Re: [hibernate-dev] HHH-6726 LONG and LONG RAW column types in Oracle
by Łukasz Antoniak
Currently Oracle supports database versions from 10.1 to 11.2 [1]. LONG
and LONG RAW data types are deprecated since version 8 and 8i (released
before September 2000) [2]. Oracle keeps those column types only for
backward compatibility [3].
I tried the following scenario (Oracle 10gR2):
1. Create schema with "hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto" set to "create". The LONG
column is created.
2. Insert some data.
3. Modify Oracle dialect as Gail suggested. Avoid setting
"hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto".
4. Insert some data.
To my surprise the test actually passed :). However, I think that we
cannot guaranty the proper behavior in every situation.
As for performance, ImageType is extracted by calling
ResultSet.getBytes() method, which fetches all data in one call [4]. I
don't suppose a major performance difference when data is streamed in
another call. oracle.jdbc.driver.LongRawAccessor.getBytes also fetches
data by reading the stream.
The bug reading LONG column affects JDBC drivers since version 10.2.0.4.
I think that we have to choose between:
- changing Oracle10gDialect. Make a not about it in migration guide to
4.0 and update "5.2.2. Basic value types" chapter in Hibernate
documentation.
- introducing Oracle11gDialect. It can sound weird to access Oracle 10g
database with Oracle 11g dialect.
- disabling execution of Hibernate tests that fail because of this issue
with @SkipForDialect (and maybe develop another version of them with
CLOBs and BLOBs, @RequiresDialect). Hibernate is written correctly
according to "Default Mappings Between SQL Types and Java Types"
(referenced earlier by Gail) and this is more Oracle's JDBC
implementation issue. This option came to my mind, but it's weird :P.
I would vote for the first option.
Regards,
Lukasz Antoniak
[1]
http://www.oracle.com/us/support/library/lifetime-support-technology-0691...
(page 4)
[2]
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/A91202_01/901_doc/server.901/a90120/ch...
[3]
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/datatype.htm
[4] "Getting a LONG RAW Data Column with getBytes"
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/java.102/b14355/jstreams.htm
Strong Liu pisze:
> I think oracle 11g is the only one supported DB version by oracle, can we just introduce a new oracle dialect with suggested changes, and deprecate all other existed oracle dialects? this won't affects users app
>
> -----------
> Strong Liu <stliu(a)hibernate.org>
> http://hibernate.org
> http://github.com/stliu
>
> On Oct 15, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Scott Marlow wrote:
>
>> How does this impact existing applications? Would they have to convert
>> LONGs to CLOBs (and LONGRAWs to BLOBs) to keep the application working?
>>
>> As far as the advantage of CLOB over TEXT, if you read every character,
>> which one is really faster? I would expect TEXT to be a little faster,
>> since the server side will send the characters before they are asked
>> for. By faster, I mean from the application performance point of view. :)
>>
>> Could this be changed in a custom Oracle dialect? So new
>> applications/databases could perhaps use that and existing applications
>> might use LONGs a bit longer via the existing Oracle dialect.
>>
>> On 10/14/2011 09:22 PM, Gail Badner wrote:
>>> In [1], I am seeing the following type mappings:
>>>
>>> Column type: LONG -> java.sql.Types.LONGVARCHAR -> java.lang.String
>>> Column type: LONGRAW -> java.sql.Types.LONGVARBINARY -> byte[]
>>>
>>> org.hibernate.type.TextType is consistent with the mapping for LONG.
>>>
>>> org.hibernate.type.ImageType is consistent with the mapping for LONGRAW.
>>>
>>> From this standpoint, the current settings are appropriate.
>>>
>>> I understand there are restrictions when LONG and LONGRAW are used and I see from your other message that there is Oracle documentation for migrating to CLOB and BLOB.
>>>
>>> I agree that changing column type registration as follows (for Oracle only) should fix this:
>>> registerColumnType( Types.VARBINARY, 2000, "raw($l)" );
>>> registerColumnType( Types.VARBINARY, "blob" );
>>>
>>> registerColumnType( Types.LONGVARCHAR, "clob" );
>>> registerColumnType( Types.LONGVARBINARY, "blob" );
>>>
>>> registerColumnType( Types.VARCHAR, 4000, "varchar2($l char)" );
>>> registerColumnType( Types.VARCHAR, "clob" );
>>>
>>> Steve, what do you think? Is it too late to make this change for 4.0.0?
