I have entities Image and Post. Post has a uni-directional Nullify relationship to Image. It's a relationship and not an attribute because I want to benefit from lazy loading of relationships, making initial fetches of Post entities very fast. As you can guess, Image contains image data.
Apple generally discourages uni-directional relationships (Link) unless there a good reason not to have an inverse relationship.
My reason for not having it is Image is a generic entity, so having inverse relationships to all entities that use it seemed like overkill. However, I wonder if there is a better way to go about this without violating Apple's recommendation.
Parent entities.
Comment, BlogPost and Tweet all inherit the images relationship. And the inverse relationship points to a TextContent object, which can be a Comment, BlogPost, Tweet or TextContent itself.
As Apple says... Unidirections Relationships
It is not strictly necessary to model a relationship in both
directions
BTW I think attributes also could be loaded lazily (by system) if CoreData detects that is better to do this...
You can be interested in this then to
avoid warnings in your project
Related
I'm new to Core Data and I'm trying to implement it into my existing project. Here is my model:
Now, there's some things that don't make sense to me, likely because I haven't modelled it correctly.
CMAJournal is my top level object with an ordered set of CMAEntry objects and an ordered set of CMAUserDefine objects.
Here's my problem:
Each CMAUserDefine object has an ordered set of objects. For example, the "Baits" CMAUserDefine will have an ordered set of CMABait objects, the "Species" CMAUserDefine will have an ordered set of CMASpecies objects, etc.
Each CMAEntry object has attributes like baitUsed, fishSpecies, etc. that point to an object in the respective CMAUserDefine object. This is so if changes are made, each CMAEntry that references that object is also changed.
Now, from what I've read I should have inverses for each of my relationships. This doesn't make sense in my model. For example, I could have 5 CMAEntry objects whose baitUsed property points to the same CMABait object. Which CMAEntry does the CMABait's entry property point to if there are 5 CMAEntry objects that reference that CMABait? I don't think it should point to anything.
What I want is for all CMAUserDefine objects (i.e. all CMABait, CMASpecies, CMALocation, etc. objects) to be stored in the CMAJournal userDefines set, and have those objects be referenced in each CMAEntry.
I originally had this working great with NSArchiving, but the archive file size was MASSIVE. I mean, 18+ MB for 16 or so entries (which included about 20 images). And from what I've read, Core Data is something I should learn anyway.
So I'm wondering, is my model wrong? Did I take the wrong approach? Is there a more efficient way of using NSArchiver that will better fit my needs?
I hope that makes sense. Please let me know if I need to explain it better.
Thanks!
E: What lead me to this question is getting a bunch of "Dangling reference to an invalid object." = "" errors when trying to save.
A. Some Basics
Core Data needs a inverse relationship to model the relationship. To make a long story short:
In an object graph as modeled by Core Data a reference semantically points from the source object to a destination object. Therefore you use a single reference as CMASpecies's fishSpecies to model a to-one relationship and a collection as NSSet to model a to-many relationship. You do not care about the type of the inverse relationship. In many cases you do not have one at all.
In a relational data base relationships are modeled differently: If you have a 1:N (one-to-many) relationship the relationship is stored on the destination side. The reason for this is, that in a rDB every entity has a fixed size and therefore cannot reference a variable number of destinations. If you have a many-to-many relationship (N:M), a additional table is needed.
As you can see, in an object graph the types of relationships are to-one and to-many only depending on the source, while in rDB the types of relationships are one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many depending on both source and destination.
To select the right kind of rDB modeling Core Data wants to know the type of the inverse relationship.
Type Object graph Inverse | rDB
1:1 to-one id to-one id | source or destination attribute
1:N collection to-one id | destination attribute
N:M collection collection | additional table with two attributes
B. To your Q
In your case, if a CMAEntry object refers exactly one CMASpecies object, but a CMASpecies object can be referred by many CMAEntry objects, this simply means that the inverse relationship is a to-many relationship.
Yes, it is strange for a OOP developer to have such inverse relationships. For a SQL developer, it is the usual case. Developing an ORM (object relational mapper) this is one of the problems. (I know that, because I'm doing that for Objective-Cloud right now. But I did if different, more the OOP's point of view.) Every solution is a kind of unusual for one side. Somebody called ORM the "vietnam of software development".
