I've got a parent and child object. Depending on a value in the parent object changes the table for the child object. So for example if the parent object had a reference "01" then it will look in the following table "Child01" whereas if the reference was "02" then it would look in the table "Child02". All the child tables are the same as in number of columns/names/etc.
My question is that how can I tell Fluent Nhibernate or nhibernate which table to look at as each parent object is unique and can reference a number of different child tables?
I've looked at the IClassConvention in Fluent but this seems to only be called when the session is created rather than each time an object is created.
I found only two methods to do this.
Close and recreate the nhibernate session every time another dynamic table needs to be looked at. On creating the session use IClassConvention to dynamically calculate the name based on user data. I found this very intensive as its a large database and a costly operation to create the session every time.
Use POCO object for these tables with custom data access.
As statichippo stated I could use a basechild object and have multiple child object. Due to the database size and the number of dynamic table this wasn't really a valid option.
Neither of my two solutions I was particularly happy with but the POCO's seemed the best way for my problem.
NHibernate is intended to be an object relational mappers. It sounds like you're doing more of a scripting style and hoping to map your data instead of working in an OOP manner.
It sounds like you have the makings of an class hierarchy though. What it sounds like you're trying to create in your code (and then map accordingly) is a hierarchy of different kinds of children:
BaseChild
--> SmartChild
--> DumbChild
Each child is either smart or dumb, but since they all have a FirstName, LastName, Age, etc, they all are instances of the BaseChild class which defines these. The only differences might be that the SmartChild has an IQ and the DumbChild has a FavoriteFootballTeam (this is just an example, no offense to anyone of course ;).
NHibernate will let you map this sort of relationship in many ways. There could be 1 table that encompasses all classes or (what it sounds like you want in your case), one table per class.
Did I understand the issue/what you're looking for?
Related
i am trying to design a table which contains sections and each section contains tasks and each task contains sub tasks and so on. I would like to do it under one table. Please let me know the best single table approach which is scalable. I am pretty new to database design. Also please suggest if single table is not the best approach then what could be the best approach to do this. I am using db2.
Put quite simply, I would say use 1 table for tasks.
In addition to all its various other attributes, each task should have a primary identifier, and another column to optionally contain the identifier of its parent task.
If you are using DB2 for z/OS, then you will use a recursive query with a common table expression. Otherwise you you can use a hierarchical recursive query in DB2 for i, or possibly in DB2 for LUW (Linux, Unix, Windows).
Other designs requiring more tables, each specializing in a certain part of the task:subtask relationship, may needlessly introduce issues or limitations.
There are a few ways to do this.
One idea is to use two tables: Sections and Tasks
There could be a one to many relationship between the two. The Task table could be designed as a tree with a TaskId and a ParentTaksId which means you can have Tasks that go n-levels deep (sub tasks of sub tasks og sub tasks etc). Every Task except for the root task will have a parent.
I guess you can also solve this by using a single table where you just add a section column to the Task table I described above.
If you are going to put everything into one table although convenient will be inefficient in the long run. This would mean you will be storing unnecessary repeated groups of data in your database which would not be processor and memory friendly at all. It would in fact violate the Normalization rules and to be more specific the 1st Normal Form which says that there should be no repeating groups that could be found in your table. And it would actually also violate the 3rd Normal Form which means there will be no (transitional) dependency of a non-primary key to another non-primary key.
To give you an illustration, I will put your design into one table. Although I will be guessing on the possible fields but just bear with it because this is for the sake of discussion. Look at the graphics below:
If you look the graphics above (although this is rather small you could download the image and see it closer for yourself), the SectionName, Taskname, TaskInitiator, TaskStartDate and TaskEndDate are unnecessary repeated which as I mentioned earlier a violation of the 1st Normal Form.
Secondly, Taskname, TaskInitiator, TaskStartDate and TaskEndDate are functionally dependent on TaskID which is not a primary key instead of SectionID which in this case should be the primary key (if on a separate table). This is violation of 3rd Normal Form which says that there should be no Transitional Dependence or non-primary key should be dependent on
another non-primary key.
Although there are instances that you have to de-normalized but I believe this one should be normalized. In my own estimation there should be three tables involved in your design, namely, Sections,Tasks and SubTasks that would like the one below.
Section is related to Tasks, that is, a section could have many Tasks.
And Task is related to Sub-Tasks, that is, a Task could have many Sub-tasks.
If I understand correctly the original poster does not know, how many levels of hierarchy will be needed (hence "and so on"). His problem is to create a design that can hold a structure of any depth.
Imho that is a complex issue that does not have a single answer. When implementing such a design you need to count such factors as:
Will the structure be fairly constant? (How many writes?)
How often will this structure be read?
What operations will need to be possible? (Get all children objects of a given object? Get the parent object? Get the direct children?)
If the structure will be constant You could use the nested set model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_set_model)
In this way the table has a 'left' and 'right' column. The parent object has its left and right column encompasing the values of any of its children object.
In that way you can list all the children of an object using a query like this:
SELECT child.id
FROM table AS parent
JOIN table AS child
ON child.left BETWEEN parent.left AND parent.right
AND child.right BETWEEN parent.left AND parent.right
WHERE
parent.id = #searchId
This design can be VERY fast to read, but is also EXTREMELY costly when the structure changes (for example when adding a child to any object You will have to update any object with a 'right' value that is higher than the inserted one).
