I have the following objects:
Parent
public virtual Guid Id { get; set; }
public virtual DateTime TimeStamp { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Child> Childs { get; set; }
Child
public virtual Guid Id { get; set; }
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
I use Fluent to Map One To Many as follows:
.Override<Parent>(obj =>obj.HasMany(x => x.Childs)
.Cascade.All()
.Not.Inverse()
.Not.KeyNullable()
.Not.KeyUpdate())
I need to get up to all Parent with Childs between dates order by TimeStamp.
I am trying to do it as follows (maxCapacity is int):
QueryOver<Parent>().Where(x => x.TimeStamp > from)
.And(x => x.TimeStamp < to).OrderBy(x => x.TimeStamp).Desc
.Left.JoinQueryOver<Child>(x => x.Childs)
.TransformUsing(new DistinctRootEntityResultTransformer())
.Take(maxCapacity).List();
The result is not what I expected since the Take(maxCapacity) is not on the parent result but on the total query result which includes parent and child.
How can I get the latest X already transformed Parent rows?
Thanks.
The way I would go here is:
load the list of root entity (Parent) and
let NHibernate load their children lazily - in separated SQL query.
To avoid 1 + N issue, we can use smart mapping feature:
19.1.5. Using batch fetching
NHibernate can make efficient use of batch fetching, that is, NHibernate can load several uninitialized proxies if one proxy is accessed (or collections. Batch fetching is an optimization of the lazy select fetching strategy. There are two ways you can tune batch fetching: on the class and the collection level.
Batch fetching for classes/entities is easier to understand. Imagine you have the following situation at runtime: You have 25 Cat instances loaded in an ISession, each Cat has a reference to its Owner, a Person. The Person class is mapped with a proxy, lazy="true". If you now iterate through all cats and call cat.Owner on each, NHibernate will by default execute 25 SELECT statements, to retrieve the proxied owners...
So, the query should be like this:
session.QueryOver<Parent>()
.Where(x => x.TimeStamp > from)
.And(x => x.TimeStamp < to).OrderBy(x => x.TimeStamp).Desc
//.Left.JoinQueryOver<Child>(x => x.Childs)
// .TransformUsing(new DistinctRootEntityResultTransformer())
.Skip(start) // paging
.Take(maxCapacity)
.List<Parent>();
And the parent mapping should be like:
<class name="Parent">
...
<bag name="Childs" batch-size="3">
...
</bag>
</class>
Please, check also these:
How to Eager Load Associations without duplication in NHibernate?
NHibernate QueryOver with Fetch resulting multiple sql queries and db hits
Is this the right way to eager load child collections in NHibernate
Related
When I have an entity object with a one-to-many child collection, and I need to query for a specific child object, is there a feature or some clever pattern I haven't come up with yet to avoid that NHibernate fetches the entire child collection?
Example:
class Parent
{
public virtual int Id { get; proteced set; } // generated PK
public virtual IEnumerable<Child> Children { get; proteced set; }
}
class Child
{
public virtual int Id { get; protected set; } // generated PK
public virtual string Name { get; protected set; }
public virtual Parent Parent { get; protected set; }
}
// mapped with Fluent
class Service
{
private readonly ISessionFactory sessionFactory;
public Service(ISessionFactory sessionFactory)
{
this.sessionFactory = sessionFactory;
}
void DoSomethingWithChildrenNamedBob(int parentId)
{
using(var session = sessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
var parent = session.Get<Parent>(parentId);
// Will cause lazy fetch of all children!
var childrenNamedBob = parent.Children.Where(c => c.Name == "Bob");
// do something with the children
}
}
}
I know it's not the best example because in this case one would probably just query the Child entities directly, but I have encountered situations where I already had a Parent object and needed to traverse specific sub-trees through it.
Short answer: no. Longer answer: you can make it do this, with some sleight of hand.
Rippo's answer above shows how you would do it the 'proper' NHibernate way (whether it's with Linq or QueryOver or HQL doesn't really matter - the point is you have to step outside the parent -> child relationship to do a query). You can take this a step further and disguise this behind a façade. But to do so, you have to remove the mapped relationship entirely and replace it with a query at all times. You'd take out the Parent -> Children mapping, but leave the Child -> Parent mapping intact; then re-write the property on Parent to look like this:
public virtual IQueryable<Child> Children
{
get
{
// somehow get a reference to the ISession (I use ambient context), then
return session.Query<Child>().Where(c => c.Parent == this);
}
}
Now, when you use Parent.Children you get back a queryable collection, so you could then write
IEnumerable<Child> childrenNamedBob = parent.Children.Where(c => c.Name == "Bob");
The only way you could do this and preserve the mapping is to amend NHibernate's collection objects (or inject your own). Diego Mijelshon (who is around these parts) wrote a spike of exactly that, adding IQueryable support to NHibernate collections so you could do
IEnumerable<Child> childrenNamedBob = parent.Children.AsQueryable().Where(c => c.Name == "Bob");
But from what I can see, this never went any further and there's no apparent plan to add this capability to NH. I have run Diego's code and it does work, but obviously it's not production quality and hasn't been tested, and I don't think it's ever been officially 'released' even as a private patch.
