I am newbie to Java Spring and learning JDBC template to access database. Now i have 3 relational tables and i need to join them using JDBC template and need to print the result. How can i implement it. Any working example will sure help me a lot.
Thanks
You're really asking a multi-facetated question. I have provided links to of SOs and posts below, but there is many many more answers out there. If these aren't of any use just search for another one there are literally hundreds of posts out there all on the same subject.
you need a query that'll combine three tables into one query (you don't mention if you'll need nested joins, or a simple join three times). For that i suggest you read up on some SQL. Here is a post that will give you an example to a nested select and links to multiple other posts explaining different SQL.
You need to use Spring JDBC (you don't mention which specific template implementation you are using). Here is post that gives you RowMapper examples and the logic to iterate over the results.
you require logic to iterate over the results. This is done most easily with Springs RowMapper or ResultSetExtractor interfaces. Here is a post that'll explain the differences between the two and link to the API (which I recommend you read).
ResultSetExtracor Implementation Example - plus iteration logic
RowMapper Implementation Example - plus iteration logic
Related
I'm creating my main project functionality right now so it's kind of a big decision to make in my project, I want efficient & scalable solution. I use different API's to fetch users products ultimately for 1 collection to display products information inside a table with possible merge by SKU TITLE from different sources.
I have thought of 2 approaches (In both approaches we add Meteor.userId() to collection insert so each users has it's own products:
1) to create each API it's own collection and fetch the products to it, after or in middle of the API query where I insert it to sourceXProducts also add the logic of merge products by sku and add it to main usersProducts Only the fields I need, and we have the collection of the sourceXproducts if we ever need anything we didn't really include to main usersProducts we can query it and get it so we basically keep all the information possible (because it can come handy)
source1Products = new Meteor.Collection('source1Products');
source2Products = new Meteor.Collection('source2Products');
usersProducts = new Meteor.Collection('usersProducts');
Pros: Honestly I'm not sure, It makes it organized also the way I learned Meteor it seems to be used a lot.
Cons: Meteor collection joins is not supported in core yet, So I have to use a meteor package such as: meteor-publish-composite which seems good but this way might hit performance
2) Create 1 collection and just insert everything the API resonse has and additional apiSource field so we can choose products from X user X api.
usersProducts = new Meteor.Collection('usersProducts');
Pros: No joins, possibly better performance
Cons: Not organized, It can become a large collection maybe it's not good for mongodb
3) Your ideas? :)
First, you should improve the question. You do not tell us anything precise about your schema. What are the entities you have and what type of relations are there and what type of joins do you think you will be doing. How often you will be doing them?
Second, you should rethink your schema and think in the terms of a non-relational database. I see many people coming from SQL world and then they simply design their schema in the same way. Wrong. MongoDB is not SQL and things you learned there you should not try to just reuse here. You should start using features like subdocuments and arrays which can help you solve many basic things you would do in SQL with joins. So, knowing your schema would help us help you design the schema. For example, see this answer and especially the comments for the discussion for a similar type of question you are asking here.
Third, have you evaluated various solutions which exist out there? There are many, but you have not shown us that you tried any of them and how it worked for you. What were pros and cons of them, for you and your project?
Fourth, if you are lazy to evaluate, you can just use peerlibrary:peerdb and peerlibrary:related. They are simply perfect. You should trust me. I am their author.
I'm having hard time to find the right solution to manage multiple modificable lookup tables (more than 40), most of them with the same structure. I'm using the repository approach but I can't make it work. Has someone a working example?
Take a look at my repository pattern for EF4.1/4.2 it allows you to easially connect to an EF4.1 DB and query it throughout your solution.
http://blog.staticvoid.co.nz/2011/10/staticvoid-repository-pattern-nuget.html
a working source application is also available here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37129059/StaticVoid.Repository.Demo.zip
A tool that worked great for me is a t4 code generation template that generates enums out of lookup tables. It can save you a lot of work and keep your source code up to date when you add some new items to the look up tables.
I also use a DB with ~30 lookup tables and it was easy to set up, modify and use (even though I did not knew much about t4 templates before).
http://erraticdev.blogspot.com/2011/01/generate-enum-of-database-lookup-table.html
I am currently working to rework the data system of our application. Basically, it is designed so that people can add all the custom fields they want, with only a few constant/always-there fields.
Our current design is giving us plenty of maintenance problems. What we do is dynamically(at runtime) add a column to the database for each field. We have to have a meta table and other cruft to maintain all of these dynamic columns.
Now we are looking at EAV, but it doesn't seem much better. Basically, we have many different types of fields, so there would be a StringValues, IntegerValues, etc table... which makes things that much worse.
I am wondering if using JSON or XML blobs in the database may be a better solution, specifically because in most use cases, when we retrieve anything out of these tables, we need the entire row. The problems is that we need to be able to create reports for this data as well.. No solution really makes custom queries look easy. And searching across such a blob database will surely be a performance nightmare when reports are ran.