>>>
>>> [1] Table 11-1 of Oracle® Database JDBC Developer's Guide and Reference, 11g Release 1 (11.1) (http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/java.111/b31224/datacc.htm#g...)
>>> [2] Hibernate Core Migration Guide for 3.5 (http://community.jboss.org/wiki/HibernateCoreMigrationGuide35)
>>> [3] Table 2-10 of Oracle® Database SQL Language Reference
>>> 11g Release 1 (11.1) (http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28286/sql_elemen...)
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Łukasz Antoniak"<lukasz.antoniak(a)gmail.com>
>>>> To: hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:50:13 PM
>>>> Subject: [hibernate-dev] HHH-6726 LONG and LONG RAW column types in Oracle
>>>>
>>>> Welcome Community!
>>>>
>>>> I have just subscribed to the list and wanted to discuss HHH-6726
>>>> JIRA
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> Gail Badner wrote
>>>> (http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hibernate-dev/2011-October/007208.html):
>>>> HHH-6726 (Oracle : map TextType to clob and ImageType to blob)
>>>> https://hibernate.onjira.com/browse/HHH-6726
>>>> There have been a number of issues opened since the change was made
>>>> to
>>>> map TextType (LONGVARCHAR) 'long' and ImageType (LONGVARBINARY) to
>>>> 'long
>>>> raw'. This change was already documented in the migration notes.
>>>> Should
>>>> the mapping for Oracle (only) be changed back to clob and blob?
>>>>
>>>> HHH-6726 is caused by an issue in Oracle JDBC driver (version
>>>> 10.2.0.4
>>>> and later). This bug appears when LONG or LONG RAW columns are
>>>> accessed
>>>> not as first or last while processing SQL statement.
>>>>
>>>> I have discussed the topic of mapping TextType to CLOB and ImageType
>>>> to
>>>> BLOB (only in Oracle dialect) with Strong Liu. Reasons for doing so:
>>>> - Oracle allows only one LONG / LONG RAW column per table. This might
>>>> be
>>>> the most important from Hibernate's perspective.
>>>> - LONG / LONG RAW - up to 2 GB, BLOB / CLOB - up to 4 GB.
>>>> - In PL/SQL using LOBs is more efficient (random access to data).
>>>> LONG
>>>> only sequential.
>>>> - LONG and LONG RAW are deprecated.
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Lukasz Antoniak
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>>>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>
8 years, 9 months
Query handling : Antlr 3 versus Antlr 4
by Steve Ebersole
As most of you know already, we are planning to redesign the current
Antlr-based HQL/JPQL parser in ORM for a variety of reasons.
The current approach in the translator (Antlr 2 based, although Antlr 3
supports the same model) is that we actually define multiple
grammars/parsers which progressively re-write the tree adding more and more
semantic information; think of this as multiple passes or phases. The
current code has 3 phases:
1) parsing - we simply parse the HQL/JPQL query into an AST, although we do
do one interesting (and uber-important!) re-write here where we "hoist" the
from clause in front of all other clauses.
2) rough semantic analysis - the current code, to be honest, sucks here.
The end result of this phase is a tree that mixes normalized semantic
information with lots of SQL fragments. It is extremely fugly
3) rendering to SQL
The idea of phases is still the best way to attack this translation imo. I
just think we did not implement the phases very well before; we were just
learning Antlr at the time. So part of the redesign here is to leverage
our better understanding of Antlr and design some better trees. The other
big reason is to centralize the generation of SQL into one place rather
than the 3 different places we do it today (not to mention the many, many
places we render SQL fragments).
Part of the process here is to decide which parser to use. Antlr 2 is
ancient :) I used Antlr 3 in the initial prototyping of this redesign
because it was the most recent release at that time. In the interim Antlr
4 has been released.
I have been evaluating whether Antlr 4 is appropriate for our needs there.
Antlr 4 is a pretty big conceptual deviation from Antlr 2/3 in quite a few
ways. Generally speaking, Antlr 4 is geared more towards interpreting
rather than translating/transforming. It can handle "transformation" if
the transformation is the final step in the process. Transformations is
where tree re-writing comes in handy.
First lets step back and look at the "conceptual model" of Antlr 4. The
grammar is used to produce:
1) the parser - takes the input and builds a "parse tree" based on the
rules of the lexer and grammar.
