NHibernate parent, child collection with futures - nhibernate

I have this setup: Parent, with a collection of Child.
class Parent {
IList<Child> Childs { get; set; }
}
HQL:
("From Parent").Future();
("From Child").Future();
foreach(Parent p in result) {
foreach(Child c in p.Childs) {
}
}
This gives the classic N+1 problem. Two SQL statements are sent to server in 1 roundtrip, so all the data exists in first level cache, so why does NH still exists SQL for every child.
Version 3.1.0.400

When you execute the future query, you pull all Parent and Child objects into the 1st-level cache. The Parent objects contain a lazy collection, which needs to be populated. To populate the collection, NHibernate has to query the database. (We'll get to why in just a second.) The query returns Child objects and those child objects are already in the L1 cache. So those objects are used to populate the collection.
Now why does NHibernate have to query the database to populate the Childs collection? You could have a "where" clause on the collection that filters out Child objects with IsDeleted==true. You could have code in an EventListener that filters out certain Child objects. Basically there is a lot that can happen and NHibernate can't make any assumptions about the relationship between Parent and Child objects.
You can give it enough information by specifying a fetching strategy in the HQL or in your mapping. In HQL, you could write:
var parents = session.CreateQuery("from Parent p join fetch p.Childs").Future<Parent>();
The Child object query using the future would be completely optional as you're fetching the children with the parents. Because of the join fetch, you will get duplicate Parent objects, though they'll be the same object. (You're doing an inner join in the database and returning one copy of the parent row for each child row.) You can get rid of these by iterating over parents.Distinct().
If you always want to fetch Child objects with the corresponding Parent, you can also use fetch="join" in your Parent mapping.
<bag name="Children" cascade="all-delete-orphan" fetch="join">
<key column="ParentId"/>
<one-to-many class="Child"/>
</bag>
If neither of these options works for your scenario, you can specify batch-size on the collection mapping. You will still execute a database query when you hit parent.Childs, but NHibernate will eagerly initialize any other collection proxies.
<bag name="Children" cascade="all-delete-orphan" batch-size="10">
<key column="ParentId"/>
<one-to-many class="Child"/>
</bag>

Related

Nhibernate efficient cascade delete

On a delete context with nHibernate, when deleting a parent with child collection
I would like to know why Nhibernate do a delete line by line for children (on child PK)
DELETE FROM children where Id=1
DELETE FROM children where Id=2
...
DELETE FROM parent where id=1
Why nhibernate can't do
DELETE FROM children where parentId=1
DELETE FROM parent where id=1
It will be more efficient if parent have 100k children for example.
I search in many topics without finding a correct anwser. I did some tests too but witout success
An idea ?
That is a case, where we can use NHibernate extensibility points. The doc
19.3. Custom SQL for create, update and delete
NHibernate can use custom SQL statements for create, update, and
delete operations. The class and collection persisters in NHibernate
already contain a set of configuration time generated strings
(insertsql, deletesql, updatesql etc.). The mapping tags <sql-insert>,
<sql-delete>, and <sql-update> override these strings:
<class name="Person">
<id name="id">
<generator class="increment"/>
</id>
<property name="name" not-null="true"/>
<sql-insert>INSERT INTO PERSON (NAME, ID) VALUES ( UPPER(?), ? )</sql-insert>
<sql-update>UPDATE PERSON SET NAME=UPPER(?) WHERE ID=?</sql-update>
<sql-delete>DELETE FROM PERSON WHERE ID=?</sql-delete>
</class>
So, if standard deletion is not useful, we can provide our own process, including some stored procedure
<sql-delete>exec deletePerson ?</sql-delete>
Summary, in most cases, the standard model is working and effective enough. In case we need to improve SQL .. we can ...

