We have two different query strategies that we'd ideally like to operate in conjunction on our site without opening redundant connections. One strategy uses the enterprise library to pull Database objects and Execute_____(DbCommand)s on the Database, without directly selecting any sort of connection. Effectively like this:
Database db = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase();
DbCommand q = db.GetStoredProcCommand("SomeProc");
using (IDataReader r = db.ExecuteReader(q))
{
List<RecordType> rv = new List<RecordType>();
while (r.Read())
{
rv.Add(RecordType.CreateFromReader(r));
}
return rv;
}
The other, newer strategy, uses a library that asks for an IDbConnection, which it Close()es immediately after execution. So, we do something like this:
DbConnection c = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase().CreateConnection();
using (QueryBuilder qb = new QueryBuilder(c))
{
return qb.Find<RecordType>(ConditionCollection);
}
But, the connection returned by CreateConnection() isn't the same one used by the Database.ExecuteReader(), which is apparently left open between queries. So, when we call a data access method using the new strategy after one using the old strategy inside a TransactionScope, it causes unnecessary promotion -- promotion that I'm not sure we have the ability to configure for (we don't have administrative access to the SQL Server).
Before we go down the path of modifying the query-builder-library to work with the Enterprise Library's Database objects ... Is there a way to retrieve, if existent, the open connection last used by one of the Database.Execute_______() methods?
Yes, you can get the connection associated with a transaction. Enterprise Library internally manages a collection of transactions and the associated database connections so if you are in a transaction you can retrieve the connection associated with a database using the static TransactionScopeConnections.GetConnection method:
using (var scope = new TransactionScope())
{
IEnumerable<RecordType> records = GetRecordTypes();
Database db = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase();
DbConnection connection = TransactionScopeConnections.GetConnection(db).Connection;
}
public static IEnumerable<RecordType> GetRecordTypes()
{
Database db = DatabaseFactory.CreateDatabase();
DbCommand q = db.GetStoredProcCommand("GetLogEntries");
using (IDataReader r = db.ExecuteReader(q))
{
List<RecordType> rv = new List<RecordType>();
while (r.Read())
{
rv.Add(RecordType.CreateFromReader(r));
}
return rv;
}
}
Related
For performance optimisation we are trying to read data from Mongo secondary server for selected scenarios. I am using the inline query using "withReadPreference(ReadPreference.secondaryPreferred())" to read the data, PFB the code snippet.
What I want to confirm the data we are getting is coming from secondary server after executing the inline query highlighted, is there any method available to check the same from Java or Springboot
public User read(final String userId) {
final ObjectId objectId = new ObjectId(userId);
final User user = collection.withReadPreference(ReadPreference.secondaryPreferred()).findOne(objectId).as(User.class);
return user;
}
Pretty much the same way in Java. Note we use secondary() not secondaryPrefered(); this guarantees reads from secondary ONLY:
import com.mongodb.ReadPreference;
{
// This is your "regular" primaryPrefered collection:
MongoCollection<BsonDocument> tcoll = db.getCollection("myCollection", BsonDocument.class);
// ... various operations on tcoll, then create a new
// handle that FORCES reads from secondary and will timeout and
// fail if no secondary can be found:
MongoCollection<BsonDocument> xcoll = tcoll.withReadPreference(ReadPreference.secondary());
BsonDocument f7 = xcoll.find(queryExpr).first();
}
I would like to safely drop Firebird table. I have 3 transactions, one to recreate table, one to do something with the table (just inserting a single row to keep it simple) and the last one to drop the table.
If all these txns are executed using single connection these works. If I use a different connection, then the drop command fails with
lock conflict on no wait transaction
unsuccessful metadata update
object TABLE "DEMO" is in use
private static void Test() {
using var conn1 = new FbConnection(ConnectionString);
using var conn2 = new FbConnection(ConnectionString);
using var conn3 = new FbConnection(ConnectionString);
conn1.Open();
conn2.Open();
conn3.Open();
ExecuteTxn(conn1, cmd => {
cmd.CommandText = "recreate table demo (id int primary key)";
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
});
ExecuteTxn(conn2, cmd => {
cmd.CommandText = "insert into demo (id) values (1)";
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
});
ExecuteTxn(conn3, cmd => {
cmd.CommandText = "drop table demo";
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
});
}
private static void ExecuteTxn(FbConnection conn, Action<FbCommand> todo) {
using (var txn = conn.BeginTransaction())
using (var cmd = conn.CreateCommand()) {
cmd.Transaction = txn;
todo(cmd);
txn.Commit();
}
}
I realized that changing the transaction options as
txn = conn.BeginTransaction(new FbTransactionOptions { TransactionBehavior = FbTransactionBehavior.Wait }))
seems to help. But I'm not sure if this the right thing to do or just a coincidence...