2) listener/visitor for parse-tree traversal - can optionally generate
listeners or visitors (or both) for traversing the parse tree (output from
parser).
There are 2 highly-related changes that negatively impact us:
1) no tree grammars/parsers
2) no tree re-writing
Our existing translator is fundamentally built on the concepts of tree
parsers and tree re-writing. Even the initial prototypes for the redesign
(and the current state of hql-parser which Sanne and Gunnar picked up from
there) are built on those concepts. So moving to Antlr 4 in that regard
does represent a risk. How big of a risk, and whether that risk is worth
it, is what we need to determine.
What does all this mean in simple, practical terms? Let's look at a simple
query: "select c.headquarters.state.code from Company c". Simple syntactic
analysis will produce a tree something like:
[QUERY]
[SELECT]
[DOT]
[DOT]
[DOT]
[IDENT, "c"]
[IDENT, "headquarters"]
[IDENT, "state"]
[IDENT, "code"]
[FROM]
[SPACE]
[SPACE_ROOT]
[IDENT, "Customer"]
[IDENT, "c"]
There is not a lot of semantic (meaning) information here. A more semantic
representation of the query would look something like:
[QUERY]
[SELECT]
[ATTRIBUTE_REF]
[ALIAS_REF, "<gen:1>"]
[IDENT, "code"]
[FROM]
[SPACE]
[PERSISTER_REF]
[ENTITY_NAME, "com.acme.Customer"]
[ALIAS, "c"]
[JOIN]
[INNER]
[ATTRIBUTE_JOIN]
[IDENT, "headquarters"]
[ALIAS, "<gen:0>"]
[JOIN]
[INNER]
[ATTRIBUTE_JOIN]
[IDENT, "state"]
[ALIAS, "<gen:1>"]
Notice especially the difference in the tree rules. This is tree
re-writing, and is the major difference affecting us. Consider a specific
thing like the "c.headquarters.state.code" DOT-IDENT sequence. Essentially
Antlr 4 would make us deal with that as a DOT-IDENT sequence through all
the phases - even SQL generation. Quite fugly. The intent of Antlr 4 in
cases like this is to build up an external state table (external to the
tree itself) or what Antlr folks typically refer to as "iterative tree
decoration"[1]. So with Antlr 4, in generating the SQL, we would still be
handling calls in terms of "c.headquarters.state.code" in the SELECT clause
and resolving that through the external symbol tables. Again, with Antlr 4
we would always be walking that initial (non-semantic) tree. Unless I am
missing something. I would be happy to be corrected, if anyone knows Antlr
4 better. I have also asked as part of the antlr-discussion group[2].
In my opinion though, if it comes down to us needing to walk the tree in
that first form across all phases I just do not see the benefit to moving
to Antlr 4.
P.S. When I say SQL above I really just mean the target query language for
the back-end data store whether that be SQL targeting a RDBMS for ORM or a
NoSQL store for OGM.
[1] I still have not fully grokked this paradigm, so I may be missing
something, but... AFAICT even in this paradigm the listener/visitor rules
are defined in terms of the initial parse tree rules rather than more
[2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/antlr-discussion/hzF_YrzfDKo
9 years, 5 months
Changelog file in Hibernate ORM
by Sanne Grinovero
The file changelog.txt in the root ot the Hibernate ORM project seems outdated.
Is it not maintained anymore? I found it handy.
Sanne
9 years, 5 months
JPA PessimisticLockScope.EXTENDED specs are not properly implemented
by Mihalcea Vlad
Hi,
According to JPA specification, when using PessimisticLockScope.EXTENDED:
In addition to the behavior for PessimisticLockScope.NORMAL, element collections and relationships owned by the entity that are contained in join tables will be locked if the javax.persistence.lock.scope property is specified with a value of PessimisticLockScope.EXTENDED. The state of entities referenced by such relationships will not be locked (unless those entities are explicitly locked). Locking such a relationship or element collection generally locks only the rows in the join table or collection table for that relationship or collection. This means that phantoms will be possible.
