data (table name)
dataid PK,
value1,
value2,
value3
data_address (table name)
dataaddressid PK,
dataid - id to errenddataid,
addressid1 - id to en addressid,
addressid2 - id to en addressid,
type
address (table namne)
addressid PK - id to addressid1 or addressid2,
address1,
address2,
name,
zipcode,
city
I have a really hard time trying to map this relations using Entity Framework 5, if some one have an idea or good links I would much appreciate that!
If you are certain that the database's integrity is sound you could just map the tables and create the associations manually in the EF model.
In a database-first mode I fiddled a bit with a simple data model: Parent + Child without FK. The tables were of course imported without association between them. Then I did "Add Association..." on the Parent, like so:
Note: no foreign key property yet. I added it manually in the properties of the association:
And I could run a linq query on Parent.Children.
I think this is the easiest way for you. The edmx design surface gives you some guidance to see which associations you created. You can always add a code generation item to generate a DbContext which is easiser to work with than the default ObjectContext.
Related
I'm having a hard time finding the exact answer to this question, so my apologies if this is redundant.
So I have 3 tables defined such that:
Person :PersonId, FirstName, LastName
Company: CompanyId, CompanyName
Order: OrderId, PersonId, CompanyId
On the Order table, there is a foreign key defined on the PersonId and CompanyId columns, thus, my Order entity class generated by EF has a navigation properties of type Person (not PersonId) and Company.
So, to insert into the Order table, I first need to query the person and company tables to get the person and company entities. Then I can construct the Order object using the Person and Company entities and save it to the db.
In my scenario, I am being passed a PersonId and CompanyId.
In classic SQL I would just do INSERT INTO Order Set (CompanyId, PersonId) - 1 database call. But with EF, I have to do 3 db calls. This seems like overkill.
Is there any way around this?
PS - I'm using EF 6. I know I could generate an expression and make it single call..but that would still yield two subselects.
You can just include foreign key properties in addition to the navigation properties and then set them using the ids you have. If you do this will not have to go to the database to get related entities for just a sake of setting the relationship.
I have to create an entity framework model for a badly designed database. The database uses table per type inheritance but it does so with using a PK->FK relationship, not a PK->PK relationship. E.g.
Person
PersonID (PK)
Name
Employee
EmployeeID (PK)
PersonID (FK)
DateStarted
HourlyEmployee
HourlyEmployeeID (PK)
EmployeeID (FK)
HourlyRate
Obviously this is just badly designed, but I can't change it. Table per type inheritance in the entity framework essentially wants EmployeeID not to exist and the PK for Employee to be PersonID. Is it possible to create a model for this database, or do I choose another tool? any recommendations?
You will not map this as TPT inheritance because your database is configured in the way that doesn't allow you cheating EF.
If Employee.EmployeeID is auto-generated in the database and Employee.PersonID is unique (uniqueness must be enforced in the database) you should be able (not tested) to cheat EF by simply mapping:
public Employee : Person {
public DateTime DateStarted { get; set; }
}
This class will tell EF that Employee inherits key from Person (PersonID) and you will hide the real key from EF - this should work if the real key is auto-generated.
The problem is your next level of inheritance which breaks this pattern. To make this work your HourlyEmployee will have to reference PersonID - not EmployeeID. EF now doesn't know about EmployeeID existence so it even cannot map relation with HourlyEmployee.
TPT inheritance in code first has one additional limitation - PK column must have the same name in all tables.
You can create a model from the database if it exists but it might not be what you expect. EF sometimes doesn't work that great with weird database structures.
Suppose the following database schema:
Table A: AId (PK)
Table B: BId (PK)
Table C: CId (PK)
Table AB: AId, BId (composite PK, FKs to A and B), Data
Table BC: BId, CId (composite PK, FKs to B and C), Data
Table ABC: AId, BId, CId, Data
In the database, ABC has two FKs: one to AB on AId and BId, and one to BC on BId and CId.
Use the EF Designer and attempt to create a Model from this database.
