If I have an entity A with one-to-many relationship with entity B and I have to fetch A along with associated Bs, I can either use EntityManager's find method OR I can write JPQL query using JOIN.
Which approach is better in terms of efficiency and minimum DB calls?
I'm assuming that the EntityManager.find(class, primary key, ...) invocation will load all associated B's thanks to proper usage of #JoinTable and #OneToMany annotations thus the find and the JPQL JOIN produce the same result in a single invocation.
If that is true then my experience with Hibernate and JPA (2.0/2.1) is that there is no difference especially if you use a secondary cache which I do. Do whatever is convenient.
Having said that the only way to know for sure would be to perform the timing yourself. There are differences not only between different JPA implementations such as Hibernate and EclipseLnk but between different versions of the same system.
Additionally your JPQL performance will vary depending upon if you have the query precompiled (I always do this) or it is a dynamic Criteria JPQL. Additionally various Secondary Caches effect performance greatly.
Related
According to the spec, when #IndexedEmbedded points to an entity, the association has to be directional and the other side has to be annotated with #ContainedIn. If not, Hibernate Search has no way to update the root index when the associated entity is updated.
Am I right to assume the word directional should be bi-directional? I have exactly the problem that my index is not updated. I have one-directional relationships, e.g. person to order but the order does not know the person. Now when I change the order the index is not updated.
If changing the associations to become bi-directional is no option which possibilities would I have to still use hibernate-search? Would it be possible to create two separate indices and to combine queries?
Am I right to assume the word directional should be bi-directional?
Yes. I will fix this typo.
If changing the associations to become bi-directional is no option which possibilities would I have to still use hibernate-search?
If Person is indexed and embeds Order, but Order doesn't have an inverse association to Person, then Hibernate Search cannot retrieve the Persons that have to be reindexed when an Order changes.
Thus you will have to reindex manually: https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/search/5.11/reference/en-US/html_single/#manual-index-changes .
You can adopt one of two strategies:
The easy path: reindex all the Person entities periodically, e.g. every night.
The hard path: reindex the affected Person entities whenever an Order changes. This basically means adding code to your services so that whenever an order is created/updated/deleted, you run a query to retrieve all the corresponding persons, and reindex them manually.
The first solution is fairly simple, but has the big disadvantage that the Person index will be up to 24 hours out of date. Depending on your use case, that may be ok or that may not.
The second solution is prone to errors and you would basically be doing Hibernate Search's work.
All in all, you really have to ask yourself if adding the inverse side of the association to your model wouldn't be better.
Would it be possible to create two separate indices and to combine queries?
Technically, if you are using the Lucene integration (not the Elasticsearch one), then yes, it would be possible.
But:
you would need above-average knowledge of Lucene.
you would have to bypass Hibernate Search APIs, and would need to write code to do what Hibernate Search usually does.
you would have to use experimental (read: unstable) Lucene APIs.
I am unsure as to how well that would perform, as I never tried it.
So I wouldn't recommend it if you're not familiar with Lucene's APIs. If you really want to take that path, here are a few pointers:
How to use the index readers directly: https://docs.jboss.org/hibernate/search/5.11/reference/en-US/html_single/#IndexReaders
Lucene's documentation for joins (what you're looking for is query-time joins): https://lucene.apache.org/core/5_5_5/join/org/apache/lucene/search/join/package-summary.html
I was reading over the docs regarding Eclipselink's support for #OrderColumn. It looks like this only applies to List and not Set. The reason I ask is because I have a ManyToMany bi-directional relationship (using a join table) which is a Set and is implemented with a HashSet because the collection can't have duplicates.
I wanted to order the entries in this set using #OrderColumn, but it appears I can only apply this to List, however using List will break my unique requirement. Is this understanding correct?
If so what is the recommended strategy for this case?
Thanks,
-Noah
This looks similar to the following question:
Why cannot a JPA mapping attribute be a LinkedHashset?
The Set interface does not define ordering of elements, so your set needs to be a concrete implementation like a TreeSet or LinkedHashSet implementation, not just any old Set. But your JPA provider is generally going to use its own collection implementations with special magic to handle lazy loading.
The above answer suggests that there may be some EclipseLink-specific workaround if you are willing to give up lazy loading.