So if I define the following Parent/Child associations:@Entity
public class Post {
@Id
@GeneratedValue(strategy= GenerationType.IDENTITY)
private Long id;
private String name;
@ElementCollection
@JoinTable(name = "post_comments", joinColumns = @JoinColumn(name = "post_id"))
@OrderColumn(name = "comment_index")
private List<Comment> comments = new ArrayList<Comment>();
@Version
private int version;
public Long getId() {
return id;
}
public void setId(Long id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getName() {
return name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public List<Comment> getComments() {
return comments;
}
public final int getVersion() {
return version;
}
public void addComment(Comment comment) {
comments.add(comment);
}
}
@Embeddable
public class Comment {
private String review;
public String getReview() {
return review;
}
public void setReview(String review) {
this.review = review;
}
}
Because a Post has a collection of Comment components, an EXTENDED lock request should lock the joined table rows as well, without locking the actual Comment row-level locks:Post post = entityManager.find(Post.class, parentId);
entityManager.lock(post, LockModeType.PESSIMISTIC_WRITE, Collections.singletonMap("javax.persistence.lock.scope", (Object) PessimisticLockScope.EXTENDED));
return null;
But the output SQL looks like this:Unable to find source-code formatter for language: shell. Available languages are: actionscript, html, java, javascript, none, sql, xhtml, xmlINFO [main]: n.t.d.l.CommonsQueryLoggingListener - Name:, Time:0, Num:1, Query:{[select post0_.id as id1_16_0_, post0_.name as name2_16_0_, post0_.version as version3_16_0_ from Post post0_ where post0_.id=?][1]}
INFO [main]: n.t.d.l.CommonsQueryLoggingListener - Name:, Time:1, Num:1, Query:{[select id from Post where id =? and version =? for update][1,0]}
So, only the root Entity was locked, when we should have locked the post_comments associated rows as well.
Code available on GitHub. You have to run the HibernateCascadeLockComponentTest test.
This issue is also described on JIRA:
https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-9636
Vlad Mihalcea
9 years, 8 months
[OGM] Releases
by Gunnar Morling
Hi,
As the first week of our OGM sprint ends, it's about time to do a release.
For 4.1.2 we definitely have enough to warrant a release. Sanne, Hardy, do
you guys have any nearly completed changes you'd like to see in? If so,
please let me know. If I don't hear back, I'll kick off the release early
in the afternoon.
With the number of issues remaining, I think a subsequent 4.1.3 release
would be a good move.
For 4.2 it makes sense to wait a bit IMO, so we can get in Davide's changes
around embeddables and a first cut of the error handling SPI.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
--Gunnar
9 years, 8 months
Branching strategy in OGM
by Sanne Grinovero
Hey all,
it seems like the branch for maintenance work on OGM 4.1 is (still)
called "master", while a branch "4.2" was created for future work.
I'd really prefer it the other way around: create a branch "4.1" to
host all changes which are needed to be backported on 4.1.x , and call
"master" what will receive all of the latest improvements.
Let's see on IRC when it is a good time to rename the branches? It
better happens "atomically" or it's a mess..
Sanne
9 years, 9 months
Is HSEARCH-1786/HSEARCH-1814 on the radar
by Marc Schipperheyn
Hi,
Just wondering if HSEARCH-1786/HSEARCH-1814 are on the radar? We have
stopped all of our upgrade efforts because of this. And if they are valid
bugs, it basically means that HSEARCH 5.0, and 5.01 are unreliable for
production use.`
I'm just wondering if it's considered a real bug, if so it's a blocker, or
perhaps a figment of imagination? I know I have made my share of erronous
bug reports...
Cheers,
Marc
9 years, 9 months
Naming and "naming strategies"
by Steve Ebersole
As I am working on 5.0, one of the things I am trying to accomplish is to
make the handling of table/column names more consistent and better
defined. The first step in that is to properly define the terms used often
throughout the codebase.
The first level of naming is the "given" name of a table/column. The given
name might be:
* explicit - explicitly specified by the user, as in @Table(
name="explicit_name" )
* implicit - not explicitly specified by the user and thus implicitly
determined (by JPA rules, "naming strategy", etc).
Next, we have a logical name which is a normalized form of the "given"
name. This is the form used to reference tables/columns internally. E.g.,
its how we resolve @Column(..., table="xyz"). More on this form later.
Finally we have the physical name of the thing, which is the actual name of
the table/column in the database. Again, this is generally a normalization
of the given name based on Dialect, "naming strategy", etc.
