to the new collection. if not, i get an exception.
when i do the SaveChanges, i see that i get an exception that it was actually trying to Create new Category rather than adding new ProductCategory. again, am i missing something here?
Thanks.
This sounds like a Many-to-Many relationship. In your entity model, you don't need to declare the join table as a separate entity. Instead, you configure the relationship between the Products and the Categories as a Many-to-Many and add metadata about the join table. In Hibernate, you would have:
#ManyToMany(targetEntity=Categories.class, cascade={CascadeType.ALL}, fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinTable(name="tb_products_categories",
joinColumns=#JoinColumn(name="category_id"),
inverseJoinColumns=#JoinColumn(name="product_id")
)
#IndexColumn(name="join_id")
public List<Categories> getCategories() {
return categories;
}
When you query, the ORM layer takes care of determining SQL and traversing table joins.
Please help an EF n00b design his database.
I have several companies that produce several products, so there's a many-to-many relationship between companies and products. I have an intermediate table, Company_Product, that relates them.
Each company/product combination has a unique SKU. For example Acme widgets have SKU 123, but Omega widgets have SKU 456. I added the SKU as a field in the Company_Product intermediate table.
EF generated a model with a 1:* relationship between the company and Company_Product tables, and a 1:* relationship between the product and Company_Product tables. I really want a : relationship between company and product. But, most importantly, there's no way to access the SKU directly from the model.
Do I need to put the SKU in its own table and write a join, or is there a better way?
I just tested this in a new VS2010 project (EFv4) to be sure, and here's what I found:
When your associative table in the middle (Company_Product) has ONLY the 2 foreign keys to the other tables (CompanyID and ProductID), then adding all 3 tables to the designer ends up modeling the many to many relationship. It doesn't even generate a class for the Company_Product table. Each Company has a Products collection, and each Product has a Companies collection.
However, if your associative table (Company_Product) has other fields (such as SKU, it's own Primary Key, or other descriptive fields like dates, descriptions, etc), then the EF modeler will create a separate class, and it does what you've already seen.
Having the class in the middle with 1:* relationships out to Company and Product is not a bad thing, and you can still get the data you want with some easy queries.
// Get all products for Company with ID = 1
var q =
from compProd in context.Company_Product
where compProd.CompanyID == 1
select compProd.Product;
True, it's not as easy to just navigate the relationships of the model, when you already have your entity objects loaded, for instance, but that's what a data layer is for. Encapsulate the queries that get the data you want. If you really want to get rid of that middle Company_Product class, and have the many-to-many directly represented in the class model, then you'll have to strip down the Company_Product table to contain only the 2 foreign keys, and get rid of the SKU.
Actually, I shouldn't say you HAVE to do that...you might be able to do some edits in the designer and set it up this way anyway. I'll give it a try and report back.
UPDATE
Keeping the SKU in the Company_Product table (meaning my EF model had 3 classes, not 2; it created the Company_Payload class, with a 1:* to the other 2 tables), I tried to add an association directly between Company and Product. The steps I followed were:
Right click on the Company class in the designer
Add > Association
Set "End" on the left to be Company (it should be already)
Set "End" on the right to Product
Change both multiplicities to "* (Many)"
The navigation properties should be named "Products" and "Companies"
Hit OK.
Right Click on the association in the model > click "Table Mapping"
Under "Add a table or view" select "Company_Product"
Map Company -> ID (on left) to CompanyID (on right)
Map Product -> ID (on left) to ProductID (on right)
But, it doesn't work. It gives this error:
Error 3025: Problem in mapping fragments starting at line 175:Must specify mapping for all key properties (Company_Product.SKU) of table Company_Product.
So that particular association is invalid, because it uses Company_Product as the table, but doesn't map the SKU field to anything.
Also, while I was researching this, I came across this "Best Practice" tidbit from the book Entity Framework 4.0 Recipies (note that for an association table with extra fields, besides to 2 FKs, they refer to the extra fields as the "payload". In your case, SKU is the payload in Company_Product).
Best Practice
Unfortunately, a project
that starts out with several,
payload-free, many-to-many
relationships often ends up with
several, payload-rich, many-to-many
relationships. Refactoring a model,
especially late in the development
cycle, to accommodate payloads in the
many-to-many relationships can be
tedious. Not only are additional
entities introduced, but the queries
and navigation patterns through the
relationships change as well. Some
developers argue that every
many-to-many relationship should start
off with some payload, typically a
synthetic key, so the inevitable
addition of more payload has
significantly less impact on the
project.
So here's the best practice.
If you have a payload-free,
many-to-many relationship and you
think there is some chance that it may
change over time to include a payload,
start with an extra identity column in
the link table. When you import the
tables into your model, you will get
two one-to-many relationships, which
means the code you write and the model
you have will be ready for any number
of additional payload columns that
come along as the project matures. The
cost of an additional integer identity
column is usually a pretty small price
to pay to keep the model more
flexible.
(From Chapter 2. Entity Data Modeling Fundamentals, 2.4. Modeling a Many-to-Many Relationship with a Payload)
Sounds like good advice. Especially since you already have a payload (SKU).
I would just like to add the following to Samuel's answer:
If you want to directly query from one side of a many-to-many relationship (with payload) to the other, you can use the following code (using the same example):
Company c = context.Companies.First();
IQueryable<Product> products = c.Company_Products.Select(cp => cp.Product);
The products variable would then be all Product records associated with the Company c record. If you would like to include the SKU for each of the products, you could use an anonymous class like so:
var productsWithSKU = c.Company_Products.Select(cp => new {
ProductID = cp.Product.ID,
Name = cp.Product.Name,
Price = cp.Product.Price,
SKU = cp.SKU
});
foreach (var
You can encapsulate the first query in a read-only property for simplicity like so:
public partial class Company
{
public property IQueryable<Product> Products
{
get { return Company_Products.Select(cp => cp.Product); }
}
}
You can't do that with the query that includes the SKU because you can't return anonymous types. You would have to have a definite class, which would typically be done by either adding a non-mapped property to the Product class or creating another class that inherits from Product that would add an SKU property. If you use an inherited class though, you will not be able to make changes to it and have it managed by EF - it would only be useful for display purposes.
Cheers. :)