I am a DBA. I want to know what advantages my Business Objects developers will get when using EF with SQL Server DB which is fully managed using Foreign keys and Primarkey as and when require. As this is our new project and we have to use EF with SQL Server 2008 R2. We have a plan to use Database First Approach. Can anyone tell me what difference my Business Object developer will experience in case If I define all foreign Key relationships in my DB?
Assuming it's setup correctly, when your developers actually create their objects from the database structure, they'll be able to access any related tables rather easily.
It should also make creation of new objects (rows in the tables) easy, as it then shouldn't be possible to create new items that would break the foreign key relationship.
It's also just plain good practice to correctly setup any foreign keys in the database; I'm not sure of any benefit not to.
As a developer that's had to work with data sources that haven't been setup correctly, I can tell you a correctly setup database structure is an amazing experience for a developer.
(As an aside, as a DBA, you may want to take a look at EF. Also take a look at LINQ, one of the items that they'll be using. In particular, Why LINQ beats SQL may help you get a basic understanding, even if you don't agree with the article title :) )
Related
We are involved in quite a new development in which we are remaking our current web shop platform.
In the current platform we do not use EF6 neither other ORM but store procedures to access to the db, but in the new building is what we do.
We have a doubt regarding database design of the new platform. In the current platform we use several different databases depending on the content of them.
For example, we have dedicated databases to store information for products catalogs other dedicated db for handling orders.
Currently all data access is done through stored procedures, so we have no problem with the links between different databases.
The problem appears to us now when we have started to use EF6. In this case each DB is associated with a context and it is not possible to know data from one context to another
unless we implement directly in the source code these relationships using various contexts. It looks like these means we will lose the power of EF6.
The questions we have are:
Is it a bad design maintaining different databases for the same application using EF6?
in case this is a poor design and choosing for a single database, is the performance going to be optimum even driving hundreds of tables (almost 1000) with several TBytes of information?
in the other hand, in the case of opting for the design in which several bbdd appear (it would be much better in our case), what is the best way to handle them EF6?
Thank you very much for your help!
First of all EF is not written to be cross database. You can't write cross database (cross context) queries, lazy load does not work and so on.
This is a big limitation in your case.
EF could work with several schema (actually I don't use it and I don't like it but is just my opinion).
You can use your stored procedures with EF but as I understand you are thinking to stop to use them.
In my experience I wrote several applications with more than one database but the use of the different databases was very limited. In this cases I use cross database views (i.e. one database per company and some common tables with views in company databases that selects data in common tables). In your case, if the tables are sharded everywhere I don't think this is a way you can choose.
So, in my opinion you could change the approach.
If you have backups problems you could shard the huge tables (I think facts tables and tables with pictures) and create cross database views. BTW, also, cross database referential integrity is not supported in SQL Server so you need to write triggers to check it.
If you need to split different application functions (i.e. WMS, CRM and so on) you can use namespaces without bothering about how tables are stored in the DB.
I'm working on an application that interfaces with a slightly odd database. The design of this database is pretty bad; there are basically no foreign keys (although there are columns that reference other tables, they're not set as keys), columns are named very ambiguously, and the structure does not lend itself to the kind of logic I'm aiming to do (mostly, it forces joins for operations that should be simple, and leaves you trawling through needlessly massive tables for things that could have been split).
Unfortunately, I'm stuck with this database. It's being replicated off a third-party system, so I can't change the table structure or anything. I can add stored procedures and views, though.
In the application, I've come up with a set of classes that I can work with much more easily. I've got quite a bit of experience with Entity Framework, so I'm planning to use that. My initial hunch is that I can add views to the database that return things in the format of my classes, and then from there on out just pretend that they're tables. I've never tried anything like this before, though, and I'm not entirely sure how to proceed.
How can I use Entity Framework to map my classes to these views? Note that it kinda needs to be my POCO classes, rather than anything EF auto-generates - is there a way to tell EF to map existing classes?
If you use code first then Entity Framework will generate CreateTable instructions in the migrations. To use a view instead, replace this code with your own Sql to generate the View. See the answer to this question: Mapping Database Views to EF 5.0 Code First w/Migrations
I would also configure Entity Framework to use stored procedures. Then you can tailor the insert/update/delete sql to match the underlying tables. Again, you can do this by altering the sql that is generated for you in the migrations.
I'm working on a green-field application that has a corporate mandate that Stored Procedures are used for all database interaction.
I'd like to use Entity Framework and leverage Stored Procedure Mapping to gain the benefits of the ORM.
Since we will be developing the database and .NET application in parallel, I'm looking for information to help the database developer/administrator. Does anyone know of a consolidated guide on how to design tables and stored procedures so they can be best integrated with the Entity Framework?
A couple tips I've collected are:
Update Stored Procedures require exactly 1 parameter per table column
There must be an insert, update, and delete Stored Procedure for every table
I want to know as much about how the database should be designed for easy use with Entity Framework because the database is very difficult to change later in our environment.
I wrote a blog post describing the limitations of using mapping in this way after working on this for several months:
The Pitfalls of Mapping the Entity Framework to Stored Procedures
If you want to use Stored Procedures are used for all database interaction, I just don't see the need to use Entity Framework. One good reason of EF is to save time to write T-SQL, and if you don't take advantage of this, why even use EF?
I have a doubt, suppose i have 2 pojos, lets assume i want to have one-2-one or one-2-many relationship between them. is it necessary to define the foreign key reference in the DB, or defining in the hibernate or JPA is enough.
In my experience, yes, it's possible, and works well. But it would break consistency and may cause future problems (e.g. if you make changes to the tables and/or pojos).
(Tested with MS SQL Server 2005, and MySQL).
I am building an Entity Framework model for a subset of the Pubs database from microsoft. I am only interested and publishers and books, not publishers and employees, but there is a foreign key constraint between the publishers and emoloyees tables. When I remove the employees entity from my model, the model won't validate because of the foreign key constraint.
How do I create a model for a subset of a database when that subset links to other tabes with foreign key constraints?
Because this is for a demo, I deleted the offending tables and constraints from the database, but this won't work in production.
The correct way to do this is by exposing the foreign key columns as scalar properties. There is a complete explanation, and downloadable sample code, in this blog post. You might find the rest of the post interesting, as well.
You could create views of the pertinent data and bind your model to that. I am not a database expert, but a DBA that I formerly worked with recommended this approach because she said that the view is less intensive on the database server to begin with.
Prior to the release of 3.5 SP1, we built a DAL on top of LINQ to SQL (without DBML mappings, but that is another story) that mapped all of the domain objects to either stored procedures or views. That way, the DBA was happy about the calls following a more set execution plan, as well as being able to encapsulate the database logic outside of the codebase.