nhibernate mapping: delete collection, insert new collection with old IDs

my issue lokks similar to this one: (link)
but i have one-to-many association:
<set name="Fields" cascade="all-delete-orphan" lazy="false" inverse="true">
<key column="[TEMPLATE_ID]"></key>
<one-to-many class="MyNamespace.Field, MyLibrary"/>
</set>
(i also tried to use )
this mapping is for Template object. this one and the Field object has their ID generators set to identity.
so when i call session.Update for the Template object it works fine, well, almost:
if the Field object has an Id number, UPDATE sql request is called, if the Id is 0, the INSERT is performed. But if i delete a Field object from the collection it has no effect for the Database. I found that if i also call session.Delete for this Field object, everything will be ok, but due to client-server architecture i don't know what to delete.
so i decided to delete all the collection elements from the DB and call session.Update with a new collection. and i've got an issue: nhibernate performs the UPDATE operation for the Field objects that has non-zero Id, but they are removed from DB!
maybe i should use some other Id generator or smth..
what is the best way to make nhibernate perform "delete all"/"insert all" routine for the collection?
Is the entity you are updateing already associated with the session? (ie do you load the entity and modify that loaded instance)?
It sound like you are trying to tell nhibernate to update a detached entity, in this case nhiberante cannot know what entities as been added/removed in the collection. In this case you could use Merge:
var mergedEntity = session.Merge(entityPasedFromClient)
The merge operation will fetch the enity from the db compare it with the one that as been sent from the client and merge them, that way the entity that nhiberante fetch from the db (and is associated with the session) is modified and later fetched, the merged entity is returned (this will not be the same instance as the entity you pass the merge operation).
I am not sure I understand the last part of your question:
"so i decided to delete all the collection elements from the DB and call session.Update with a new collection. and i've got an issue: nhibernate performs the UPDATE operation for the Field objects that has non-zero Id, but they are removed from DB!"
Are the field items updated and then removed?

Storing an ordered child collection in NHibernate

I'm having trouble getting my head around the way I should implement an ordered child relationship with NH.
In the code world, I have:
class Parent
{
public Guid Id;
public IList<Child> Children;
}
class Child
{
public Guid Id;
public Parent Parent;
}
A Parent has a list of Child[ren] with an order. In reality, the Children collection will contain unique Childs which will be enforced by other code (i.e. it will never be possible to add the same child to the collection twice - so i dont really care if the NH collection enforces this)
How should I implement the mappings for both classes?
From my understanding:
Bags have no order, so i dont want this
Sets have no order, but i could use order-by to do some sql ordering, but what do i order by? I can't rely on a sequential ID. so i dont want this?
Lists are a duplicate-free collection, where the unique-key is the PK and the index column, so i do want this?
So, using a list, i have the following:
<list cascade="all-delete-orphan" inverse="true" name="Children">
<key>
<column name="Parent_id" />
</key>
<index>
<column name="SortOrder" />
</index>
<one-to-many class="Child" />
</list>
When I insert a parent which a child on it, i see the following SQL:
Insert into Child (id, Parent_id) values (#p0, #p1)
I.e, why doesn't it insert the SortOrder?
If I do a SchemaExport the SortOrder column is created on the Child table.
:(
If I set Inverse="false" on the relationship, i see the same SQL as above, followed by:
UPDATE "Child" SET Parent_id = #p0, SortOrder = #p1 WHERE Id = #p2
Why does it still INSERT the Parent_id with inverse="false" and why doesn't it insert the SortOrder with inverse="true"?
Am I approaching this totally wrong?
Is it also true that assuming this was working, if I were to do:
parentInstance.Children.Remove(parentInstance.Children[0]);
save the parent and reload it, that the list would have a null in position 0, instead of shuffling the rest up?
Thanks
Inverse=true means that NHib will not try to save the actual collection. It will however still cascade the save operation through the collection onto the contained entities, which includes persisting transient instances. This is why you get an insert with no SortOrder - NHib is persisting your transient Child object.
There was a similar question where the solution involved moving to <bag> mappings, but that loses the ordering qualities that <list> has.
Now I've used a <list> before with a <many-to-many> mapping, and there it worked great. There were two SQL insert calls - one to the table containing the child entity and the other to the linking table. I suspect that in your '' case, NHib is still applying the same strategy even though both calls are to the same table.
And finally, if you remove the item at index 0 then you end up with a null value.
So overall, I'd suggest either: 1) move to a <bag> mapping for your collection, and maintaining a specific property for sort order; or 2) move to a <many-to-many> mapping inside your collection.

