About inverse

11-20 of 64Refresh
JPA Doc
5

javax.persistence.JoinTable

. the inverse side of the association). Uses the same defaults as for JoinColumn. Default value
JPA Doc
5

javax.persistence.ManyToMany

javax.persistence Annotation ManyToMany Target: Fields (including property get methods) Defines a many-valued association with many-to-many multiplicity. Every many-to-many association has two sides, the owning side and the non-owning, or inverse, side. The join table is specified on the owning
JPA Doc
5

javax.persistence.OneToOne

. This element is only specified on the inverse (non-owning) side of the association. Default value
JPA Doc
5

JoinTable.inverseJoinColumns

Annotation Element javax.persistence.JoinTable JoinColumn[] inverseJoinColumns (Optional) The foreign key columns of the join table which reference the primary table of the entity that does not own the association. (I.e. the inverse side of the association). Uses the same defaults as for JoinColumn. Default value: {} Since: JPA 1.0
JPA Doc
5

OneToOne.mappedBy

Annotation Element javax.persistence.OneToOne String mappedBy (Optional) The field that owns the relationship. This element is only specified on the inverse (non-owning) side of the association. Default value: "" Since: JPA 1.0
Forum
4

JPA vs JDO - which is more efficient for OneToMany queries?

. By the way, if you define the reference in Order, you can use an inverse / mapped-by field in Customer as demonstrated and explained at http://www.objectdb.com/java/jpa/entity/fields#Inverse_Fields ... ), or b) Use JPA with an inverse reference (Order.customer) ? If no performance difference, then JDO
Issue
4

new objects not available in mappedBy associations

happen with ordinary queries. Only with automatic queries that are used for inverse fields, after the inverse field has already been initialized. > Do I need to call refresh() on the object, query, or EntityManager? The argument to refresh is the object that contains the inverse field. This way
Forum
3

Performance in large transactions

++) { : }     em.close(); Embedded vs. Inverse Collections  One of the differences between ObjectDB ... inverse (mapped by) collection in MyEntity:     @Entity     public static class MyEntity ... that the collection in MyEntity is inverse (mapped by) now but the collection in MyEntityElement
Result
3

ObjectDB version 2.5.1

registration. Added error message when using mapped by (inverse) collections and maps of invalid types ... (inverse) to-many relationship into an array field ([]) (issue #1131). Fixed a bug in loading mapped (inverse) to-many relationship in embedded objects (issue #1131, #13). Fixed a bug in automatic url
Forum
3

find() cost unreasonable time!

). Anyway, your test application demonstrates a very important issue: Inverse (mapped by) relationships are inefficient for navigation in the inverse direction. ObjectDB supports bidirectional relationships because this is part of JPA. But navigation in the inverse direction from the owned to the owner