Skip to content

simple DML translation #102

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 37 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

NathanQingyangXu
Copy link
Contributor

@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu commented May 27, 2025

https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/HIBERNATE-46

The scope of the ticket is to unblock the following simple DML HQL mutation queries:

  • insert into Book (id, title) values (1, "War and Peace"), (2, "Crime and Punishmnet")
  • update Book set title = "War and Peace" where title = "War & Peace"
  • delete from Book where title = "War and Peace"

Translation is straightforward. The following new visitor methods would be implemented in this PR:

  • void visitDeleteStatement(DeleteStatement deleteStatement);
  • void visitUpdateStatement(UpdateStatement updateStatement);
  • void visitInsertStatement(InsertSelectStatement insertSelectStatement);

Both of the first two methods share a lot in common in the sense that they are both based on where clause, with various AST filters as the backbones, which has been finished in previous PR.

The scope of this PR is modest and only focuses on the following basic stuff:

  • no new AST filter will be introduced
  • when updating, only $set updating operator is supported (with the constraint that $set focuses on field path and value pair)

One caveat is previously our insertion command mongo ast only allows one document, to fully support HQL's feature, the mongo ast model was refactored to allow multiple documents, consistent with MQL's syntax as well. There is a separate ticket for this requirment: https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/HIBERNATE-44, so we can finish it in this PR additionally.

@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu marked this pull request as draft May 27, 2025 18:17
});
}

public static final class MutateTranslatorAwareDialect extends Dialect {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

An important feature to test is we need to include the table names involved in DML queries into the result of SqlAstTranslator#getAffectedTableNames() which acts as auto-flush purpose in the upper level caller of the translator.

We might need to finish other features (like table joining) to test the auto-flush features in integration test; currently we could only test this important feature by some expedient.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu Jun 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is related to auto-flushing criteria No..2 (see https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/orm/6.6/userguide/html_single/Hibernate_User_Guide.html#flushing-auto):

  • prior to executing a JPQL/HQL query that overlaps with the queued entity actions

@@ -36,17 +38,17 @@

@SessionFactory(exportSchema = false)
@ExtendWith(MongoExtension.class)
abstract class AbstractSelectionQueryIntegrationTests implements SessionFactoryScopeAware, ServiceRegistryScopeAware {
public abstract class AbstractQueryIntegrationTests implements SessionFactoryScopeAware, ServiceRegistryScopeAware {
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this class is reusable not only for select query but also for mutate query, so it is renamed and moved to more general location. The Book class was changed accordingly to go together with it hand in hand.

throw new FeatureNotSupportedException("Unsupported mutation statement type: "
+ mutationStatement.getClass().getName());
}
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

currently there is no fourth class of MutationStatement; the above last else clause is for future-proof purpose.

…t/command/AstInsertCommand.java

Co-authored-by: Jeff Yemin <[email protected]>
checkMutationStatement(insertStatement);
if (insertStatement.getConflictClause() != null) {
throw new FeatureNotSupportedException();
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

HQL has an interesting ON CONFLICT during insertion feature (see https://www.baeldung.com/hibernate-insert-query-on-conflict-clause). It is sort of similar to MongoDB's upsert feature but it seems there is a big difference between them:

  • HQL mainly focuses on conflict during insertion (w.r.t. unique constraint or fields combination); MongoDB's upsert focuses on conflict during updating (w.r.t. some query or filter,, e.g. comparison between a field and a value)

So I guess we can't support this HQL feature. HQL's update statement is simpler and provides no possibility to emulate MongoDB's upsert feature.

Copy link
Member

@vbabanin vbabanin Jun 24, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we could support the same semantics in MQL.

1. "on conflict do update:

What HQL does:
insert … on conflict do update - checks a unique index; if the key is taken it runs the UPDATE clause.

What MongoDB does:
update … { upsert:true } matches a filter; if no doc matches it inserts instead.