I can think of two options, neither one perfect:
just use a List and rely on business logic to enforce uniqueness, with DB UNIQUE constraints as a backstop. Honestly, I end up using List for collections almost reflexively, even when Set would have been more appropriate; I admit it's sloppy but has yet to cause any significant problems for me in years of practice.
use a Set and change #ManyToMany to #OneToMany, and make your join table w/order column an actual entity that implements Comparable using the order column. Then, overload your getter method to do something like
if (! this.set instanceof TreeSet)
this.set = new TreeSet<T>(this.set);
return this.set;
I am in the process of converting our internal web application from Linq-To-Sql to EF CodeFirst from an existing database. I have been getting annoyed with Linq-To-Sql's limitations more and more lately, and having to update the edmx after updating a very intertwined database table finally frustrated me enough to switch to EF.
However, I am encountering several situations where using linq with Linq-To-Sql is more powerful than the latest Entity Framework, and I am wondering if anyone knows the reasoning for it? Most of this seems to deal with transformations. For example, the following query works in L2S but not in EF:
var client = (from c in _context.Clients
where c.id == id
select ClientViewModel.ConvertFromEntity(c)).First();
In L2S, this correctly retrieves a client from the database and converts it into a ClientViewModel type, but in EF this exceptions saying that Linq to Entities does not recognize the method (which makes sense as I wrote it.
In order to get this working in EF I have to move the select to after the First() call.
Another example is my query to retrieve a list of clients. In my query I transform it into an anonymous structure to be converted into JSON:
var clients = (from c in _context.Clients
orderby c.name ascending
select new
{
id = c.id,
name = c.name,
versionString = Utils.GetVersionString(c.ProdVersion),
versionName = c.ProdVersion.name,
date = c.prod_deploy_date.ToString()
})
.ToList();
Not only does my Utils.GetVersionString() method cause an unsupported method exception in EF, the c.prod_deploy_date.ToString() causes one too and it's a simple DateTime. Like previously, in order to fix it I had to do my select transformation after ToList().
Edit: Another case I just came across is that EF cannot handle where clauses that compare entities where as L2S has no issues for with it. For example the query
context.TfsWorkItemTags.Where(x => x.TfsWorkItem == TfsWorkItemEntity).ToList()
throws an exception and instead I have to do
context.TfsWorkItemTags.Where(x => x.TfsWorkItem.id == tfsWorkItemEntity.id).ToList()
Edit 2: I wanted to add another issue that I found. Apparently you can't use arrays in EF Linq queries, and this probably annoys me more than anything. So for example, right now I convert an entity that denotes a version into an int[4] and try to query on it. In Linq-to-Sql I used the following query:
return context.ReleaseVersions.Where(x => x.major_version == ver[0] && x.minor_version == ver[1]
&& x.build_version == ver[2] && x.revision_version == ver[3])
.Count() > 0;
This fails with the following exception:
The LINQ expression node type 'ArrayIndex' is not supported in LINQ to Entities.
Edit 3: I found another instance of EF's bad Linq implementation. The following is a query that works in L2S but doesn't in EF 4.1:
DateTime curDate = DateTime.Now.Date;
var reqs = _context.TestRequests.Where(x => DateTime.Now > (curDate + x.scheduled_time.Value)).ToList();
This throws an ArgumentException with the message DbArithmeticExpression arguments must have a numeric common type.
Why does it seem like they downgraded the ability for Linq queries in EF than in L2S?
Edit (9/2/2012): Updated to reflect .NET 4.5 and added few more missing features
This is not the answer - it cannot be because the only qualified person who can answer your question is probably a product manager from ADO.NET team.
If you check feature set of old datasets then linq-to-sql and then EF you will find that critical features are removed in newer APIs because newer APIs are developed in much shorter times with big effort to deliver new fancy features.
Just list of some critical features available in DataSets but not available in later APIs:
Batch processing
Unique keys
Features available in Linq-to-Sql but not supported in EF (perhaps the list is not fully correct, I haven't used L2S for a long time):
Logging database activity
Lazy loaded properties
Left outer join (DefaultIfEmpty) since the first version (EF has it since EFv4)
Global eager loading definitions
AssociateWith - for example conditions for eager loaded data
Code first since the first version
IMultipleResults supporting stored procedures returning multiple result sets (EF has it in .NET 4.5 but there is no designer support for this feature)
Support for table valued functions (EF has this in .NET 4.5)
And some others
Now we can list features available in EF ObjectContext API (EFv4) and missing in DbContext API (EFv4.1):
Mapping stored procedures
Conditional mapping
Mapping database functions
Defining queries, QueryViews, Model defined functions
ESQL is not available unless you convert DbContext back to ObjectContext
Manipulating state of independent relationships is not possible unless you convert DbContext back to ObjectContext
Using MergeOption.OverwriteChanges and MergeOption.PreserveChanges is not possible unless you convert DbContext back to ObjectContext
And some others
My personal feeling about this is only big sadness. Core features are missing and features existing in previous APIs are removed because ADO.NET team obviously doesn't have enough resources to reimplement them - this makes migration path in many cases almost impossible. The whole situation is even worse because missing features or migration obstacles are not directly listed (I'm afraid even ADO.NET team doesn't know about them until somebody reports them).