Today, we have a very messy concept called a NamingStrategy. I say it is
messy because it tries to combine unrelated concerns. So I still plan to
split this as I have outlined elsewhere into:
1) ImplicitNamingStrategy
2) PhysicalNamingStrategy
Which brings up my first question to y'all. Do we need a contract for
LogicalNamingStrategy? As I have said, the logical names are the things
used to resolve references. Allowing people to plug in custom strategies
for how that normalization works could be very dangerous. But even more
than that, is it really interesting to be able to hook into that process?
Historically, these names are all represented by String. So I also propose
to shift this to use that Identifier class we developed for the metamodel
redesign. For those that may be unfamiliar, it essentially combines the
String name with a "quoted" boolean:
public class Identifier {
private final String text;
private final boolean isQuoted;
...
}
Table names, then, are an aggregation of 3 Identifiers: one for catalog,
one for schema, one for table name. Same for named constraints
(ultimately, which is part of a improvement for 6.0 to allow indexes,
constraints, etc to be created in a separate schema from tables).
Since a major goal for 5.0 is to continue to use the org.hibernate.mapping
package as the representation of the mapping information, we obviously want
to minimize changes there to only what is completely essential. To that
end, if we are going to use Identifier over String stuff in the
org.hibernate.mapping package will need to deal with both; internally they
will hold the Identifier and use that to implement the String-based
name-related methods they expose.
Lastly I wanted to discuss the details of the logical names. For tables,
we currently qualify the table name with the catalog/schema info. There is
a mismatch in this regard when it comes to remaining a pure JPA
implementation. Consider @Column( ..., table="some_table"). Ultimately we
need to be able to qualify that with catalog/schema in order to be able to
construct a matching logical name (to be able to pair that with the
referenced org.hibernate.mapping.Table later). This is trivial when table
names are unique across all the catalogs/schemas (when there is only one
"some_table" in all the mapped catalogs/schemas). But is poses a problem
when the same table name is used from different schemas (e.g., when
"some_table" is mapped from both "schema1" and "schema2"). So we have a
choice. Since JPA does not say what is legal/illegal for the @Column.table
attribute, it is feasible for us to allow @Column.table to contain the
catalog/schema information in these cases as a selector. The only other
option I can see is to define a limitation that says that a table name must
be unique for a given entity across all catalogs/schemas. I don't think
that is generally a restrictive limitation. What are y'alls thoughts?
Perhaps this is one argument for allowing pluggable LogicalNamingStrategy?
9 years, 9 months
[OGM] Sprint organization
by Emmanuel Bernard
I have walked through all of the issues and sorted what I think should
be done.
## Plan of action
Within these 3 weeks, we will do:
* 4.1.2 (bug fixes) -> code freeze Friday 27th
* 4.2 Alpha1 -> code freeze Friday 27th
* 4.2 Alpha2 or Beta we will see -> code freeze Friday 6th
* 4.2 Beta or CR we will see -> code freeze Wed 11th
The rookie team + me will work on the 4.1.2 tagged issues.
This work will continue even past the release of 4.1.2 but will be
likely incorporated into the 4.2 branch.
Davide and Gunnar will work on the 4.2 tagged issues.
It might make sense to have a single one focus on the numerous query
improvements and the other on the rest. See below.
Take the top issue of the list ordered by decreasing priority or one
with the same level of priority. Kill it. Move to the next.
## Priorities
For 4.1.2, I have sorted issues by decreasing importance with one little
twist. All issues created after a direct user feedback is marked
blocker. This is to speed our feedback loop time.
https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/OGM-740?jql=project%20%3D%20OGM%20...
For 4.2, it is also sorted by decreasing importance but I also gave the
release a theme.
The main focus is significantly improving JP-QL queries.
Secondary and must have target is the error report API.
Tertiary is everything else. That includes some improvements in ORM itself to unlock us.
There are too many tasks to address them all but let's first focus on
making a dent up to the major priority level.
Remarks?
Emmanuel
9 years, 9 months
[OGM] Moving to Java 7
by Gunnar Morling
Hi,
So far Hibernate OGM has been usable quite well when running on Java 6. But
as more and more of our dependencies require Java 7, the number of cases
where 6 is sufficient, decreases.
With two out of four backends (Infinispan and Neo4j) as well as HSEARCH
requiring 7 by now, I think it's about time to move on and take advantage
of 7 ourselves as well.
Are there any objections?
Thanks,
--Gunnar
9 years, 9 months
