Can i use createSQLQuery to execute native sql updates as well... and if i have two or more table i just need to map them and create there Java Bean and then call them in my dao methods with joins in native sql...

Yes, no problem, just think about flushing before you do it, and clearing your session after you do it. (session.flush(), then session.clear()).

This will ensure Hibernate has to retrieve data from db, maybe that data you updated with native SQL.

batmat is correct but instead of doing that flushing manually you should use <synchronize> in named queries to specify which tables needs flushing. In H3.2 svn you also have an .addSynchronize(string) method to do the same in the API.

Very interesting. I'm looking for this method in the svn http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/hibernat ... hibernate/, but can't find it. Where will be located this addSynchronize() method in the API? I looked at Criteria and Session, but does not seem to be there. Thanks a lot.

Better to look at the related SQLQuery class ;)

http://fisheye.labs.jboss.com/browse/Hi ... =10846#l63

so I can have something like

sess.createSQLQuery("UPDATE PERSON SET NAME=UPPER(?) WHERE ID=?")


"is the above correct"

I want to be able to update a list of person name from a jsp page how does hibernate handle updating a list of in names in the above case...

yes you can...just use appropriate .addSynchronizeXXX(,,,).executeUpdate()

actually I am using using hibernate 3.0 does is that method available in hibernate 3.0

no. it's recently added in Hibernate 3.2 svn

Is the <synchronize> block present since the 3.0 ? If yes, just try and use it.

BTW, max, is there somewhere to find a doc for this feature ? I'm trying to test it with 3.2.1.ga, but can't make it work. I mean : I call an sql-query which has a <synchronize> tag. This sql-query is an update one.

<sql-query name="updateNombreHabitantsVille">
<synchronize table="VILLE" />
UPDATE VILLE SET NBHABITANT=NBHABITANT+:ajoutHabitants
</sql-query>

After calling executeUpdate, what do I have to do with the associated session, just "re-"get the persistent object ? Refresh it ? (though in this case I wouln't see the advantage of this tag anymore).

Obviously, if I manage to make it work, I will explain it here, so as suzie can use it :-).

suzie, can't you update to 3.2.1.ga ?

its documented in the reference docs.

there might be a casing issue; meaning if your entities is mapped to table="ville" then you should use that instead of table="VILLE"

You don't have do anything; the synchronize is to tell hibernate to flush any pending changes related to the table ville before doing the actual update.

That is what it does.

You are talking about getting the changed objects back again and here you need refresh or a fresh session (as documented for all our update/batch queries since hibernate cannot know which objects in memory you actually changed in the db)

Well, in the reference doc, I only found <synchronize> used in <class> not in queries. I guess it would be useful to remind that it's possible to use it inside named queries too.


You were right. I didn't specify the table name. So the class was Ville, I put Ville to in sychronize => the flush is ok.


Well, yes, I think I knew about. But as I didn't know the <synchronize> tag before today, I thought it would act something like this :
* Flush the session on the objects corresponding to the specified table
* Call the query
* refresh() every objects corresponding to the specified table

I haven't thought about all the implications of such a behaviour, though I'm for example aware that the complexity of refreshing all objects would become bigger and bigger as the cache grows.

I have the following sql and want to make sure that the mapping required for this query are correct:

select trans.date, con.type, ai.item
from Transaction tran, Condition con, AssignedItem ai
where tran.id = ai.transaction.id
and con.id = ai.condition.id
and tran.department=:deptNum

plus do i need the many-to-one mapping for the above query also in the Transaction and Condition table as well
or just plain mappings for those

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE hibernate-mapping PUBLIC
"-//Hibernate/Hibernate Mapping DTD 3.0//EN"
"http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibernate-mapping-3.0.dtd">

<hibernate-mapping>

<class name="AssignedItem" table="AssignedItem">
<id name="id" column="id">
<generator class="native"/>
</id>
<property name="item" column="item"/>

<property name="ai_trans_id" column="trans_id"/>
<property name="ai_con_id" column="con_id"/>

<property name="title"/>

<many-to-one column="ai_con_id" class="transactions"/>

<many-to-one column="ai_con_id" class="condition"/>

</class>


</hibernate-mapping>

Well, sql does not use the mappings, so it could even be bad, your sql query would work anyway.

I'd advice you to use a named sql-query with the <synchronize> tag that max spoke about.

i think if I make a name sql then I won't be able to use the getter and setters of the three tables I am trying to join... is it possible to create the three joins by just putting in hibernate mappings so that I can use the hibernate getters and setters rather then hard coding the sql in my code... since the presentation layer will get pretty messy wont it...