Because of that I think that whole idea of DbContext API was management failure. At the moment ADO.NET team must maintain two APIs - DbContext is not mature to replace ObjectContext and it actually can't because it is just a wrapper and because of that ObjectContext cannot die. Resources available for EF development was most probably halved.
There are more problems related. Once we leave ADO.NET team and look on the problem from the perspective of MS product suite we will see so many discrepancies that I sometimes even wonder if there is any global strategy.
Simply live with the fact that EF's provider works in different way and queries which worked in Linq-to-sql don't have to work with EF.
A little late to the game, but I found this post while searching for something else, and figured that I'd post an answer to the fundamental questions in the original post, which mostly boil down to "LINQ to SQL allows Expression [x], but EF doesn't".
The answer is that the query provider (the code that translates your LINQ expression tree into something that actually executes and returns an enumerable set of stuff) is fundamentally different between L2S and EF. To understand why, you have to realize that another fundamental difference between L2S and EF is that L2S is table-based and EF is entity-model-based. In other words, EF works with conceptual entity models, and knows that the underlying physical model (the DB tables) don't necessarily reflect conceptual entities. This is because tables are normalized/denormalized, and have weird ways of dealing with entity type generalization (inheritance). So in EF, you have a picture of the conceptual model (which is the objects you code against in VB/C#, etc.) and a mapping to the physical underlying table(s) that comprise your conceptual entities. L2S does not do this. Every "model entity" in L2S is strictly a single table, with exactly the table fields as-is.
So far, that in and of itself doesn't really explain the problems in the original post, but hopefully, you can begin to appreciate that fundamentally, EF is not L2S+ or L2S v4.0. It's a very different kind of product (a real ORM) even though there is some coincidental overlap in the fact that both use LINQ to get at database data.
One other interesting difference is that EF was built from the ground up to be DB-agnostic, whereas L2S only works against MS SQL Server (although anyone who's sniffed around the L2S code deep enough will see that there are some underpinnings to allow different DBs, but in the end, it was tied to MS SQL Server only). This difference also plays a big role in why some expressions work in L2S LINQ, but not in EF LINQ. EF's query provider deals with canonical DB expressions, which in plain english means LINQ expressions that have SQL query equivalents in nearly all relational databases out there. The underlying EF engine (query provider) translates the LINQ expressions to these canonical DB expressions, then hands the canonical expression tree off to a specific DB provider (say Oracle's or MySQL's EF provider) where it is translated to product-specific SQL. You can see here how these canonical expressions are supposed to be translated by the individual product-specific providers: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee789836.aspx
Additionally, EF allows some product-specific DB functions (store functions) as expressions through extensions. The underlying product-specific providers are responsible for both providing and translating these.
That being the case, EF only allows expressions that are DB canonical expressions, or store-specific functions, becuase all expressions in the tree are converted to SQL for execution against the DB.
The difference with L2S is that L2S passes off any expressions that it can to the DB from its limited SQL generator, and then executes any expressions it can't translate to SQL on the materialized object set that is returned. While this makes it look simpler to use L2S, what you don't see is that half your expressions don't actually make it to the DB as SQL and this can cause some really inefficient queries bringing back larger sets of data which are then iterated again in CLR memory with regular object LINQ acting against them for the other expressions which L2S can't turn into SQL.
You get the exact same effects in EF by using EF to return the materialized data to object sets in memory, and then using additional LINQ statements on that set in memory - just as L2S does, but in this case, you just have to do it explicitly, just like when you say you have to call .First() before using a non-DB-canonical expression. Similarly, you can call .ToArray() or .ToList() before using additional expressions that can't be turned into SQL.