Using Firebird 3.0.6, FirebirdSql.Data.FirebirdClient.dll 7.5.0.0
As far as I understand it, the problem has to do with how Firebird caches certain metadata, which might result in existence locks being retained, which will prevent deletion of the object. In addition, it is possible - this is a guess! - that the Firebird ADO.net provider retains the statement handle with the insert statement prepared, which will also result in an existence lock being retained.
Executing in a WAIT transaction (optionally with a timeout) is considered an appropriate workaround by the Firebird core developers.
For reference, see the following tickets:
CORE-3766 - Transaction can`t change metadata if it is run in no_wait and there is another connect that once had queried these metadata
CORE-6382 - Triggers accessing a table prevent concurrent DDL command from dropping that table
In certain cases, switching from Firebird ClassicServer or Firebird SuperClassic to Firebird SuperServer can also prevent this problem.
However, if you want a more in-depth explanation, it might be worthwhile to ask this question on the firebird-devel mailing list.
I have a C# library which connects to 59 servers of the same database structure and imports data to my local db to the same table. At this moment I am retrieving data server by server in foreach loop:
foreach (var systemDto in systems)
{
var sourceConnectionString = _systemService.GetConnectionStringAsync(systemDto.Ip).Result;
var dbConnectionFactory = new DbConnectionFactory(sourceConnectionString,
"System.Data.SqlClient");
var dbContext = new DbContext(dbConnectionFactory);
var storageRepository = new StorageRepository(dbContext);
var usedStorage = storageRepository.GetUsedStorageForCurrentMonth();
var dtUsedStorage = new DataTable();
dtUsedStorage.Load(usedStorage);
var dcIp = new DataColumn("IP", typeof(string)) {DefaultValue = systemDto.Ip};
var dcBatchDateTime = new DataColumn("BatchDateTime", typeof(string))
{
DefaultValue = batchDateTime
};
dtUsedStorage.Columns.Add(dcIp);
dtUsedStorage.Columns.Add(dcBatchDateTime);
using (var blkCopy = new SqlBulkCopy(destinationConnectionString))
{
blkCopy.DestinationTableName = "dbo.tbl";
blkCopy.WriteToServer(dtUsedStorage);
}
}
Because there are many systems to retrieve data, I wonder if it is possible to use Pararel.Foreach loop? Will BulkCopy lock the table during WriteToServer and next WriteToServer will wait until previous will complete?
-- EDIT 1
I've changed Foreach to Parallel.Foreach but I face one problem. Inside this loop I have async method: _systemService.GetConnectionStringAsync(systemDto.Ip)
and this line returns error:
System.NotSupportedException: A second operation started on this
context before a previous asynchronous operation completed. Use
'await' to ensure that any asynchronous operations have completed
before calling another method on this context. Any instance members
are not guaranteed to be thread safe.
Any ideas how can I handle this?
In general, it will get blocked and will wait until the previous operation complete.
There are some factors that may affect if SqlBulkCopy can be run in parallel or not.
I remember when adding the Parallel feature to my .NET Bulk Operations, I had hard time to make it work correctly in parallel but that worked well when the table has no index (which is likely never the case)
Even when worked, the performance gain was not a lot faster.
Perhaps you will find more information here: MSDN - Importing Data in Parallel with Table Level Locking
I need to save to two different databases after some user action. Currently, I have the following:
using (EFEntities1 dc = new EFEntities1())
{
dc.USERS.Add(user);
dc.SaveChanges();
}
using (EFEntities2 dc = new EFEntities2())
{
dc.USERS.Add(user);
dc.SaveChanges();
}
These are two separate code blocks within the same method, so I believe if the second one fails, the first one won't rollback. How do I make sure both transactions rollback if something fails?
You can wrap them in a TransactionScope. Note that this will probably call the DTC.
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope())
{
using (EFEntities1 dc = new EFEntities1())
{
dc.USERS.Add(user);
dc.SaveChanges();
}
using (EFEntities2 dc = new EFEntities2())
{
dc.USERS.Add(user);
dc.SaveChanges();
}
scope.complete();
}
I've got some code which uses SqlBulkCopy. And now we're refactoring our code to use Enterprise Library database functions instead of standard ones. The question is how can I instantiate SqlBulkCopy? It accepts SqlConnection, and I only have DbConnection.
var bulkCopy = new SqlBulkCopy(connection) // here connection is SqlConnection
{
BatchSize = Settings.Default.BulkInsertBatchSize,
NotifyAfter = 200,
DestinationTableName = "Contacts"
};
Really easy, we use it like that and it works perfectly :
using (DbConnection connection = db.CreateConnection())
{
connection.Open();
//blah blah
//we use SqlBulkCopy that is not in the Microsoft Data Access Layer Block.
using (SqlBulkCopy copy = new SqlBulkCopy((SqlConnection) connection, SqlBulkCopyOptions.Default, null))
{
//init & write blah blah
}
}
The solution is to cast the connection : (SqlConnection) connection