Here's the link to the discussion on the NH issue tracker: https://nhibernate.jira.com/browse/NH-2319
I believe NH should support this out of the box, as it's a natural way for most .NET devs to want to interact with pretty much anything enumerable, now that we have Linq, and not being able to do it without the side-effect of loading an unbounded collection into RAM sucks. But the traditional NH model is session -> query and that's what 99% of people use.
I asked the same question on NHusers a few weeks ago and didn't get an answer so I suspect the answer is you will always get all the parents children and then perform a in-memory filter. In many cases this might be the correct way in seeing it.
In your case I would rewrite the query to be:-
var childrenNamedBob = session.Query<Children>()
.Where(w => w.Parent.Id == parentId && w.Name == "Bob");
Then simply to get parent (if childrenNamedBob has results) you could call:-
var parent = childrenNamedBob.First().Parent;
or as you rightly pointed out:-
var parent = session.Get<Parent>(parentId);
You can now do that with NHibernate 5 directly without specific code !
See https://github.com/nhibernate/nhibernate-core/blob/master/releasenotes.txt
Build 5.0.0
=============================
** Highlights
...
* Entities collections can be queried with .AsQueryable() Linq extension without being fully loaded.
...
I've grown accustomed in SQLAlchemy (Python) to map a relationship/collection with lazy="dynamic" which maps the property as a Query object instead of a populated list/collection (or Proxy for lazy loaded properties). This mapped property then allows you to further refine the query used to fetch the collection before doing so (apply an order, limit, filter, etc).
For example, in SQLAlchemy I can map a relationship like so:
class Post(Base):
...
class User(Base):
...
posts = relationship(Post, lazy="dynamic")
And then when I retrieve a user, I can apply an order on posts, or only retrieve the last 5, etc.
user = session.query(User).get(1)
# Fetch the last 5 posts by user 1
posts = user.posts.order_by(Post.create_date.desc()).limit(5).all()
http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_0_7/orm/collections.html
I would love to find a way to do this using Fluent NHibernate, mapping the collection as a QueryOver or IQueryable (LINQ) such as:
public virtual QueryOver<Post> Posts {get; set;}
or
public virtual IQueryable<Post> Posts { get; set; }
and in the mappings do something like:
public class UserMap : ClassMap<User>
{
public UserMap()
{
...
HasMany(u => u.Posts).Fetch.Dynamic
}
}
Is this currently possible using Fluent NHibernate (or just NHibernate)?
It is possible using NHibernate, however it's not quite out of the box.
You would need to write your own collectionwrapper implementing IQueryable, inject it with your own CollectionFactory and delegate the query generation to the session which loaded the containing object.
I defined my entities with bunch of columns and created mapping.
public class PurchaseRecord {
public virtual int? Id {
get;
set;
}
public virtual DateTime? PurchasedDate {
get;
set;
}
public virtual string Comment {
get;
set;
}
public virtual IList<PurchaseRecordExtendedProperty> ExtendedPropertyValues {
get;
set;
}
public class PurchaseRecordMap : ClassMap<PurchaseRecord> {
public PurchaseRecordMap() {
Table("PurchaseRecords");
Id(x => x.Id, "RecordID").GeneratedBy.Identity();
Map(x => x.PurchasedDate, "PurchaseDate").Not.Nullable();
Map(x => x.Comment, "Comment");
HasMany(x => x.ExtendedPropertyValues).KeyColumn("ExtendedPropertyID").Cascade.All();
}
It works well in most of the cases, howerver in some certain situation I want to skip updating certain column (such as child collection ExtendedPropertyValues). When I create the PurchaseRecord object I don't even bother to load the data of ExtendedPropertyValues. But if the property is null NHibernate tries to delete the child records from database.
I know there are some scenario that the ExtendedPropertyValues will never be changed. For performance consideration I don't want to load the data I don't need, is there a way I can force NH to skip designated properties if I don't need to update?
Thanks for any suggestion.
If you enable lazy loading, NHibernate will not try to load any child collections, they will be initialized to a proxy which will only load them if you access them. If you set the child collection to null, that is effectively telling NHibernate to delete all entries in that relationship (unless you mark the relationship as inverse).
