We are using EF 4.3 Code first and have an object model like so:
class Content { }
class Product:Content { }
class News:Content { }
These are mapped as Table per Type.
There are scenarios where I just want to load only the columns belonging to the base table, like say a list of all the content titles. But a query like
from c in Content
where c.IsDeleted == false
select c
results in some really nasty SQL with joins to the other two tables. Is there any way to force EF to just do a select from the base table only without joins to the other tables?
TPT is problematic and EF generated queries are usually very inefficient. Moreover your expectations are probably incorrect. Linq-to-entities always returns the real type of entity. It cannot return instance of Content type if the record is in fact a Product entity. Your query can have only two meanings:
Return all non deleted contents - this must perform joins to correctly instantiate a real types of entities. The query will return enumeration of Content, Product and News instances.
Return all non deleted Content instances - this must probably again perform joins to correctly instantiate only records mapped to Content directly (without relation to Product and News). No record mapped to Product or News will be returned in the enumeration. This query is not possible with Linq-to-entities - you need to use ESQL and OFTYPE ONLY operator.
There are few things you can try:
Upgrade to .NET 4.5 - there are some improvements for TPT queries
Return projection of properties instead of Content - Product and News are also content so you will never get query without joins if you return Content instances from Linq-to-entities query
Related
We use Entity Framework and this leads to big performance problems whenever we use Count() on child collections of database entities.
As workaround I've used joins of root collections of data context. Then the resulting sql query uses the desired COUNT(*). But this solution is really ugly.
The slow query is:
var booked = erf.Sessions.All(s => s.Exams.All(e => e.Candidates.Count() >= e.CandidatesExpected))
If by "child collections" you mean navigation properties of type ICollection<T> defined in your entities, then it's Linq-to-Entities (not Linq-to-Sql, as you specified). Thus your Count() method is just an extension method defined in Enumerable class, which is executed on entities already materialized into memory. To get results you are expecting, you need to use Count() on DbSet queries.
I have a legacy database with a particular table -- I will call it ItemTable -- that can have billions of rows of data. To overcome database restrictions, we have decided to split the table into "silos" whenever the number of rows reaches 100,000,000. So, ItemTable will exist, then a procedure will run in the middle of the night to check the number of rows. If numberOfRows is > 100,000,000 then silo1_ItemTable will be created. Any Items added to the database from now on will be added to silo1_ItemTable (until it grows to big, then silo2_ItemTable will exist...)
ItemTable and silo1_ItemTable can be mapped to the same Item entity because the table structures are identical, but I am not sure how to set this mapping up at runtime, or how to specify the table name for my queries. All inserts should be added to the latest siloX_ItemTable, and all Reads should be from a specified siloX_ItemTable.
I have a separate siloTracker table that will give me the table name to insert/read the data from, but I am not sure how I can use this with entity framework...
Thoughts?
You could try to use the Entity Inheritance to get this. So you have a base class which has all the fields mapped to ItemTable and then you have descendant classes that inherit from ItemTable entity and is mapped to the silo tables in the db. Every time you create a new silo you create a new entity mapped to that silo table.
[Table("ItemTable")]
public class Item
{
//All the fields in the table goes here
}
[Table("silo1_ItemTable")]
public class Silo1Item : Item
{
}
[Table("silo2_ItemTable")]
public class Silo2Item : Item
{
}
You can find more information on this here
Other option is to create a view that creates a union of all those table and map your entity to that view.
As mentioned in my comment, to solve this problem I am using the SQLQuery method that is exposed by DBSet. Since all my item tables have the exact same schema, I can use the SQLQuery to define my own query and I can pass in the name of the table to the query. Tested on my system and it is working well.
See this link for an explanation of running raw queries with entity framework:
EF raw query documentation
If anyone has a better way to solve my question, please leave a comment.
[UPDATE]
I agree that stored procedures are also a great option, but for some reason my management is very resistant to make any changes to our database. It is easier for me (and our customers) to put the sql in code and acknowledge the fact that there is raw sql. At least I can hide it from the other layers rather easily.
[/UPDATE]
Possible solution for this problem may be using context initialization with DbCompiledModel param:
var builder = new DbModelBuilder(DbModelBuilderVersion.V6_0);
builder.Configurations.Add(new EntityTypeConfiguration<EntityName>());
builder.Entity<EntityName>().ToTable("TableNameDefinedInRuntime");
var dynamicContext = new MyDbContext(builder.Build(context.Database.Connection).Compile());
For some reason in EF6 it fails on second table request, but mapping inside context looks correct on the moment of execution.
We have a customer very large table with over 500 columns (i know someone does that!)
Many of these columns are in fact foreign keys to other tables.
We also have the requirement to eager load some of the related tables.
Is there any way in Linq to SQL or Dynamic Linq to specify what columns to be retrieved from the database?
I am looking for a linq statement that actually HAS this effect on the generated SQL Statement:
SELECT Id, Name FROM Book
When we run the reguar query generated by EF, SQL Server throws an error that you have reached the maximum number of columns that can be selected within a query!!!
Any help is much appreciated!
Yes exactly this is the case, the table has 500 columns and is self referencing our tool automatically eager loads the first level relations and this hits the SQL limit on number of columns that can be queried.
I was hoping that I can set to only load limited columns of the related Entities such as Id and Name (which is used in the UI to view the record to user)
I guess the other option is to control what FK columns should be eager loaded. However this still remains problem for tables that has a binary or ntext column which you may not want to load all the times.
