- What is the reason for setting MappedBy in bidirectional many-to-many relationships?
- When one table has significant amount of records, while other has a few, which side is better to put mappedBy?
It's actually a good question, and it helps to understand the concept of an "owning" entity. If you want to prevent both sides (in a bidirectional relationship) from having join tables
, a good idea, then you need to have a mappedBy=
element on one side.
Whether or not there is a join table
is controlled by the mappedBy="name"
element of the @ManyToMany
annotation. The Javadoc for mappedBy for the ManyToMany
annotation says:
The field that owns the relationship. Required unless the relationship is unidirectional.
For your (bidirectional) example, if there were only two @ManyToMany
annotations and no mappedBy=
element, the default will have two Entity
tables and two Join Tables
:
Hibernate: create table SideA (id bigint not null, primary key (id))
Hibernate: create table SideA_SideB (sidea_id bigint not null, sidebs_id bigint not null, primary key (sidea_id, sidebs_id))
Hibernate: create table SideB (id bigint not null, primary key (id))
Hibernate: create table SideB_SideA (sideb_id bigint not null, sideas_id bigint not null, primary key (sideb_id, sideas_id))
While this is saying that each Entity "owns" its ManyToMany
relationship, the extra join table
is redundant in the typical use case, and the Javadoc says you need a mappedBy
annotation. If I decide to have SideA "own" the relationship, then I add the mappedBy=
element to the SideB entity to specify that it doesn't own the relationship:
@Entity
public class SideA {
@ManyToMany
Set<SideB> sidebs;
}
@Entity
public class SideB {
@ManyToMany(mappedBy="sidebs")
Set<SideA> sideas;
}
Since the SideB entity no longer owns its ManyToMany
relationship, the extra JoinTable
will not be created:
Hibernate: create table SideA (id bigint not null, primary key (id))
Hibernate: create table SideB (id bigint not null, primary key (id))
Hibernate: create table SideA_SideB (sideas_id bigint not null, sidebs_id bigint not null, primary key (sideas_id, sidebs_id))
This is important to the developer because he or she must understand that no relationship is persisted unless it's added to the owning entity, in this case the SideA
entity.
So, if you have a bidirectional
ManyToMany
relationship, which means you have ManyToMany
on both entities involved, then you should add a mappedBy="name"
on one of them as per the Javadoc and to avoid having a redundant join table
.
As to which side to make the owning entity, there is no correct answer, it depends on what your system thinks is best. The relationship will only be persisted when entries are put in the owning side so you have to ask yourself whether you more commonly change a SideA's
list or SideB's
list. If SideA
owns the relationship then you update the relationship by adding or removing SideB
instances from a SideA
instance but if you had a list of SideA
instances for a SideB
that you wanted to persist you would need to iterate through the list and alter each instance of SideA
in the list.
As always, it's always a good idea to enable the sql logs and see what's going on in the database:
EDIT: If you have a persistence provider that only creates a single join table with no mappedBy
setting then you have to check with the docs to see which side "owns" the relationship. Could be that neither or both sides own it and that updating neither or either side will persist the entity.
References:
What is the difference between Unidirectional and Bidirectional associations?.
What does relationship owner means in bidirectional relationship?.
What is the “owning side” in an ORM mapping?.
Most efficient way to prevent an infinite recursion in toString()?.
mappedBy
links both sides of a BIDIRECTIONAL relation. You put mappedBy
on the OWNER of the relation, not based on how many records something has (aka object oriented design). You will find this information in any JPA tutorial and documentation.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37243159/mappedby-in-bi-directional-manytomany-what-is-the-reason