One other big difference is that in EF, entities must be used whole. Real model entities represent conceptual objects that are transacted on in whole. You never have half a User, for example. The User is an object whose state depends on all fields. If you want to return partial entities, or a flattened join of multiple entities, you have to define a projection (what EF calls a Complex Type), or you can use some of the new 4.1/4.2/4.3 POCO features.
Now that Entity Framework is open source, it's easy enough to see, especially from the comments on Issues from the team, that one of the goals is to provide EF as an open layer on top of multiple databases. To be fair, Microsoft has unsurprisingly only implemented that layer on top of their SQL Server, but there are other implementations, like DevArt's MySql EF Connector.
As part of that goal, it's wise to keep the public interface somewhat limited, and attempting to add an additional layer that asks - well, some of this might be done in memory, some of this might be done in SQL, who knows - definitely complicates the job for other implementers trying to tie EF into this or that database.
So, I agree with the other answer here - you'd have to ask the team - but you can also get a lot of info about that team's direction on the public bug tracker and their other publications, and this seems like a clear motivation.
That said the main difference between LINQ to SQL and EF is the way EF throws an exception on code that has to be run in memory, and if you're an Expressions ninja there's nothing stopping you from going the next step to wrap the DbContext class and make that work just like LINQ to SQL. On the other hand, what you gain there is a mixed bag - you make it implicit rather than explicit when the SQL is generated, and when it fires, and that can be viewed as a loss of performance and control in exchange for flexibility/ease of authoring.
So it turns out that I am the last person to discover the fundamental floor that exists in Microsoft's Entity Framework when implementing TPT (Table Per Type) inheritance.
Having built a prototype with 3 sub classes, the base table/class consisting of 20+ columns and the child tables consisting of ~10 columns, everything worked beautifully and I continued to work on the rest of the application having proved the concept. Now the time has come to add the other 20 sub types and OMG, I've just started looking the SQL being generated on a simple select, even though I'm only interested in accessing the fields on the base class.
This page has a wonderful description of the problem.
Has anyone gone into production using TPT and EF, are there any workarounds that will mean that I won't have to:
a) Convert the schema to TPH (which goes against everything I try to achieve with my DB design - urrrgghh!)?
b) rewrite with another ORM?
The way I see it, I should be able to add a reference to a Stored Procedure from within EF (probably using EFExtensions) that has the the TSQL that selects only the fields I need, even using the code generated by EF for the monster UNION/JOIN inside the SP would prevent the SQL being generated every time a call is made - not something I would intend to do, but you get the idea.
The killer I've found, is that when I'm selecting a list of entities linked to the base table (but the entity I'm selecting is not a subclass table), and I want to filter by the pk of the Base table, and I do .Include("BaseClassTableName") to allow me to filter using x=>x.BaseClass.PK == 1 and access other properties, it performs the mother SQL generation here too.
I can't use EF4 as I'm limited to the .net 2.0 runtimes with 3.5 SP1 installed.
Has anyone got any experience of getting out of this mess?
This seems a bit confused. You're talking about TPH, but when you say:
The way I see it, I should be able to add a reference to a Stored Procedure from within EF (probably using EFExtensions) that has the the TSQL that selects only the fields I need, even using the code generated by EF for the monster UNION/JOIN inside the SP would prevent the SQL being generated every time a call is made - not something I would intend to do, but you get the idea.
Well, that's Table per Concrete Class mapping (using a proc rather than a table, but still, the mapping is TPC...). The EF supports TPC, but the designer doesn't. You can do it in code-first if you get the CTP.
Your preferred solution of using a proc will cause performance problems if you restrict queries, like this:
var q = from c in Context.SomeChild
where c.SomeAssociation.Foo == foo
select c;
The DB optimizer can't see through the proc implementation, so you get a full scan of the results.
So before you tell yourself that this will fix your results, double-check that assumption.
Note that you can always specify custom SQL for any mapping strategy with ObjectContext.ExecuteStoreQuery.
However, before you do any of this, consider that, as RPM1984 points out, your design seems to overuse inheritance. I like this quote from NHibernate in Action
[A]sk yourself whether it might be better to remodel inheritance as delegation in the object model. Complex inheritance is often best avoided for all sorts of reasons unrelated to persistence or ORM. [Your ORM] acts as a buffer between the object and relational models, but that doesn't mean you can completely ignore persistence concerns when designing your object model.
We've hit this same problem and are considering porting our DAL from EF4 to LLBLGen because of this.
