Java – @embeddable vs @entity for a mapping a collection

hibernatejavajpaormspring

This must be quite naive but I have a doubt on when to use @Entity and @Embeddable.

Say I have a User and Notification class.

 @Entity
 public class User{
     //other properties
     @onetomany
     private List<Notification> notifications;
 }

 @Entity
 public class Notification{
     //properties
 }

I understand that there will be tables for class User and Notification, and a third table for mapping.
What if I do it like this?

 @Entity
 public class User {
     //other properties
     @ElementCollection
     private List<Notification> notifications;
 }

 @Embeddable
 public class Notification{
     //properties
 }

I know this won't create a table for Notification. But I can still store my notification objects. I went through the documentation, but couple of doubts:

Is it based on whether I want to see class B as a seperate table?
Is there a performance difference b/w creating a table and an embeddable object?
What can I not do with embeddable object that I can do with a table other than directly querying the table?

NOTES

For anyone reading this question, this question too might help you.

Best Answer

Is it based on whether I want to see class B as a separate table?

Yes, when you use @Embedded, You embed that @Embeddable entity in @Entity class, which makes it to add columns for embedded entity in same table of @Entity class.

Is there a performance difference b/w creating a table and an embeddable object?

When you use @Embedded, for table creation, one query is required, also for inserting and selecting a row. But if you don't use it, multiple queries are required, hence, use of @Embedded yields more performance, we can say.

What can I not do with embeddable object that I can do with a table other than directly querying the table?

Removing the respective embedded entity may be, but there may be integrity constraint violations for this.

Related Solutions

The “N+1 selects problem” in ORM (Object-Relational Mapping)

Let's say you have a collection of Car objects (database rows), and each Car has a collection of Wheel objects (also rows). In other words, Car → Wheel is a 1-to-many relationship.

Now, let's say you need to iterate through all the cars, and for each one, print out a list of the wheels. The naive O/R implementation would do the following:

SELECT * FROM Cars;

And then for each Car:

SELECT * FROM Wheel WHERE CarId = ?

In other words, you have one select for the Cars, and then N additional selects, where N is the total number of cars.

Alternatively, one could get all wheels and perform the lookups in memory:

SELECT * FROM Wheel

This reduces the number of round-trips to the database from N+1 to 2. Most ORM tools give you several ways to prevent N+1 selects.

Reference: Java Persistence with Hibernate, chapter 13.

Java – Efficiency of Java “Double Brace Initialization”

Here's the problem when I get too carried away with anonymous inner classes:

2009/05/27  16:35             1,602 DemoApp2$1.class
2009/05/27  16:35             1,976 DemoApp2$10.class
2009/05/27  16:35             1,919 DemoApp2$11.class
2009/05/27  16:35             2,404 DemoApp2$12.class
2009/05/27  16:35             1,197 DemoApp2$13.class

/* snip */

2009/05/27  16:35             1,953 DemoApp2$30.class
2009/05/27  16:35             1,910 DemoApp2$31.class
2009/05/27  16:35             2,007 DemoApp2$32.class
2009/05/27  16:35               926 DemoApp2$33$1$1.class
2009/05/27  16:35             4,104 DemoApp2$33$1.class
2009/05/27  16:35             2,849 DemoApp2$33.class
2009/05/27  16:35               926 DemoApp2$34$1$1.class
2009/05/27  16:35             4,234 DemoApp2$34$1.class
2009/05/27  16:35             2,849 DemoApp2$34.class

/* snip */

2009/05/27  16:35               614 DemoApp2$40.class
2009/05/27  16:35             2,344 DemoApp2$5.class
2009/05/27  16:35             1,551 DemoApp2$6.class
2009/05/27  16:35             1,604 DemoApp2$7.class
2009/05/27  16:35             1,809 DemoApp2$8.class
2009/05/27  16:35             2,022 DemoApp2$9.class

These are all classes which were generated when I was making a simple application, and used copious amounts of anonymous inner classes -- each class will be compiled into a separate class file.