To have a more simple example: Modeling a sports league you will find yourself having a entity Match with the properties homeTeam and guestTeam. You want to have an inverse relationship, no not homeMatches and guestMatches, but simply matches. This is obviously no inverse. Simply add inverse relationship, if Core Data wants and don't care about it.
I'm struggling with creating a suitable Core Data model for my app. I'm hoping someone here can provide some guidance.
I have two entities -- "Goals" and "Items". The Goals entity contains only a goal description, but any goal may have any number of subgoals, and these may extend multiple levels in a tree structure. Subgoals are to be contained within the same entity, so presumably the Goal entity will contain a pointer to "parent" which will be the parent goal of any subgoal.
There will also be an "Items" entity that contains a couple of text fields and a couple of binary items, and must be linked (ideally, by a unique identifier, perhaps objectID) to the particular goal or subgoal the item(s) are related to.
I am totally fumbling with how to set this model up. I know what attributes need to be in each entity, but the relationships, particularly between goals and "subgoals", has me stumped. I don't seem to be able to turn up any good examples of tree structures in Core Data on the Internet, and even the couple of books I have on Core Data don't seem to address it.
Can anyone here help an old SQL programmer get headed the right direction with these relationships in Core Data? Thanks.
Have you tried creating a one-to-many from Goal to itself, and a one-to-one from Goal to Item? The only thing I would worry about here is circular references.
Also, read Relationships and Fetched Properties in the CoreData Programming Guide.
Here is how it is done:
You set up a to-many relationship from Goal to Item in the model editor. Don't use any ids, foreign keys etc. This is old-fashioned database thinking - you can forget about it. Here we are only dealing with an object graph. The database layer is just an implementation detail for persisting the data.
Make two more relationships in entity Goal to itself: a to-one called parent, a to-many called subGoals. Make them the inverse of each other. Simple!
QED is correct, you can create a to many relationship on goal (call it subgoals) as well as a to-one relationship on goal (call it parentGoal) and set them as inverses to each other.
Then create another to many relationship (call it items) on the goal entity, with the inverse being a to one relationship on the item entity (call it goal). Then you're all set. You don't need to link items with a unique id, just add them to the items relationship.
Also note that if you did want to give items a unique id, do not use the objectID. The objectID should only be used as a temporary id as they are not guaranteed to remain the same. In fact they will change if you ever do a Core Data migration.
One way, though not really great, is to create a another entity, say subGoal, and each goal has one subGoal and each object of subGoal has many goal.
I am having hard time wrapping my head around Core Data's inverse relationship. For example let's say there are two entities: post and comment, where
post has_many comments and
comment belongs_to post
Using xcode's visual coredata editor I would create both entities and then link them by:
Connecting post to destination comment and selecting to many
Connecting comment to destination post and not selecting to many
Make sure the relationship from #2 above is an inverse of #1.
Here's my question:
What is actually going on behind the scenes when you select inverse. What is this equivalent to in other ORMs, say ActiveRecord.
Will it have the same effect if instead of specifying #2's inverse as #1, I went to #1 and said its inverse is #2?
The phrase I hear most often is that CoreData is about maintaining an object graph foremost, and an ORM second. So with that in mind, I'd say that behind the scenes when you set an inverse relationship you are noting that it is a bi-directional relationship and not two, one way relationships. Without that, you may be able to specify that a comment has many posts but if you add a post to a comment you may not be able to traverse the graph from the comment to the post and then back.
Coming from ActiveRecord that may not make much sense if you think about it as keeping keys in columns and noting the relationships - but CoreData can have many different data storage formats and an inverse relationship is not implied by storing the data.
It should have the same effect if you go to #1 and said its inverse is #2 - but that's easy to test and see.