In the meantime, we've used compiled queries to alleviate some of the pain:
Compiled Queries (LINQ to Entities)
This strategy doesn't prevent the mammoth queries, but the time it takes to generate the query (which can be huge) is only done once.
You'll can use compiled queries with Includes() as such:
static readonly Func<AdventureWorksEntities, int, Subcomponent> subcomponentWithDetailsCompiledQuery = CompiledQuery.Compile<AdventureWorksEntities, int, Subcomponent>(
(ctx, id) => ctx.Subcomponents
.Include("SubcomponentType")
.Include("A.B.C.D")
.FirstOrDefault(s => s.Id == id));
public Subcomponent GetSubcomponentWithDetails(int id)
{
return subcomponentWithDetailsCompiledQuery.Invoke(ObjectContext, id);
}
When using the Entity Framework, does ESQL perform better than Linq to Entities?
I'd prefer to use Linq to Entities (mainly because of the strong-type checking), but some of my other team members are citing performance as a reason to use ESQL. I would like to get a full idea of the pro's/con's of using either method.
The most obvious differences are:
Linq to Entities is strongly typed code including nice query comprehension syntax. The fact that the “from” comes before the “select” allows IntelliSense to help you.
Entity SQL uses traditional string based queries with a more familiar SQL like syntax where the SELECT statement comes before the FROM. Because eSQL is string based, dynamic queries may be composed in a traditional way at run time using string manipulation.
The less obvious key difference is:
Linq to Entities allows you to change the shape or "project" the results of your query into any shape you require with the “select new{... }” syntax. Anonymous types, new to C# 3.0, has allowed this.
Projection is not possible using Entity SQL as you must always return an ObjectQuery<T>. In some scenarios it is possible use ObjectQuery<object> however you must work around the fact that .Select always returns ObjectQuery<DbDataRecord>. See code below...
ObjectQuery<DbDataRecord> query = DynamicQuery(context,
"Products",
"it.ProductName = 'Chai'",
"it.ProductName, it.QuantityPerUnit");
public static ObjectQuery<DbDataRecord> DynamicQuery(MyContext context, string root, string selection, string projection)
{
ObjectQuery<object> rootQuery = context.CreateQuery<object>(root);
ObjectQuery<object> filteredQuery = rootQuery.Where(selection);
ObjectQuery<DbDataRecord> result = filteredQuery.Select(projection);
return result;
}
There are other more subtle differences described by one of the team members in detail here and here.
ESQL can also generate some particularly vicious sql. I had to track a problem with such a query that was using inherited classes and I found out that my pidly-little ESQL of 4 lines got translated in a 100000 characters monster SQL statetement.
Did the same thing with Linq and the compiled code was much more managable, let's say 20 lines of SQL.
Plus, what other people mentioned, Linq is strongly type, although very annoying to debug without the edit and continue feature.
AD
Entity-SQL (eSQL) allows you to do things such as dynamic queries more easily than LINQ to Entities. However, if you don't have a scenario that requires eSQL, I would be hesitant to rely on it over LINQ because it will be much harder to maintain (e.g. no more compile-time checking, etc).
I believe LINQ allows you to precompile your queries as well, which might give you better performance. Rico Mariani blogged about LINQ performance a while back and discusses compiled queries.
nice graph showing performance comparisons here:
Entity Framework Performance Explored
not much difference seen between ESQL and Entities
but overall differences significant in using Entities over direct Queries
Entity Framework uses two layers of object mapping (compared to a single layer in LINQ to SQL), and the additional mapping has performance costs. At least in EF version 1, application designers should choose Entity Framework only if the modeling and ORM mapping capabilities can justify that cost.
The more code you can cover with compile time checking for me is something that I'd place a higher premium on than performance. Having said that at this stage I'd probably lean towards ESQL not just because of the performance, but it's also (at present) a lot more flexible in what it can do. There's nothing worse than using a technology stack that doesn't have a feature you really really need.
The entity framework doesn't support things like custom properties, custom queries (for when you need to really tune performance) and does not function the same as linq-to-sql (i.e. there are features that simply don't work in the entity framework).
My personal impression of the Entity Framework is that there is a lot of potential, but it's probably a bit to "rigid" in it's implementation to use in a production environment in its current state.
For direct queries I'm using linq to entities, for dynamic queries I'm using ESQL. Maybe the answer isn't either/or, but and/also.