I'm pretty new to EFCore and the change tracker, but I see we can extract EntityEntry from a context. I've been searching, but I'm wondering if there is a shortcut to Attach an EntityEntry to another context. If this is possible, the remaining step would be to compare the OriginalValues with those contained in the new context - if they are different, then SaveChanges should not fire for concurrency reasons - it could be as simply as comparing a timestamp or a hash value.
In short is there a way to Attach an EntityEntry to another context?
I realize that we could simply marshal the current values, but that's more code and effort than simply attaching the EntityEntry directly to a new context.
So we used RIA Services, which then became OpenRIA - and the changes that are tracked in the EF Context on the client side are transported over to a EF Context on the server side. We have reviewed the code of OpenRIA, and it's beyond this team to convert OpenRIA Service to dotnet 3.0 and use GRPC to emulate what it is currently doing.
As we want to ensure have a handle on our code base, we are working through what we can do to transport the EF Context changes to the server that serves our needs.
BTW - I should have noticed that EntityEntry was non serializable, and hence no way to transport. Too bad nobody thought of raising that issue!
Related
I just found some really strange behaviour which turns out it is not so strange at all.
My select statement (query from database) worked only the first time. The second time, query from database was cached.
Inside Hub method I read something from database every 10 seconds and return result to all connected clients. But if some API change this data, Hub context does not read actual data.
In this thread I found this:
When you use EF it by default loads each entity only once per context. The first query creates entity instance and stores it internally. Any subsequent query which requires entity with the same key returns this stored instance. If values in the data store changed you still receive the entity with values from the initial query. This is called Identity map pattern. You can force the object context to reload the entity but it will reload a single shared instance.
So my question is how to properly use EFCore inside SignalR Core hub method?
I could use AsNoTracking, but I would like to use some global setting. Developer can easily forget to add AsNoTracking and this could mean serving outdated data to user.
I would like to write some code in my BaseHub class which will tell context do not track data. If I change entity properties, SaveChanges should update data. Can this be achieved? It is hard to think all the time to add AsNoTracking when querying from hub method.
I would like to write some code in my BaseHub class which will tell context do not track data.
The default query tracking behavior is controlled by the ChangeTracker.QueryTrackingBehavior property with default value of TrackAll (i.e. tracking).
You can change it to NoTracking and then use AsTracking() for queries that need tracking. It's a matter of which are more commonly needed.
If I change entity properties, SaveChanges should update data.
This is not possible if the entity is not tracked.
If you actually want tracking queries with "database wins" strategy, I'm afraid it's not possible currently in EF Core. I think EF6 object context services had an option for specifying the "client wins" vs "database wins" strategy, but EF Core currently does not provide such control and always implements "client wins" strategy.
I'm using EF (EF Core, actually, with ASP.NET Core on OSX, but I believe this is more of a general "newbie-style" EF question, so please read on...)
I built a little logging routine that uses EF to publish log entries to my database. Sort of like this, called from a repository class:
WebLog log = new WebLog(source, path, message);
Context.WebLogs.Add(log);
Context.SaveChanges();
Where WebLog is a simple model class, Context.WebLogs is a DbSet<WebLog> collection, and Context is obviously the DbContext. I believe this is quite straightforward.
But my question is this: if I continue to add new log entries to the Context.WebLogs collection and I never do anything like reboot my server, isn't the collection just going to grow without bounds? Is there some kind of "purge" or "flush" action I can take periodically to manage memory usage (without affecting the committed rows in the database, of course--I want those to persist). Or is DbSet some sort of a special collection that won't do this?
As mentioned by DevilSuichiro above, the recommended approach is to limit the lifetime of the instances of DbContext. E.g. in a Web application you typically use a DbContext instance per request, so an unbounded number of entities added doesn't become a problem.
The closest thing to a "flush" operation is SaveChanges() that method will not try to remove references to tracked entities, as DbContext is designed to be reused after SaveChanges().
In previous versions of EF we had a Detach() API that you could use to get rid of an individual tracked reference but we don't have that API in DbContext or anywhere in EF Core.
BTW, having an instance of DbContext that is shared between multiple requests is extremely problematic because DbContext is not thread safe.
I'm refactoring my ASP.NET MVC 4 WebAPI project for performance optimization reasons.
