08-07
02

彻底明白Hibernate中的Inverse

以前写HBM,用一对多或多对多的时候默认总是加上“inverse=true”。当时想法很简单就是由双方来维护之间的关联关系。今天才终于明白inverse的真正含义了!

其实inverse不复杂,但是要真正明白还是要稍微看一下源码。inverse的真正作用就是指定由哪一方来维护之间的关联关系。当一方中指定了“inverse=false”(默认),那么那一方就有责任负责之间的关联关系,说白了就是hibernate如何生成Sql来维护关联的记录!举个最简单的一对多父子关系。那么代码就写成:

父亲中的关系映射
{set name="children" lazy="true" inverse="true"}
      {key column="parent_id"/}
      {one-to-many class="test.Child"/}
{/set}

儿子中关系映射
{many-to-one name="parent" column="parent_id" not-null="true"/}


Parent p = new Parent();
Child c = new Child();
c.setParent(p);  //维护父子之间关系
p.getChildren().add(c);

session.save(p);
session.flush();

注意:{many-to-one}总是设成“inverse=false”的,而且这个属性在Mapping中是不存在的!

这样运行的下来的结果就是:

Hibernate: insert into parent (id) values (?)
Hibernate: insert into child (parent_id, id) values (?, ?)

那么假如c.setParent(p)注释掉,结果就是:

Hibernate: insert into parent (id) values (?)

比较结果显而易见!此外,inverse还有一个重要特点就是会优化Sql。(具体可以把SHOW_SQL这个属性打开,然后观察一下就知道了)

接下来再看看update,还是父子的例子:

Parent p = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId);
Parent p2 = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId2);
       
c = (Child) session.find(
            "from Child as child where child.parent = ?",
            p, Hibernate.entity(Parent.class)).get(0);

// 改变儿子c的关系
p.getChildren().remove(c);
p2.getChildren().add(c);
c.setParent(p2);

这样运行下来的结果就是

Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=? //get parent 1
Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=? //get parent 2
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where (child0_.parent_id=? )

Hibernate: select child0_.id as id__, child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where child0_.parent_id=?
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id__, child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where child0_.parent_id=?

Hibernate: update child set parent_id=? where id=?(正确更新了)

那么根据上面的结论,关系应该是由“inverse=false”方来维护的,那么我把代码改成:

Parent p = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId);
Parent p2 = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId2);
       
c = (Child) session.find(
            "from Child as child where child.parent = ?",
            p, Hibernate.entity(Parent.class)).get(0);

//p.getChildren().remove(c);
//p2.getChildren().add(c);

c.setParent(p2);

这样运行下来的结果

Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=? //get parent 1
Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=? //get parent 2
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where (child0_.parent_id=? )

Hibernate: update child set parent_id=? where id=?

比较结果很明显,少了父加载儿子的过程,乍看下是成功更新了。实际上,结果和DB是不一致的。(原因很简单就是父亲p的children并没有被更新)

那么反过来改一下:

Parent p = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId);
Parent p2 = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId2);
       
c = (Child) session.find(
            "from Child as child where child.parent = ?",
            p, Hibernate.entity(Parent.class)).get(0);

p.getChildren().remove(c);
p2.getChildren().add(c);
//c.setParent(p2);

这样结果就成了

Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=? //get parent 1
Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=? //get parent 2
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where (child0_.parent_id=? ) //get children

Hibernate: select child0_.id as id__, child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where child0_.parent_id=?
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id__, child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where child0_.parent_id=?

显而易见,关联更新没有被执行(更新是由“inverse=false”方负责的,而这里恰恰被注释了)。 

大多数情况下,很少使用“inverse=false”,但是我还是想仔细研究一下(这样可以更加理解“inverse=true”)。 ^_^
为什么很少使用“inverse=false”?原因很简单之前也提到过,就是不会对双向关系进行优化。
 
还是来看一个父子的例子:
 
父亲中的关系映射
{set name=children lazy=true inverse=false}
      {key column=parent_id/}
      {one-to-many class=test.Child/}
{/set}
 
儿子中关系映射
{many-to-one name=parent column=parent_id not-null=true/}
 
代码:
 
Parent p = new Parent();
Child c = new Child();
p.getChildren().add(c);
c.setParent(p);
session.save(p);
session.save(c);
session.flush();
 
结果:
 
Hibernate: insert into parent (id) values (?)
Hibernate: insert into child (parent_id, id) values (?, ?)
Hibernate: update child set parent_id=? where id=?
 
看到这里就应该明白我之前为什么说“inverse=true”会优化Sql了吧!还有之前也说过是由“inverse=false”来维护关系了,那这里就是由父亲来维护了。假设我在save(p)和save(c)之间掉flush(),结果又会是如何?事实上,是不可以这么做的!因为父亲负责维护关系,如果我在之间加入了flush(),那么就是无法关联更新了(父亲需要一个已经持久化的儿子来触发关联更新)
 
接下来再来看看update:
 
Parent p = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId);
Parent p2 = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId2);
       
c = (Child) session.find(
            "from Child as child where child.parent = ?",
            p, Hibernate.entity(Parent.class)).get(0);
p.getChildren().remove(c);
p2.getChildren().add(c);
c.setParent(p2);
 
结果:
 
Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=?    //get parent 1
Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=?    //get parent 2
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where (child0_.parent_id=? )
//get first child for parent 1
 
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id__, child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where child0_.parent_id=?
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id__, child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where child0_.parent_id=?
 
Hibernate: update child set parent_id=? where id=?               // child.setParent
Hibernate: update child set parent_id=null where parent_id=?     //remove
Hibernate: update child set parent_id=? where id=?               // add
 
结果说明当设成“inverse=false”时,关系是由父亲和儿子来维护的。这种效率和之前我说的“inverse=true”低很多。
 
那么关系是由父亲来维护的,我又把代码改了一下:
 
Parent p = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId);
Parent p2 = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, parentId2);
       
c = (Child) session.find(
            "from Child as child where child.parent = ?",
            p, Hibernate.entity(Parent.class)).get(0);
p2.getChildren().add(c);
 
结果:
 
Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=?    //get parent 1
Hibernate: select parent0_.id as id from parent parent0_ where parent0_.id=?    //get parent 2
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where (child0_.parent_id=? )
//get first child for parent 1
 
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id__, child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where child0_.parent_id=?
Hibernate: select child0_.id as id__, child0_.id as id, child0_.parent_id as parent_id from child child0_ where child0_.parent_id=?
 
Hibernate: update child set parent_id=? where id=?               // add
 
乍看之下对的,但是父亲p和p2的children的状态是不一致的!

小结:使用“inverse=true”可以优化代码,同时,推荐在建立双向关系的时候使用“inverse=true”!


文章来自: 本站原创
引用通告: 查看所有引用 | 我要引用此文章
Tags: inverse 一对多
相关日志:
评论: 0 | 引用: 0 | 查看次数: 478
发表评论
昵 称:
密 码: 游客发言不需要密码.
内 容:
验证码: 验证码
选 项:
虽然发表评论不用注册,但是为了保护您的发言权,建议您注册帐号.
字数限制 1000 字 | UBB代码 开启 | [img]标签 关闭