NHibernate: Change from lazy=true to fetch=join brings back the world

I have a User object/mapping in my application. Each user has a list of contact information (phone, email etc)
the mapping for the user contains:
<bag name="ContactInfo" table="contact_info" lazy="true" cascade="all">
<key column="contact_id"/>
<one-to-many class="...ContactInfo, ..."/>
</bag>
this works fine but i get the n+1 select problem so i need to optimize it a little bit. But for some reason, when I change this to a join and perform some db operation, NH starts updating ALL contact_info objects in the database. When i say db operation i dont mean changinf a contact. i mean anything.
Anyone knows why? thx
EDIT: Just realized that it does it for lazy="true" as well but the second time, after the objects have been loaded. the question of why remains
I'm wondering if your cascades are causing the issue. Do you have cascade=all on your entire graph? If so you may want to re-evaluate your lifecycle strategy.
Here's a though from section 9.9 of NHibernate 1.2 reference (emphasis added)
Mapping an association (many-to-one,
or collection) with cascade="all"
marks the association as a parent/
child style relationship where
save/update/deletion of the parent
results in save/update/deletion of the
child(ren). Futhermore, a mere
reference to a child from a persistent
parent will result in save / update of
the child.
it turns out that an enum field in ContactInfo was the problem. i didnt mind if that particular filed was a string so changing it resolved this issue.

When to use inverse=false on NHibernate / Hibernate OneToMany relationships?

I have been trying to get to grips with Hibernate's inverse attribute, and it seems to be just one of those things that is conceptually difficult.
The gist that I get is that when you have a parent entity (e.g. Parent) that has a collection of Child objects using a one-to-many mapping, setting inverse=true on the mapping tells Hibernate that 'the other side (the Child) has responsibility to update itself to maintain the foreign key reference in its table'.
Doing this appears to have 2 benefits when it comes to adding Children to the collection in your code, and then saving the Parent (with cascade-all set): you save an unneccessary hit on the database (because without inverse set, Hibernate thinks it has two places to update the FK relationship), and according to the official docs:
If the column of a
association is declared
NOT NULL, NHibernate may cause
constraint violations when it creates
or updates the association. To prevent
this problem, you must use a
bidirectional association with the
many valued end (the set or bag)
marked as inverse="true".
This all seems to make sense so far. What I don't get is this: when would you NOT want to use inverse=true on a one-to-many relationship?
As Matthieu says, the only case where you wouldn't want to set inverse = true is where it does not make sense for the child to be responsible for updating itself, such as in the case where the child has no knowledge of its parent.
Lets try a real world, and not at all contrived example:
<class name="SpyMaster" table="SpyMaster" lazy="true">
<id name="Id">
<generator class="identity"/>
</id>
<property name="Name"/>
<set name="Spies" table="Spy" cascade="save-update">
<key column="SpyMasterId"/>
<one-to-many class="Spy"/>
</set>
</class>
<class name="Spy" table="Spy" lazy="true">
<id name="Id">
<generator class="identity"/>
</id>
<property name="Name"/>
</class>
Spymasters can have spies, but spies never know who their spymaster is, because we have not included the many-to-one relationship in the spy class. Also (conveniently) a spy may turn rogue and so does not need to be associated with a spymaster. We can create entities as follows:
var sm = new SpyMaster
{
Name = "Head of Operation Treadstone"
};
sm.Spies.Add(new Spy
{
Name = "Bourne",
//SpyMaster = sm // Can't do this
});
session.Save(sm);
In such a case you would set the FK column to be nullable because the act of saving sm would insert into the SpyMaster table and the Spy table, and only after that would it then update the Spy table to set the FK. In this case, if we were to set inverse = true, the FK would never get updated.
Despite of the high-voted accepted answer, I have another answer to that.
Consider a class diagram with these relations:
Parent => list of Items
Item => Parent
Nobody ever said, that the Item => Parent relation is redundant to the Parent => Items relation. An Item could reference any Parent.
But in your application, you know that the relations are redundant. You know that the relations don't need to be stored separately in the database. So you decide to store it in a single foreign key, pointing from the Item to the Parent. This minimal information is enough to build up the list and the reference back.
All you need to do to map this with NH is:
use the same foreign key for both relations
tell NH that one (the list) is redundant to the other and could be ignored when storing the object. (That is what NH actually does with inverse="true")
These are the thoughts which are relevant for inverse. Nothing else. It is not a choice, there is only one way of correct mapping.
The Spy Problem:
It is a completely different discussion if you want to support a reference from the Item to the Parent. This is up to your business model, NH doesn't take any decisions in this. If one of the relations is missing, there is of course no redundancy and no use of inverse.
Misuse: If you use inverse="true" on a list which doesn't have any redundancy in memory, it just doesn't get stored. If you don't specify the inverse="true" if it should be there, NH may store the redundant information twice.
If you want to have an unidirectional association i.e. that the children can't navigate to the Parent. If so, you FK column should be NULLABLE because the children will be saved before the parent.