First of all, in order to save enum values in a relational database using JPA, you don't have to do anything. By default, when an enum is a part of an entity, JPA maps its values into numbers using the ordinal() method. What it means is that without customizations JPA stores enum value as numbers.
Save enum as int in db and extract the enum value (or enum description attribute using reflection) in code: this is the approach I usually use. The problem is when I try to query from database in SSMS, the retrieved data is hard to understand. Save enum as string (varchar) in db and cast back to int in code.
Enums are stored constants. Once a list of values is created for a enumeration those values are stored as literals against their display name(access name given at the time of declaration of enum). Yennerfer's answer is appropriate for the storage.
In MySQL one can create an enum as such: USE WorldofWarcraft; CREATE TABLE [users] ( ID INT NOT NULL IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY, username varchar(255), password varchar(255), mail varchar (255), rank ENUM ('Fresh meat', 'Intern','Janitor','Lieutenant','Supreme being')DEFAULT 'Fresh meat', );
We never store enumerations as numerical ordinal values anymore; it makes debugging and support way too difficult. We store the actual enumeration value converted to string:
public enum Suit { Spade, Heart, Diamond, Club }
Suit theSuit = Suit.Heart;
szQuery = "INSERT INTO Customers (Name, Suit) " +
"VALUES ('Ian Boyd', %s)".format(theSuit.name());
and then read back with:
Suit theSuit = Suit.valueOf(reader["Suit"]);
The problem was in the past staring at Enterprise Manager and trying to decipher:
Name Suit
------------ ----
Kylie Guénin 2
Ian Boyd 1
verses
Name Suit
------------ -------
Kylie Guénin Diamond
Ian Boyd Heart
the latter is much easier. The former required getting at the source code and finding the numerical values that were assigned to the enumeration members.
Yes it takes more space, but the enumeration member names are short, and hard drives are cheap, and it is much more worth it to help when you're having a problem.
Additionally, if you use numerical values, you are tied to them. You cannot nicely insert or rearrange the members without having to force the old numerical values. For example, changing the Suit enumeration to:
public enum Suit { Unknown, Heart, Club, Diamond, Spade }
would have to become :
public enum Suit {
Unknown = 4,
Heart = 1,
Club = 3,
Diamond = 2,
Spade = 0 }
in order to maintain the legacy numerical values stored in the database.
The question comes up: lets say i wanted to order the values. Some people may want to sort them by the enum
's ordinal value. Of course, ordering the cards by the numerical value of the enumeration is meaningless:
SELECT Suit FROM Cards
ORDER BY SuitID; --where SuitID is integer value(4,1,3,2,0)
Suit
------
Spade
Heart
Diamond
Club
Unknown
That's not the order we want - we want them in enumeration order:
SELECT Suit FROM Cards
ORDER BY CASE SuitID OF
WHEN 4 THEN 0 --Unknown first
WHEN 1 THEN 1 --Heart
WHEN 3 THEN 2 --Club
WHEN 2 THEN 3 --Diamond
WHEN 0 THEN 4 --Spade
ELSE 999 END
The same work that is required if you save integer values is required if you save strings:
SELECT Suit FROM Cards
ORDER BY Suit; --where Suit is an enum name
Suit
-------
Club
Diamond
Heart
Spade
Unknown
But that's not the order we want - we want them in enumeration order:
SELECT Suit FROM Cards
ORDER BY CASE Suit OF
WHEN 'Unknown' THEN 0
WHEN 'Heart' THEN 1
WHEN 'Club' THEN 2
WHEN 'Diamond' THEN 3
WHEN 'Space' THEN 4
ELSE 999 END
My opinion is that this kind of ranking belongs in the user interface. If you are sorting items based on their enumeration value: you're doing something wrong.
But if you wanted to really do that, i would create a Suits
dimension table:
Suit | SuitID | Rank | Color |
---|---|---|---|
Unknown | 4 | 0 | NULL |
Heart | 1 | 1 | Red |
Club | 3 | 2 | Black |
Diamond | 2 | 3 | Red |
Spade | 0 | 4 | Black |
This way, when you want to change your cards to use Kissing Kings New Deck Order you can change it for display purposes without throwing away all your data:
Suit | SuitID | Rank | Color | CardOrder |
---|---|---|---|---|
Unknown | 4 | 0 | NULL | NULL |
Spade | 0 | 1 | Black | 1 |
Diamond | 2 | 2 | Red | 1 |
Club | 3 | 3 | Black | -1 |
Heart | 1 | 4 | Red | -1 |
Now we are separating an internal programming detail (enumeration name, enumeration value) with a display setting meant for users:
SELECT Cards.Suit
FROM Cards
INNER JOIN Suits ON Cards.Suit = Suits.Suit
ORDER BY Suits.Rank,
Card.Rank*Suits.CardOrder
Unless you have specific performance reasons to avoid it, I would recommend using a separate table for the enumeration. Use foreign key integrity unless the extra lookup really kills you.
suit_id suit_name
1 Clubs
2 Hearts
3 Spades
4 Diamonds
player_name suit_id
Ian Boyd 4
Shelby Lake 2
suit_id
) are independent from your enumeration value, which helps you work on the data from other languages as well.As you say, ordinal is a bit risky. Consider for example:
public enum Boolean {
TRUE, FALSE
}
public class BooleanTest {
@Test
public void testEnum() {
assertEquals(0, Boolean.TRUE.ordinal());
assertEquals(1, Boolean.FALSE.ordinal());
}
}
If you stored this as ordinals, you might have rows like:
> SELECT STATEMENT, TRUTH FROM CALL_MY_BLUFF
"Alice is a boy" 1
"Graham is a boy" 0
But what happens if you updated Boolean?
public enum Boolean {
TRUE, FILE_NOT_FOUND, FALSE
}
This means all your lies will become misinterpreted as 'file-not-found'
Better to just use a string representation
I would argue that the only safe mechanism here is to use the String name()
value. When writing to the DB, you could use a sproc to insert the value and when reading, use a View. In this manner, if the enums change, there is a level of indirection in the sproc/view to be able to present the data as the enum value without "imposing" this on the DB.
We just store the enum name itself - it's more readable.
We did mess around with storing specific values for enums where there are a limited set of values, e.g., this enum that has a limited set of statuses that we use a char to represent (more meaningful than a numeric value):
public enum EmailStatus {
EMAIL_NEW('N'), EMAIL_SENT('S'), EMAIL_FAILED('F'), EMAIL_SKIPPED('K'), UNDEFINED('-');
private char dbChar = '-';
EmailStatus(char statusChar) {
this.dbChar = statusChar;
}
public char statusChar() {
return dbChar;
}
public static EmailStatus getFromStatusChar(char statusChar) {
switch (statusChar) {
case 'N':
return EMAIL_NEW;
case 'S':
return EMAIL_SENT;
case 'F':
return EMAIL_FAILED;
case 'K':
return EMAIL_SKIPPED;
default:
return UNDEFINED;
}
}
}
and when you have a lot of values you need to have a Map inside your enum to keep that getFromXYZ method small.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With