Each "row" needs to have anywhere from about 15 to 100(possibly more) attributes/columns associated with it.
We are using SQL Server 2008 and our application interfacing with the database is a C# web application(so, ASP.Net).
what do you think? Use EAV or blobs or something else entirely? (Also, yes, I know a schema free database like MongoDB would be awesome here, but I can't convince my boss to use it)
What about the xml datatype? Advanced querying is possible against this type.
We've used the xml type with good success. We do most of our heavy lifting at the code level using linq to parse out values. Our schema is somewhat fixed, so that may not be an option for you.
One interesting feature of SQL server is the sql_variant type. It's fully supported in .NET and quite easy to use. The advantages is you don't need to create StringValue, IntValue, etc... columns, just one Value column that can contain all the simple types.
This very specific type favors the EAV option, IMHO.
It has some drawbacks though (sorting, distinct selects, etc...). So if you want to use it, make sure you read all the documentation and understand its limit.
Create a table with your known columns and "X" sparse columns using a sequential name such as DataColumn0001, DataColumn0002, etc. When there is a definition for a new column just rename a column and start inserting data. The great advantage to the sparse column is it is indexable.
More info at this link.
What you're doing is STUPID with a database that doesn't support your data type. You should work with a medium that meets your needs which include NoSQL databases such as RavenDB, MongoDB, DocumentDB, CouchBase or Postgres in RDMBS to name several.
You are inherently using the tool in a capacity it was neither designed for, and one it specifically attempts to limit you from achieving success. NoSQL database solutions frequently use JSON as an underlying storage because JSON is inherently schemaless. Want to add a property? Sure go ahead, want to add a whole sub collection? Sure go ahead. NoSQL databases were in part, created specifically to remove rigid schema requirements of RDBMS.
2015 Edit: Postgres now natively supports JSON. This is a viable option for RDBMS. My answer is still correct that you need to use the correct tool for the problem. It is a polygot persistence world.
Im currently evaluating Drupal to see if we can use it to replace our framework. My problem is I have this legacy tables which I would want to try to reflect in Drupal. It involves a join table. There's quite a lot of this kind of relationship in our existing web app so I am looking for possible ways to solve it.
Thank you for your insight!
There are several ways to do this, and it's hard to know which is best with no context about what you're actually doing with the data, but here are some options:
One way to do this is to make a content type representing each table (using CCK) with the foreign keys represented by type-specific node reference fields. Doing everything as nodes gives you a bunch of prebuilt functionality around nodes, but has a bit of overhead you may want to avoid.
Another option is to leave your database just like it is now. Drupal can do direct database queries, or you can use Data to expose your tables to Views.
Another option, if those referenced tables really only have 1 non-ID field, is to do the project_companies_assignments as nodes and do the other 3 as taxonomies. But this won't work if those are really more complex entities, and wouldn't be very flexible if they might become more complex.
What about using hook_views_api and exposing your legacy tables in hook_views_data? i tried something like this myself - not sure if that is what you want...
try and let me know if that works for you.
http://drupalwalla.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-do-you-expose-your-legacy-database.html
Going with Views and CCK, optionally with the additional Data module has one huge disadvantage: it comes with complexity.
My preferred alternative, is to write your own module. Drupal offers little help wrt database abstraction, it comes not with a proper ORM or such. But with some simple CRUD functions for the data in the database, a few simple forms in front, and a menu-callback with some pages to present the data, you can -quite often- get your datamodel worked out much faster then going the route of the overly complex, often poorly documented CCK and views modules. KISS.
I have an SQL database with multiple tables, and I am working on creating a searching feature. Other than having multiple queries for the different tables, is there a different way to go about said searching function?
I should probably add that a lot of my content is database driven to make upkeep easier. Lucene will not work for this, correct?
Different approaches to consider:
1) Multiple queries pre-baked, like you described.
2) Dynamic sql that you put together on the fly based on user-entered criteria.
3) If text is involved, based on SQL Server full text search or Lucene.
In my open source app BugTracker.NET, I do both 2 and 3 (using Lucene.NET).
I documented how I use Lucene.NET here:
http://www.ifdefined.com/blog/post/2009/02/Full-Text-Search-in-ASPNET-using-LuceneNET.aspx
Since you have tagged the question with Asp.net I suppose you want to search your webpages. In that case you can use Indexing Server to perform freetext searches easily that search the generated html and any keywords you have set up.
As Corey Trager suggested, using Lucene.NET is also an option. It has a good reputation of being fast and quite easy to use.
Although the other answers provide good suggestions such as using Lucene, I have much preferred using a custom caching method.
So for a website that I help create, we cached the searchable data every couple of hours, from many tables, into one simple table with columns such as:
URL
Item/Page Name
Main Keywords
Text Only Contents
Date Updated
I would then write my SQL statement to search this field using different functions to determin the rank.
You might want to check out this post i wrote on writing full text queries, its in C#, but its easilly portable, or just stick it in a library and use it as it.
How to build an SQL full text index search term in c#