NHibernate will not try to update the child collections unless they change (which setting it to null would do).
In summary, enable lazy-loading, and mark ExtendedPropertyValues as inverse, and it should not update it unless you change ExtendedPropertyValues, it also will not load ExtendedPropertyValues unless you access it.
I'm having bit complicated object model that forms a triangle. There is User entity that has collections of Items and Taxonomies. Item has a taxonomy, too. And for convenience, I wanted Item and Taxonomy to know its owner and Taxonomy to know its Item, if any. See diagram:
So this makes three bi-directional relations. My problem is when I map it in NHibernate like that and asking for user with given ID, I'm getting Select N+1 problem.
At first, User is loaded with eagerly fetched Items. Then Taxonomies are loaded with eagerly fetched Item connected to it. And this is as expected and as defined in mappings. But now there is N+1 queries to load Items related with Taxonomies.
This is redundant as all parts of object graph was already loaded. Thie problem disappears when I make my User-Item relation unidirectional from User side (there are only 2 queries, as expected), but I don't want to remove that backward relationship. Is it possible to have optimal fetching with all three relations bidirectional?
Here are my mapping parts:
public class UserOverride : IAutoMappingOverride<User>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<User> mapping)
{
mapping.HasMany(x => x.Items).Inverse()
.Not.LazyLoad().Fetch.Join();
mapping.HasMany(x => x.Taxonomies).Inverse()
.LazyLoad().Fetch.Select();
}
}
public class ItemOverride : IAutoMappingOverride<Item>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<Item> mapping)
{
mapping.References(x => x.Taxonomy); // many-to-one
}
}
public class TaxonomyOverride : IAutoMappingOverride<Taxonomy>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<Taxonomy> mapping)
{
mapping.HasOne(x => x.Item).PropertyRef(x => x.Taxonomy)
.Not.LazyLoad().Fetch.Join();
}
}
And I query my database the simplest possible way:
var user = session.Get<User>(1);
Because mappings will effect all queries, I like to live by the rule that mappings should only be changed to eagerly load if an entity is NEVER useful without an other entity. In your situation, if you ever just want Users, and could care less about the Item and the Taxonomy records, you will be doing extra database work for no benefit.
I would advise you perform the eager loading via the other route- in your query.
Session.QueryOver<User>().Where(u => u.Id == 1)
.join.QueryOver<Items>(u => u.Items)
.Join.QueryOver<Taxonomy>(i => i.Taxonomy)
.TransformUsing(Trasnformers.DistinctRootEntity);
I have a model where multiple classes have a list of value types:
class Foo { public List<ValType> Vals; }
class Bar { public List<ValType> Vals; }
Foo and Bar are unrelated apart from that they both contain these vals. The rules for adding, removing, etc. the ValTypes are different for each class. I'd like to keep this design in my code.
There are times when I want to copy some Vals from a Foo to a Bar, for example. In the database, each ValType has its own table, to keep it small, light (it just has the parent ID + 2 fields), and allow integrity checks. I know NHibernate says I should keep my objects as granular as the database, but that just makes my code uglier.
The best I've thought of so far is to make separate subclasses of ValType, one for each parent. Then I can map those at that level. Then, I'll hook up add and remove logic to auto-convert between the right subclasses, and actually store them in a private list that has the right subclass type. But this seemed a bit convoluted.
How can I map this in NHibernate (Fluent NHibernate if possible)?
Please let me know if this is a duplicate -- I'm not quite sure how to search this.
At database level a solution would be to have:
Val(Id)
Bar(Id)
BarToVal(IdBar, IdVal)
FooToVal(IdFoo, IdVal)
I am not very sure how would these be mapped. Maybe something like:
// BarMap:
HasManyToMany(x => x.Vals).WithTableName("BarToVal");
// FooMap:
HasManyToMany(x => x.Vals).WithTableName("FooToVal");
Hope it's making sense...
You can find an example on the Google Code page for Fluent NHibernate.
Model
public class Customer
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Address { get; set; }
}
Schema
table Customer (
Id int primary key
Name varchar(100)
)
table CustomerAddress (
CustomerID int,
Address varchar(100)
)
Mapping
public class CustomerMap : ClassMap<Customer>
{
public CustomerMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id);
Map(x => x.Name);
WithTable("CustomerAddress", m =>
{
m.Map(x => x.Address);
});
}
}
In this example, an entity is split across two tables in the database. These tables are joined by a one-to-one on their keys. Using the WithTable feature, you can tell NHibernate to treat these two tables as one entity.