If you have Include foreign key columns in the model checked, it works; but having FK Columns in the model isn't very nice.
If you have Include foreign key columns in the model unchecked, only one of the FKs from ABC will be successfully mapped. To see what went wrong, you have to view the .edmx xml (thanks Craig!) and you see this error:
warning 6037: Foreign key constraint 'FK_ABC_BC' has been omitted from the storage model. Column 'BId' of table 'Model.Store.ABC' is a foreign key participating in multiple relationships. A one-to-one Entity Model will not validate since data inconsistency is possible.
I've read the only other mention of this problem I can find on SO, and I don't think this is the same problem. I can't see anything wrong at a database design level. I'm going to work round this for the time being by imposing surrogate keys on AB and BC, but what I'd really like to know is:
What possible data inconsistency is EF worried about happening here, if it created a model to match the database?
And is there anything I can do to persuade it that everything's going to be OK?
My opinion is that EF is too clever in this scenario and it prevents you from using entity where you can assign only one relation and make the entity non-savable because relation to second entity will not exists.
There is also possibility that EF has some internal problem with tracking state of independent associations if more than one association is based on the same foreign key column but that is just another guess. Generally database features used to map EF features cannot be shared among multiple constructions. The only exceptions I can think about now are primary keys and in their own way discriminator columns.
I would like to mention that I don't like this type of relations in database at all.
I'm new to Entity Framework and just experimenting...
Consider 3 db tables where Person is a base table. I want the Employe table to enherit from Person, storing employee specific info. It seems that EF requires that PersonId also be the PK of the Employee table, so I made EmployeeID a unique index.
Next I added a table, Application, which stores one record for every software application that the Employee supports, creating a foreign key from Application.EmployeeId to Employee.EmployeeId.
However, EF doesn't seem to recognize relationships that involve unique indexes, but only Primary Keys.
What I can do is create a relationship from Application.PersonId to Person.PersonId, however, only Employees can be responsible for an Application, so it seems more natural to me to have Application as a "child" of the Employee table rather than the Person table.
Is this possible in EF?
You can build your relation between Employee (PersonId) and Application (EmployeeId). In such case the integrity should work as you expect because only PersonIds in Employee table will be only for existing employees. EF has currently no support for unique keys.
I've got the following entities on my EDMX :-
These two entites were generated by Update Model From Database.
Now, notice how my country has the following primary key :-
Name & IsoCode
this is because each country is UNIQUE in the system by Name and IsoCode.
Now, with my States ... it's similar. Primary Key is :-
Name & CountryId
Each state is unique by name and per country.
Now, the Foreign Key for States is a CountryId. This is the sql :-
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[States] WITH CHECK ADD
CONSTRAINT [FK_States_Countries] FOREIGN KEY([CountryId])
REFERENCES [dbo].[Countries] ([CountryId])
ON UPDATE CASCADE
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[States] CHECK CONSTRAINT [FK_States_Countries]
GO
Pretty simple stuff.
BUT EntityFramework doesn't like it :( It's assuming that i need to connect some properties from State entity to both primary key properties in the Country entity.
Is it possible to add an ASSOCIATION between Country and State on Country.CountryId <-> State.CountryId ... like i have mapped in my DB ?
Cheers ;)
In EF (3.5 and 4.0) FKs MUST point to Primary Keys.
But you appear to be attempting to point to a Candidate Key (i.e. [Countries].[CountryId]
I know that this is something the EF team are considering for the next version though :)
Hope this helps
Alex
For proper DB normalization, first thing is that primary keys must be only CountryId and StateId fields - the main Id fields for each table.
And ss I see from the description Name & IsoCode and Name & CountryId should be actually Unique keys, not primary.
Then the model class State should have a field:
public Country Country { get; set; }
Now EF have very good examples and since 4.3.1 + it fully supports Code first / DB first models, which I think will ease solving this.
EF 5 have more compatibility updates so I think it wont be a problem for legacy DB engines.