Hibernate throws MultipleBagFetchException - cannot simultaneously fetch multiple bags

Hibernate throws this exception during SessionFactory creation:

org.hibernate.loader.MultipleBagFetchException: cannot simultaneously fetch multiple bags

This is my test case:

Parent.java

@Entity
public Parent {

 @Id
 @GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
 private Long id;

 @OneToMany(mappedBy="parent", fetch=FetchType.EAGER)
 // @IndexColumn(name="INDEX_COL") if I had this the problem solve but I retrieve more children than I have, one child is null.
 private List<Child> children;

}

Child.java

@Entity
public Child {

 @Id
 @GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
 private Long id;

 @ManyToOne
 private Parent parent;

}

How about this problem? What can I do?

EDIT

OK, the problem I have is that another "parent" entity is inside my parent, my real behavior is this:

Parent.java

@Entity
public Parent {

 @Id
 @GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
 private Long id;

 @ManyToOne
 private AnotherParent anotherParent;

 @OneToMany(mappedBy="parent", fetch=FetchType.EAGER)
 private List<Child> children;

}

AnotherParent.java

@Entity
public AnotherParent {

 @Id
 @GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
 private Long id;

 @OneToMany(mappedBy="parent", fetch=FetchType.EAGER)
 private List<AnotherChild> anotherChildren;

}

Hibernate doesn't like two collections with FetchType.EAGER, but this seems to be a bug, I'm not doing unusual things...

Removing FetchType.EAGER from Parent or AnotherParent solves the problem, but I need it, so real solution is to use @LazyCollection(LazyCollectionOption.FALSE) instead of FetchType (thanks to Bozho for the solution).

Solution 1:

I think a newer version of hibernate (supporting JPA 2.0) should handle this. But otherwise you can work it around by annotating the collection fields with:

@LazyCollection(LazyCollectionOption.FALSE)

Remember to remove the fetchType attribute from the @*ToMany annotation.

But note that in most cases a Set<Child> is more appropriate than List<Child>, so unless you really need a List - go for Set

But remind that with using sets you won't eliminate the underlaying Cartesian Product as described by Vlad Mihalcea in his answer!

Solution 2:

Simply change from List type to Set type.

But remind that you won't eliminate the underlaying Cartesian Product as described by Vlad Mihalcea in his answer!