Despite starting from opposite directions (insert-first vs. update-first) they end up with the same two-way branch:

Case HQL MongoDB
No existing row/doc run regular INSERT insert via upsert
Conflict / match found run DO UPDATE … run UPDATE …

We could put the “excluded” columns in $set, and use $setOnInsert for values present only on insert.
Example command:

  {
    updateOne: {
      filter: { _id: 1 },                
      update: {
      
      // similar to DO UPDATE … SET title = excluded.title
        $set: { title: "Pride & Prejudice" },   
        
        // fields present only on first insert
        
        $setOnInsert: { 
          title: "Pride & Prejudice"                   
          outOfStock: false,
          publishYear: 1813,
          isbn13: NumberLong("9780141439518"),
          discount: 0.2,
          price: Decimal128("23.55")
        }
      },
      upsert: true
    }
  },

2. "on conflict do nothing":

We could use ordered: false for insert operations to process all inserts and ignore any duplication errors reported via writeErrors. For this, though, we’d need to be aware of the HQL context, if possible.

In any case, I suggest we handle this as a separate ticket, so as not to block this PR and to keep the review focused. Let me know your thoughts.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Definitively it deserves a ticket. I think all of the following HQL criteria needs to be satisfied to allow for MQL translation:

  • ON CONFLICT is specified
  • ON CONSTRAINT uniqueIndexName is not used as the criteria (MQL's filter can't be based on unique index name, correct?)
  • CONFLICT ACTION is not NOTHING

so it seems the ticket is an interesting tech one but could be used very rarely in reality; native query seems more flixible and powerful.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I created a ticket here: https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/HIBERNATE-94. Let me know when you have any further suggestion.

}
if (insertStatement.getSourceSelectStatement() != null) {
throw new FeatureNotSupportedException();
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

HQL has two flavours of insertion statement:

  • insert into Book (id, title) values (1, "War and Peace"), (2, "Crime and Punishment")
  • insert into Book (id, title) select c.identifier, c.name from Catalog as c

This PR will focus on the first variant and throw exception for the latter.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we have a ticket for the latter? If not, should we create one in the backlog to track it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't have a ticket. From my understanding, there is no MQL counterpart so we won't support it in the first place.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have $out and $merge. Neither is a direct counterpart to insert into ... select ..., despite $out being advertized as the counterpart (it "conveniently" for applications deletes the target collection, which SQL never does), but maybe there is a way to implement insert into ... select ... in our extension in a way that at least partially mimics the expected behavior.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu Jul 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did consider the possibility to emulate insert into ... select ... using aggregate pipeline, but I am not sure whether it is worthwhile; one of the reasons is our user could easily achieve the same goal by breaking down the process to two separate steps programmatically (first grabbing all the values using some selection or native query and then using the normal insertion mutation or native query) and it is much more flexible.
If you persist, I can create a ticket of lowest priority.

documents.add(new AstDocument(astElements));
}

astVisitorValueHolder.yield(COLLECTION_MUTATION, new AstInsertCommand(collection, documents));
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

there are 3 assertion usages above as follows:

  • insertion field list is not empty
  • insertion values list is not empty
  • field list length is the same as values length

The above constraints were either enforced from HQL grammar level or semantic checking phase in Hibernate (a prior step when the final SQL AST translation step is reached), so we can rest assured these constraints are enforced already.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

similarly, various assertions are used in updating case as well. Common constraints have been carefully centralized into checkMutationStatementSupportability() method. Only one checking is required to ensure the insertion field value or udpating field value expressions should be either valueExpression (literal value or parameter expressions).

@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu marked this pull request as ready for review May 29, 2025 13:10
@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu marked this pull request as draft May 29, 2025 14:21
@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu force-pushed the HIBERNATE-46 branch 2 times, most recently from 0cc0a35 to 4d24c09 Compare June 11, 2025 18:26
@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu marked this pull request as ready for review July 2, 2025 22:09
# Conflicts:
#	src/integrationTest/java/com/mongodb/hibernate/query/select/AbstractSelectionQueryIntegrationTests.java
#	src/integrationTest/java/com/mongodb/hibernate/query/select/SortingSelectQueryIntegrationTests.java
return delegate.getSqlAstTranslatorFactory().buildModelMutationTranslator(mutation, sessionFactory);
}

private <T extends JdbcOperation> SqlAstTranslator<T> createCapturingTranslator(
Copy link
Member