If you need to be able to make changes to structure in real time you should probably use a design with two tables - one holding the objects, the second the structure (something like parentId, childId, differenceInHierarchyLevels).
Currently I have a table "ComponentAnalysis" and a table "HistoryOfUse" that I am trying to map in Fluent NHibernate.
A component analysis should only have 1 history of use and a history of use should belong to 1 component analysis. This would suggest to me that the tables should be set up for a 1 to 1 mapping. But the designer of the DB didn't set it up that way.
Instead "HistoryOfUse" has a column "ComponentAnalysisID" to specify what component analysis it belongs to. To conform to the database I should have HistoryOfUse References ComponentAnalysis and ComponentAnalysis should HasMany HistoryOfUse.
But if I do this then I need to have a list of type HistoryOfUse which seems fairly annoying. Is there a way to set this up, without changing the database, to allow ComponentAnalysis to have a single HistoryOfUse object even though, according to the DB structure, it should have a list of them?
You can use HasOne method to map your classes. Here is the detailed article about this.
Your class ComponentAnalysis will "HasOne(x => x.HistoryOfUse)". Column HistoryOfUse.ComponentAnalysisID should be a unique key and a foreign key referenced to the ComponentAnalysis.ID column.
I have two classes mapped in NHibernate: Dragon and its subclass FierceDragon, with a few FierceDragons stored stored in a table called Dragons. When I run an HQL query like from Dragon... I get back two objects per row: the expected FierceDragon and an ordinary Dragon that's a copy of the FierceDragon (insofar as is possible; naturally it lacks the FierceDragon's extra Ferocity and TimeSinceLastMeal properties). In particular, their IDs are identical. When I do from FierceDragon I get only FierceDragons, with no extra copies, but that won't work for me in general.
Why does this happen, and how can I prevent it?
If you create your mapping correctly, that should not pose a problem.
There are 3 different ways of mapping a class-hierarchy to the DB using NHibernate.
Check out this and this article.
You can map both Dragon and FierceDragon to the same table, but, in that case, your table should have some nullable columns to be able to store the additional properties of FierceDragon. Since you're talking about one table, I suppose you want to use the 'Table per class hierarchy' mapping strategy ?
The mystery is solved; I thought I was only mapping FierceDragon, but no, I was mapping Dragon too, both to the table Dragons. Not sure why NH did that particular thing in this case, but clearly the fix is to, you know, not map separate classes to the same table. Or if you do, at least give NH some way of distinguishing between the two in the DB.
I am wondering how can one delete an entity having just its ID and type (as in mapping) using NHibernate 2.1?
If you are using lazy loading, Load only creates a proxy.
session.Delete(session.Load(type, id));
With NH 2.1 you can use HQL. Not sure how it actually looks like, but something like this: note that this is subject to SQL injection - if possible use parametrized queries instead with SetParameter()
session.Delete(string.Format("from {0} where id = {1}", type, id));
Edit:
For Load, you don't need to know the name of the Id column.
If you need to know it, you can get it by the NH metadata:
sessionFactory.GetClassMetadata(type).IdentifierPropertyName
Another edit.
session.Delete() is instantiating the entity
When using session.Delete(), NH loads the entity anyway. At the beginning I didn't like it. Then I realized the advantages. If the entity is part of a complex structure using inheritance, collections or "any"-references, it is actually more efficient.
For instance, if class A and B both inherit from Base, it doesn't try to delete data in table B when the actual entity is of type A. This wouldn't be possible without loading the actual object. This is particularly important when there are many inherited types which also consist of many additional tables each.
The same situation is given when you have a collection of Bases, which happen to be all instances of A. When loading the collection in memory, NH knows that it doesn't need to remove any B-stuff.
If the entity A has a collection of Bs, which contains Cs (and so on), it doesn't try to delete any Cs when the collection of Bs is empty. This is only possible when reading the collection. This is particularly important when C is complex of its own, aggregating even more tables and so on.
The more complex and dynamic the structure is, the more efficient is it to load actual data instead of "blindly" deleting it.
HQL Deletes have pitfalls
HQL deletes to not load data to memory. But HQL-deletes aren't that smart. They basically translate the entity name to the corresponding table name and remove that from the database. Additionally, it deletes some aggregated collection data.
In simple structures, this may work well and efficient. In complex structures, not everything is deleted, leading to constraint violations or "database memory leaks".
Conclusion
I also tried to optimize deletion with NH. I gave up in most of the cases, because NH is still smarter, it "just works" and is usually fast enough. One of the most complex deletion algorithms I wrote is analyzing NH mapping definitions and building delete statements from that. And - no surprise - it is not possible without reading data from the database before deleting. (I just reduced it to only load primary keys.)
I have a table in database which has some columns like year,name and also 12 columns (m1,m2,...,m12) representing months. I would like to map this table into one class using NHibernate, ideally, these 12 mapped columns would look like:
_mappedMonths[] = new double[12];
Has anyone a solution for this ?
If you really want to map the columns directly to an array, as you describe, take a look at the ICompositeUserType interface. You can find an article about custom NHibernate mapping here, and this blog post might be of interest as well.
However, if it is not super important you might consider mapping the columns just as you normally would, but as private/protected properties, and then create a public property in your class that exposes those private/public properties as an array. That would be a simpler and faster solution, but would result in code that is not quite as clean.