The "double brace initialization", as already mentioned, is an anonymous inner class with an instance initialization block, which means that a new class is created for each "initialization", all for the purpose of usually making a single object.

Considering that the Java Virtual Machine will need to read all those classes when using them, that can lead to some time in the bytecode verfication process and such. Not to mention the increase in the needed disk space in order to store all those class files.

It seems as if there is a bit of overhead when utilizing double-brace initialization, so it's probably not such a good idea to go too overboard with it. But as Eddie has noted in the comments, it's not possible to be absolutely sure of the impact.

Just for reference, double brace initialization is the following:

List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>() {{
    add("Hello");
    add("World!");
}};

It looks like a "hidden" feature of Java, but it is just a rewrite of:

List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>() {

    // Instance initialization block
    {
        add("Hello");
        add("World!");
    }
};

So it's basically a instance initialization block that is part of an anonymous inner class.

Joshua Bloch's Collection Literals proposal for Project Coin was along the lines of:

List<Integer> intList = [1, 2, 3, 4];

Set<String> strSet = {"Apple", "Banana", "Cactus"};

Map<String, Integer> truthMap = { "answer" : 42 };

Sadly, it didn't make its way into neither Java 7 nor 8 and was shelved indefinitely.

Experiment

Here's the simple experiment I've tested -- make 1000 ArrayLists with the elements "Hello" and "World!" added to them via the add method, using the two methods:

Method 1: Double Brace Initialization

List<String> l = new ArrayList<String>() {{
  add("Hello");
  add("World!");
}};

Method 2: Instantiate an ArrayList and add

List<String> l = new ArrayList<String>();
l.add("Hello");
l.add("World!");

I created a simple program to write out a Java source file to perform 1000 initializations using the two methods:

Test 1:

class Test1 {
  public static void main(String[] s) {
    long st = System.currentTimeMillis();

    List<String> l0 = new ArrayList<String>() {{
      add("Hello");
      add("World!");
    }};

    List<String> l1 = new ArrayList<String>() {{
      add("Hello");
      add("World!");
    }};

    /* snip */

    List<String> l999 = new ArrayList<String>() {{
      add("Hello");
      add("World!");
    }};

    System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - st);
  }
}

Test 2:

class Test2 {
  public static void main(String[] s) {
    long st = System.currentTimeMillis();

    List<String> l0 = new ArrayList<String>();
    l0.add("Hello");
    l0.add("World!");

    List<String> l1 = new ArrayList<String>();
    l1.add("Hello");
    l1.add("World!");

    /* snip */

    List<String> l999 = new ArrayList<String>();
    l999.add("Hello");
    l999.add("World!");

    System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - st);
  }
}

Please note, that the elapsed time to initialize the 1000 ArrayLists and the 1000 anonymous inner classes extending ArrayList is checked using the System.currentTimeMillis, so the timer does not have a very high resolution. On my Windows system, the resolution is around 15-16 milliseconds.

The results for 10 runs of the two tests were the following:

Test1 Times (ms)           Test2 Times (ms)
----------------           ----------------
           187                          0
           203                          0
           203                          0
           188                          0
           188                          0
           187                          0
           203                          0
           188                          0
           188                          0
           203                          0

As can be seen, the double brace initialization has a noticeable execution time of around 190 ms.

Meanwhile, the ArrayList initialization execution time came out to be 0 ms. Of course, the timer resolution should be taken into account, but it is likely to be under 15 ms.

So, there seems to be a noticeable difference in the execution time of the two methods. It does appear that there is indeed some overhead in the two initialization methods.

And yes, there were 1000 .class files generated by compiling the Test1 double brace initialization test program.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

The “N+1 selects problem” in ORM (Object-Relational Mapping)

Java – Efficiency of Java “Double Brace Initialization”

Related Topic