@vbabanin vbabanin Jul 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[nit] Let’s make the name a bit more descriptive here to show the intent, something like createTranslateResultCapturingAstTranslator.

vbabanin
vbabanin previously approved these changes Jul 9, 2025
@NathanQingyangXu
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stIncMale , would appreciate your taking a secondary review for @vbabanin had approved it for a while. Thanks.

private static void checkCteContainerSupportability(CteContainer cteContainer) {
if (!cteContainer.getCteStatements().isEmpty()
|| !cteContainer.getCteObjects().isEmpty()) {
throw new FeatureNotSupportedException("CTE is ");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The error message is incomplete.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good catch, thanks!

}
var root = fromClause.getRoots().get(0);
if (root.hasRealJoins()) {
throw new FeatureNotSupportedException("TODO-HIBERNATE-65 https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/HIBERNATE-65");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/HIBERNATE-65 is linked here in the TODO comment, but there is no note in the ticket description about resolving such TODOs. We must add it similarly to how it is done in https://jira.mongodb.org/browse/HIBERNATE-44, for example.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, we should have. Done.

Comment on lines 700 to 703
private String addToAffectedCollections(NamedTableReference tableRef) {
var collection = tableRef.getTableExpression();
affectedTableNames.add(collection);
return collection;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The field containing the list is named affectedTableNames, but the method adding to the list is named addToAffectedCollections. Let's rename the method to addToAffectedTableNames.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My original intention is to map closer to our domain model at least on method level (field name is lower-level and mapped to Hibernate's particular); but I changed as you suggested.

}
if (insertStatement.getSourceSelectStatement() != null) {
throw new FeatureNotSupportedException();
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have $out and $merge. Neither is a direct counterpart to insert into ... select ..., despite $out being advertized as the counterpart (it "conveniently" for applications deletes the target collection, which SQL never does), but maybe there is a way to implement insert into ... select ... in our extension in a way that at least partially mimics the expected behavior.

@@ -60,6 +58,12 @@ private static List<Book> getBooksByIds(int... ids) {
.toList();
}

@BeforeEach
protected void beforeEach() {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why was this method moved from the top of the class? We previously moved all such methods to the top specifically to make the code consistent, instead of having them scattered in different places of the class.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I didn't notice such convention and I tried to be consistent with LimitOffsetFetchClauseIntegrationTests; relocate @BeforeEach in both classes after field declaration.

Comment on lines +82 to +90
@Override
public void injectSessionFactoryScope(SessionFactoryScope sessionFactoryScope) {
this.sessionFactoryScope = sessionFactoryScope;
}

@Override
public void injectServiceRegistryScope(ServiceRegistryScope serviceRegistryScope) {
this.testCommandListener = serviceRegistryScope.getRegistry().requireService(TestCommandListener.class);
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's move these methods to the top of the class, right after the field declarations. That way they will be placed consistently with the intentional placement in the other classes.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, didn't notice we have such convention.


private Book bookOutOfStock;
private Book bookInStock;

@BeforeEach
void beforeEach() {
protected void beforeEach() {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the reason for making this method protected?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is a legacy minor issue; tbh I don't recollect the reason. Removed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is not a legacy issue; I overlooked it during refactoring; I tried to move some common beforeEach() to the AbstractQueryIntegrationTests parent class and then protected might be needed; later on I aborted the experimenting and forgot to remove it.

@@ -60,6 +58,12 @@ private static List<Book> getBooksByIds(int... ids) {
.toList();
}

@BeforeEach
protected void beforeEach() {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the reason for making this method protected? As far as I can tell, it should be package-access.

Suggested change
protected void beforeEach() {
void beforeEach() {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

removed

@stIncMale
Copy link
Member

The last reviewed commit is ea75d2f.

@NathanQingyangXu NathanQingyangXu requested a review from a team as a code owner July 23, 2025 14:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants