After having read a swag of SO questions about the Invalid Column Discriminator, I cannot see why I am running into the issue.
I have reverse-engineered a database Code-First using the EF Power Tools Visual Studio extension.
I have got an include path of "OrderRow.OrderRowOptions.Option" coming off my Orders DbSet. That is,
context.Orders.Include("OrderRow.OrderRowOptions.Option")
There is no Discriminator column on any of the tables and no Discriminator property in any of my POCOs.
The SQL which is being generated and sent to the database includes a Discriminator column.
Why? It's not like they are out of sync. I've repeated the reverse-engineering in a Console app just to make sure of that.
I believe I have finally figured out the problem here.
I always knew from the outset that it was related to EF's treatment of lookup tables.
And I knew that the Table Per Heirarchy ("TPH") feature was in play here.
The bit that I did not realize what that there does not actually need to be a Discriminator column.
I do have a TPH as there is a type called AdditionalLocationsOrderRowOption which inherits from OrderRowOption.
So, even though there is NO Discriminator column in either my database of my domain types (I've verified this countless times), the TPH is coming into play and preventing me from doing the Include on the Orders items.
So, my next step will be to use the Join method of EF-to-entities.
Related
As documented in questions like Entity Framework Indexing ALL foreign key columns, EF Core seems to automatically generate an index for every foreign key. This is a sound default for me (let's not get into an opinion war here...), but there are cases where it is just a waste of space and slowing down inserts and updates. How do I prevent it on a case-by-case basis?
I don't want to wholly turn it off, as it does more good than harm; I don't want to have to manually configure it for all those indices I do want. I just want to prevent it on specific FKs.
Related side question: is the fact that these index are automatically created mentioned anywhere in the EF documentation? I can't find it anywhere, which is probably why I can't find how to disable it?
Someone is bound to question why I would want to do this... so in the interest of saving time, the OPer of the linked question gave a great example in a comment:
We have a People table and an Addresses table, for example. The
People.AddressID FK was Indexed by EF but I only ever start from a
People row and search for the Addresses record; I never find an
Addresses row and then search the People.AddressID column for a
matching record.
EF Core has a configuration option to replace one of its services.
I found replacing IConventionSetBuilder to custom one would be a much cleaner approach.
https://giridharprakash.me/2020/02/12/entity-framework-core-override-conventions/
If it is really necessary to avoid the usage of some foreign keys indices - as far as I know (currently) - in .Net Core, it is necessary to remove code that will set the indices in generated migration code file.
Another approach would be to implement a custom migration generator in combination with an attribute or maybe an extension method that will avoid the index creation. You could find more information in this answer for EF6: EF6 preventing not to create Index on Foreign Key. But I'm not sure if it will work in .Net Core too. The approach seems to be bit different, here is a MS doc article that should help.
But, I strongly advise against doing this! I'm against doing this, because you have to modify generated migration files and not because of not using indices for FKs. Like you mentioned in question's comments, in real world scenarios some cases need such approach.
For other people they are not really sure if they have to avoid the usage of indices on FKs and therefor they have to modify migration files:
Before you go that way, I would suggest to implement the application with indices on FKs and would check the performance and space usage. Therefor I would produce a lot test data.
If it really results in performance and space usage issues on a test or QA stage, it's still possible to remove indices in migration files.
Because we already chat about EnsureCreated vs migrations here for completeness further information about EnsureCreated and migrations (even if you don't need it :-)):
MS doc about EnsureCreated() (It will not update your database if you have some model changes - migrations would do it)
interesting too (even if for EF7) EF7 EnsureCreated vs. Migrate Methods
Entity Framework core 2.0 (the latest version available when the question was asked) doesn't have such a mechanism, but EF Core 2.2 just might - in the form of Owned Entity Types.
Namely, since you said:
" I only ever start from a People row and search for the Addresses record; I never find an Addresses row"
Then you may want to make the Address an Owned Entity Type (and especially the variant with 'Storing owned types in separate tables', to match your choice of storing the address information in a separate Addresses table).
The docs of the feature seem to say a matching:
"Owned entities are essentially a part of the owner and cannot exist without it"
By the way, now that the feature is in EF, this may justify why EF always creates the indexes for HasMany/HasOne. It's likely because the Has* relations are meant to be used towards other entities (as opposed to 'value objects') and these, since they have their own identity, are meant to be queried independently and allow accessing other entities they relate to using navigational properties. For such a use case, it would be simply dangerous use such navigation properties without indexes (a few queries could make the database slow down hugely).
There are few caveats here though:
Turning an entity into an owned one doesn't instruct EF only about the index, but rather it instructs to map the model to database in a way that is a bit different (more on this below) but the end effect is in fact free of that extra index on People.
But chances are, this actually might be the better solution for you: this way you also say that no one should query the Address (by not allowing to create a DbSet<T> of that type), minimizing the chance of someone using it to reach the other entities with these costly indexless queries.
As to what the difference is, you'll note that if you make the Address owned by Person, EF will create a PersonId column in the Address table, which is different to your AddressId in the People table (in a sense, lack of the foreign key is a bit of a cheat: an index for querying Person from Address is there, it's just that it's the primary key index of the People table, which was there anyways). But take note that this design is actually rather good - it not only needs one column less (no AddressId in People), but it also guarantees that there's no way to make orphaned Address record that your code will never be able to access.
If you would still like to keep the AddressId column in the Addresses, then there's still one option:
Just choose a name of AddressId for the foreign key in the Addresses table and just "pretend" you don't know that it happens to have the same values as the PersonId :)
If that option isn't funny (e.g. because you can't change your database schema), then you're somewhat out of luck. But do take note that among the Current shortcomings of EF they still list "Instances of owned entity types cannot be shared by multiple owners", while some shortcomings of the previous versions are already listed as addressed. Might be worth watching that space as, it seems to me, resolving that one will probably involve introducing the ability to have your AddressId in the People, because in such a model, for the owned objects to be shared among many entities the foreign keys would need to be sitting with the owning entities to create an association to the same value for each.
in the OnModelCreating override
AFTER the call to
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
add:
var indexForRemoval = modelBuilder.Entity<You_Table_Entity>().HasIndex(x => x.Column_Index_Is_On).Metadata;
modelBuilder.Entity<You_Table_Entity>().Metadata.RemoveIndex(indexForRemoval);
'''
The fact that EF does not handle the hierarchyid MSSQL data type is widely known. The problem using the AdventureWorks sample database to generate an EF data model caused by a table using hierarchyid is also quite well known and widely reported. A good proposed workaround, for read only scenarios, is to use a view in place of the 'offending' Production.Document table, and cast that column to a more acceptable type, like 'nvarchar'.
However, it seems the only avenue open for creating a Code First data model is to brutally remove the table altogether, as the EF Power Tools code generator skips the pleasantries allowing a user to select which tables to include in the model. So here, even using a view won't work, because the view depends on its base table.
Does anyone know a workaround for this that doesn't involve modifying the T4 templates by hard-coding to skip this table?
Yes, install VS 2013 Update 4, which include the latest EF Tools, and use the Code First Model from Database feature, it allows you to select which tables to generate.
How do I pass a session variable to the Insert, Update, Delete stored procedures mapped to a Table in an Entity Framework, and how do I get the mapping in the EDMX diagram to work with it?
I have a database with Stored Procedures (SPs) defined for Inserting, Updating, and Deleting rows. The SPs expect a userid parameter to be passed to them for audit trail purposes, this parameter does not exist as a column in the table.
When I'm in the EDMX diagram specifying the mapping for the Parameter I don't see any way to either a) ignore the parameter or b) (preferred) set the value to a Session value. I've created a partial class mapping of the Stored Procedures, however the model doesn't seem to see it or even acknowledge that it is there. The whole premise behind using this technology is to let it do the work. I can't even tell it to ignore this parameter as it is optional and has a value assigned to it. I can't even edit the SP definition as the file is marked autogenerated, and will lose any modifications when it is regenerated.
Entity Framework seems like a well thought out approach, and I've looked at several tutorials and books on the subject. However, this seems like a really obvious thing to do. I've looked through stack overflow and the MSDN forums and found similar questions from years ago, but no one ever seems to answer the question, they just dance around the issue.
I did work on ADO.NET Entity Framework v2 about two years ago. I have faint memories.
Incidentally, I happen to be working in a very secured (for want of a euphemism) environment where a lot of links are blocked and there's not much one can do. It does get in the way of studying and working, more than a bit.
Therefore, I have to rely on this forum for a few basic questions I have to get started again. This time, I am working on Entity Framework 4. Here are my questions.
All these questions relate to the EDM generated entities, i.e. not the Code First model.
1) Is my understanding correct? I can rename any column name in the EDM designer generated model and nothing breaks.
2) Foreign keys are expressed as navigational properties in the generated entity classes. No special consideration is required to maintain foreign key relationships. I recall in version 1 of EF, you had just ID properties and the navigational IQueryable/IEnumerable/EntityCollection/RelatedEnd properties were introduced in version 2. I just need to know if I need to do anything to retain/maintain foreign key relationships and referential data integrity. I assume I don't need to. A confirmation would be nice.
3) What are all the possible ways to execute a stored procedure? I recall -- one way to use ExecuteSQL or something on the Context.Database object, another to use EntityClient API and the third was to specify stored procedure names in the InsertCommand, SelectCommand, etc. thingies in the mapping window of the EDM designer. Is this correct?
4) How do you use those SelectCommand thingies in the mapping window on an entity? Do you just supply the names of the stored procedures or user defined SQL functions?
5) How do I create an entity out of a subset of a table? Do I just create an entity from the table and then delete the columns I don't need from the designer? What happens if there are required (NOT NULL in SQL) values that are not in the subset I choose?
6) How do I create a table out of a query or join of two or more tables.
1) You can rename columns in the designer and nothing should break (if the name is valid)
2) Navigation properties point to related entities. In EF4 foreign keys were added. Foreign key properties basically expose the database way of handling relations. However, they are helpful since you don't have to load related entities just to change relationship - you can just change the key value to the id of the other entity and save your changes
3) Yes. You can either execute the procedure directly - this is for stored procedures that are not related to CUD (Create/Update/Delete) operations. You can map CUD operations to stored procedure as opposed to having EF execute SQL statements it came up with for your CUD operations.
4) I think this is a bit out of scope - you probably can find a lot of blogs with images how to do it. Any decent book on EF should also have a chapter (or two) on this. Post a question to stackoverflow if you hit a specific problem.
5) Remove properties in the designer and then supply default value to the S-Space definition. I believe you cannot do this with the designer. You need to rightclick on the edmx file and open it with the Xml editor and manually edit it. Also see this: Issue in EF, mapping fragment,no default value and is not nullable
6) You can either create a view in the database or you can create entity set using E-SQL in your edmx file (I think this will be read only though) or you may be able to use Entity Splitting. Each of these is probably a big topic itself so I think you should find more about these and come back if you have more specific questions / problems
I am getting an error 3007 when I add my entity model to my solution.
I found these links:
Good explination
Short answer
About this error:
Error 1 Error 3007: Problem in Mapping
Fragments starting at lines 89, 94:
Non-Primary-Key column(s) [Person_ID]
are being mapped in both fragments to
different conceptual side properties -
data inconsistency is possible because
the corresponding conceptual side
properties can be independently
modified.
Their Answer: I agree with their conclusion that by simply deleting the Scalar Property Person_ID and leave the Navigation Property my problem is fixed. However this is not very scalable since I am dynamically building my database and my entity is updated very often. I dont want to have to go through and clean up my entity every time I update it.
My Question: Is there a way to fix the error by correcting the way EF builds the entity? Or is there a way to remove the Scalar Property through code? Perhaps there is even a few options that I am overlooking.
Try to remove foreign property column from Entity set using entity model design it will solve your problem
For example
We have two tables one is customer and other one is order, using entity model design we added association between customers and orders when we do this Ado.net entity framework i will add navigation properties to both below tables.
Like
Customer.Orders - Here order is list
Order.Customer
One - Many relation.
So we need to remove property from with name CustomerId[Foreign key column] from Order entity set.
For reference:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/adodotnetentityframework/thread/2823634f-9dd1-4547-93b5-17bb8a882ac2/
My experience with EF v1 is similar to yours. When the EDM is generated incorrectly and you can't work around the issue, you have to manually edit the EDM. EF v.Next (Entity Framework v4 I believe) will support "Code Only" Entity Data Models, and the EDM designer is supposed to be much better. One or the other improvement should make our lives easier. Until then...