Hi,

What is the most efficient way to map this scenario?

Table A (Composite PK)
---------
PK_A1
PK_A2
PK_A3

Table B (C, D, E as well, but B is representative) (Composite keys)
---------
FK_B1 (corresponds to PK_A1)
FK_B2 (corresponds to PK_A2)
FK_B3 (corresponds to PK_A3)

Table F (Composite keys)
--------
FK_F1 (corresponds to PK_A1)
FK_F2 (corresponds to PK_A2)

Table A maps well (as one-to-many) to table B,C,D,E. That's no problem
However, how would I map to Table F too? Seems like Hibernate is complaining the fact that the keys are not matching up well.

Please kindly provide some insight, thanks!

-RS

you can map the relathionship between A F, where is the problem?

I am having a similar problem defining a mapping. Can you shed some light on how to define a mapping with these rules?

1- show what is the domain model you wish, simply explaining what relations you want
2- think about unique business identity (not necessary db primary key)
3- tell why you can't do it

1. domain model is exactly the same as in the original post. Table A has a composite key with 3 elements, Table B has a composite key with 2 elements, with Table B's key mapping to 2 elemetns within Table A.

2. From a programming perspective I want to have an instance of my Table B DTO within my Table A DTO, using hibernate to load the correct instance.

3. I don't know how to map composite keys in a one-to-one mapping. The documentation only explains how to map on 1 field.

I think a composite key mapping guide will be seriously helpful.

For my case, I am able to map one-to-many from A to B (C, D, E, etc)
However, I can't map (one-to-many) A to F because everytime I do so it throws runtime error.

I am asking, in the general sense, if the parent, A has 3 columns as composite keys, and of which 2 columns are being used as foreign keys to map to F. Is it doable? (It throws runtime error everytime I tried)

If you're able to do so, do you mind to provide a mapping file example?

A is the parent to B, C, D, E, F (all of them is one-to-many association)

1- domain model is not relationnal model!
please give a *--1 b 1--1 c for example, i don't have time to think about which domain model might be ok for your relationnal model

2- think twice about using one to one, can't it be a many-to-one ? if it is simplier for you to use a many-to-one (which might not change business constraints), go for it.