Within my controller code, I'm searching for entities in a context (DbContext, EF6). There are a few thousands of such entities, new ones are added on an hourly basis (i.e. "slowly"), they are rarely deleted (and I don't care if deleted entities are still found on the context's cache!) and are never modified.
After reading the answers to this question, to this one and a few more discussions, I'm still not sure it's a bad idea to use a single static DbContext for the purpose described above - a DbContext which never updates the database.
Performance-wise, I'm not worried about the instantiation cost, but rather about the uselessness of caching requested entities if the DbContext is created for each request. I'm also using a 2nd level caching, which makes the persistence of the context even more acute.
My questions are:
1. Regardless of the specific implementation, is a "static" DbContext a valid solution in my case?
2. If so, what would be the most appropriate way of implementing such a DbContext?
3. Should I periodically "flush" the context to clear the cache in order to prevent if from growing too big?
DbContext caches entity instances when you get/query the data. It ensures different queries that return the same data map to the same entity (based on type and id). Otherwise, if you modify the same entity in different object instances, the context would not know which one has the correct data. Therefore a static DbContext would blow up over time until the process crashes.
DbContexts should be short lived. Request.Properties is a good place to save it in Web API (maps to HttpContext.Items in IIS).
In my MVC controllers, I'm using an IoC container (Ninject), but am not sure how to best use when it comes to the Entity Framework ObjectContext.
Currently, I'm doing something like:
using(var context = new MyObjectContext())
{
var stuff = m_repository.GetStuff(context);
}
This is the best way to manage from the point of view of keeping the database connection open for the shortest time possible.
If I were to create the ObjectContext via Ninject on a per request basis, this obviously keeps the database connection open for too long.
Also the above code would become...
var stuff = m_repository.GetStuff(m_myObjectContext);
(And when would I dispose of the context...?)
Should I be creating a factory for the ObjectContext and pass that in via DI? This would loosen the coupling, but does this really help with testability if there is no easy means of maintaining an interface for the ObjectContext (that I know of)?.
Is there a better way? Thanks
This is the best way to manage from the point of view of keeping the
database connection open for the shortest time possible.
If I were to create the ObjectContext via Ninject on a per request
basis, this obviously keeps the database connection open for too long.
Entity Framework will close the connection directly after the execution of each query (except when supplying an open connection from the outside), so your argument for doing things like this does not hold.
In the past I used to have by business logic (my command handlers to be precise) have control over the context (create, commit, and dispose it), but the downside is that you need to pass on this context to all other methods and all dependencies. When the application logic gets more complex, this results in less readable, less maintainable code.
For that reason I moved to a model where the unit of work (your MyObjectContext) is created, committed, and disposed outside the control of the business logic. This allows you to inject the unit of work into all dependencies and reuse the same unit of work for all objects. Downside is that this makes your DI configuration a bit harder. Some things your need to make sure of:
The unit of work must be created as per web request or within a certain scope.
The unit of work must be disposed at the end of the request or scope (although it is probably not a problem when the DbContext is not disposed, since the underlighing connection is closed and DbContext does not implemente a finalizer).
You need to explicitly commit the unit of work, but you can't do this at the end of the web request, since at that point you have no idea whether it is safe to commit (since you don't want to commit when your business logic threw an exception, but at the end of the request there is no way to correctly detect if this actually happened).
One tip I can give you is to model the business logic in the system around command handlers, since this allows you do define a single decorator that handles the transactional behavior (committing the unit of work and perhaps even running everything in a database transaction) at a single point. This decorator can be wrapped around each handler in the system.
I must admit that I have no idea how to register generic types and generic decorators with Ninject, but you'll probably get an answer quickly when asking here at Stackoverflow.
During the life of my ObjectContext, I receive a message saying telling me that a new entity has been added to the data source by some other process (i.e. not tracked by my ObjectContext). How do I add this entity to my local ObjectContext without recreating it?
I've looked at ObjectContext.Refresh() but I'm not sure if this is the right way forwards.
If the entity is available in your code, use the Attach method.
In case this object is not available in your code, the solution is indeed to call the Refresh method with StoreWins RefreshMode for the collection the object was added into.
I recommend you to take a look at the Self-Tracking Entities as well.
Is the answer not in the question title - long running object contexts are not a good idea in EF. Ideally the OC should be kept alive for as short a time as possible.