Setting an inverse means that if you change one relationship then the inverse is kept in sync. For example if you add a Comment to a Post then the Comment's "post" relationship will automatically be set. Similarly if you do set a Comment's post property then that Comment will automatically be added to the Post's comments collection. So the following two lines of code are equivalent:
newComment.post = aPost;
[aPost addCommentsObject:newComment];
If you did not specify the inverse then you would have to include BOTH lines to create the relationships. Inverses are recommended because it is easier to maintain the integrity of the object graph. How this is actually persisted in the store depends on the store type, but if you are using a sqlite store then it's easy to peek inside to see what Core Data is doing.
They are equivalent.
Can a Core Data relationship be its own inverse relationship?
I have a generalized entity that is used to represent different types of objects. Some of these objects have to-many relationships to each other. Do I simply set the relationship as its own inverse, or create a new relationship with the same destination as the inverse?
Since Xcode gives you the option to set a relationship as its own inverse, I'm assuming it's okay, but would just like to make sure. Thanks in advance.
Yes there is no problem with this kind of relationship. You may always have links to objects in the class, even to the object itself.
Just in case you have to delete your objects from ManagedObjectContext you need to consider the deletion rules here https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CoreData/Articles/cdRelationships.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001857-SW1.
But really no problem in general with your approach...
I've been studying Core Data quite a bit now, and I've now decided it's time to use it in a new project I'm doing.
Having never use it in a working project I've just come across a few issues I would like to get the communities feedback on.
I'm doing a location based application and I would like to store "outings" in my Core Data model, so for each trip I have some traditional information such as date, distance, description etc... But I also need to save location information which I'll need to plot some points on a map.
So I have a "to" and "from" object per trip, I've created a MapPoint entity with latitude, longitude and location name attributes. On my Trip entity, I've added a "to" and a "from" relationship who's destination is MapPoint.
But what do I do with the inverse property?
Because Xcode seems to give a warning it I leave it as "No inverse".
I needed to create 2 relationships on MapPoint to reference back to the Trip to the "to" and another relationship referencing the "from" relationship of Trip.
Is this correct ? I can't quite understand.
I have a similar issue with a User Entity where this is being used in several other Entities, should I be implementing an inverse relationship back to each Entity which uses User?
To keep Xcode happy it seems I need to create a relationship on User back to Trip, and back to other Entities I'm using such as an Upload, Picture entities etc... it seems to me disturbing to think a Trip has a User object, which would then have prepared to link back to an Upload/Photo... which has nothing to do with that Trip.
If you want to support inverse relationships for your to and from relationships, you can just add appropriate relationships to your MapPoint entity. Call them tripTo and tripFrom, or whatever seems appropriate to you, and set those as the inverse relationships for your to and from relationships, respectively.
As the docs explain, you're not required to model a relationship in both directions, but doing so makes life easier. What happens, for example, when a user is deleted? If you have a number of other entities related to User, then you need some way to figure out which objects were related to that user so that you can update them. If you have inverse relationships, Core Data can automatically update any related objects using the deletion rule (like nullify) that you choose. Without inverse relationships, it's up to you to fix up any related objects.
I'm not entirely familiar with Core Data, but I believe it has a form of entity inheritance.
You could make your MapPoint entity abstract and create a FromMapPoint and a ToMapPoint which inherit their attributes from the MapPoint entity.
Your Trip entity can then have two separate relationships - one to FromMapPoint and one to ToMapPoint with the appropriate inverses.
As I said - I'm no CD expert, so hopefully someone else can come along and validate/shoot-down this suggestion?
With a bit of digging I found that you can set the parent entity through the Data Model Inspector. I created this quick representation of what you've been talking about.
In my experience Core Data doesn't "require" you to have inverse relationships, but not having them leads to mysterious bugs, even if you make sure to keep your object graph consistent manually. At least I think that's what was causing the mysterious bugs.
The SQLite store uses inverse relationships to represent to-many relationships. For a to-many relationship foo from entity A to entity B, I would have thought it would create a separate table "foo" with a column A and a column B, with object ids appearing more than once in column A. Nope. It doesn't represent one-to-many relationships at all, it represents their inverses only, which are to-one relationships. It represents fooInverse as a column in entity B's table, containing object ids that correspond to A-type entities. So you must have an inverse. It seems that in simple cases Core Data can deduce what the inverse should be if you don't define it, and your to-many property works correctly. However in more complicated cases such as the one you describe, it falls over.