Is there a way to hook multiple models (Entities) to the same table in Code First? We tried doing this I think the effort failed miserably.
Yes you can return only subset of columns by using projection:
var result = from x in context.LargeTable
select new { x.Id, x.Name };
The problem: projection and eager loading doesn't work together. Once you start using projections or custom joins you are changing shape of the query and you cannot use Include (EF will ignore it). The only way in such scenario is to manually include relations in the projected result set:
var result = from x in context.LargeTable
select new {
Id = x.Id,
Name = x.Name,
// You can filter or project relations as well
RelatedEnitites = x.SomeRelation.Where(...)
};
You can also project to specific type BUT that specific type must not be mapped (so you cannot for example project to LargeTable entity from my sample). Projection to the mapped entity can be done only on materialized data in Linq-to-objects.
Edit:
There is probably some misunderstanding how EF works. EF works on top of entities - entity is what you have mapped. If you map 500 columns to the entity, EF simply use that entity as you defined it. It means that querying loads entity and persisting saves entity.
Why it works this way? Entity is considered as atomic data structure and its data can be loaded and tracked only once - that is a key feature for ability to correctly persist changes back to the database. It doesn't mean that you should not load only subset of columns if you need it but you should understand that loading subset of columns doesn't define your original entity - it is considered as arbitrary view on data in your entity. This view is not tracked and cannot be persisted back to database without some additional effort (simply because EF doesn't hold any information about the origin of the projection).
EF also place some additional constraints on the ability to map the entity
Each table can be normally mapped only once. Why? Again because mapping table multiple times to different entities can break ability to correctly persist those entities - for example if any non-key column is mapped twice and you load instance of both entities mapped to the same record, which of mapped values will you use during saving changes?
There are two exceptions which allow you mapping table multiple times
Table per hierarchy inheritance - this is a mapping where table can contains records from multiple entity types defined in inheritance hierarchy. Columns mapped to the base entity in the hierarchy must be shared by all entities. Every derived entity type can have its own columns mapped to its specific properties (other entity types have these columns always empty). It is not possible to share column for derived properties among multiple entities. There must also be one additional column called discriminator telling EF which entity type is stored in the record - this columns cannot be mapped as property because it is already mapped as type discriminator.
Table splitting - this is direct solution for the single table mapping limitation. It allows you to split table into multiple entities with some constraints:
There must be one-to-one relation between entities. You have one central entity used to load the core data and all other entities are accessible through navigation properties from this entity. Eager loading, lazy loading and explicit loading works normally.
The relation is real 1-1 so both parts or relation must always exists.
Entities must not share any property except the key - this constraint will solve the initial problem because each modifiable property is mapped only once
Every entity from the split table must have a mapped key property
Insertion requires whole object graph to be populated because other entities can contain mapped required columns
Linq-to-Sql also contains ability to mark a column as lazy loaded but this feature is currently not available in EF - you can vote for that feature.
It leads to your options for optimization
Use projections to get read-only "view" for entity
You can do that in Linq query as I showed in the previous part of this answer
You can create database view and map it as a new "entity"
In EDMX you can also use Defining query or Query view to encapsulate either SQL or ESQL projection in your mapping
Use table splitting
EDMX allows you splitting table to many entities without any problem
Code first allows you splitting table as well but there are some problems when you split table to more than two entities (I think it requires each entity type to have navigation property to all other entity types from split table - that makes it really hard to use).
Create stored procedures that query the number of columns needed and then call the stored procs from code.
When we have two entities in EFv4 EDM diagram and only one table for both in the database (for instance, having table Documents and entities Invoice and Qoute), table Documents having documentTypeId column as a discriminator and set this column as a discriminator in the EDM (in Table mappings), how do we read the value of this property in our code?
We cannot assign values to it because EF does it for us under the hood (based on what we entered in Table mappings for condition) but somehow I don't get it why we are also not allowed to read it.
Imo this property is already mapped so you can't map it again. It is used to determine type of materialized entity. Why do you need such column. Usually it is enough to use is operator like:
var document = context.Documents.GetById(id);
if (document is Invoice)
{
...
}
If you only need to select subtypes you can use OfType extension method like:
var invoices = context.Documents.OfType<Invoice>().ToList();
You also don't need to set this value when adding new entity because you are adding subtype - Invoice or Quote.
Edit:
As I understand from your comment you don't need this information in query. In such case you don't need to map it. Simply use partial class of your entity and add custom property which will return your string. Sound like stupid solution but actually it would be the easiest one.
Discriminator column should be part of mapping metadata so in case of T4 template generating your entities, it could be possible to update the template so it generate such property for you.
You may want to use a single-table inheritance hierarchy, as described here.
That way, you could have an abstract Document class that includes a DocumentTypeId column. Invoices and Quotes would extend this class, but specify certain DocumentTypeId filters. However, because the original class has a DocumentTypeId column, they would each have that column as well.
Another advantage to this approach is that you could create utility methods that can act on any Document, and you could pass any Invoice or Quote to these methods.
I've created a function import that returns the results of a stored proceedure as one of my entities. however I can't seem to traverse my through navigation properties to access the data in other entities. I know that you can use include() for objectQueries but can't find anything that will force the EF to load my relations for entity results of function imports.
Any ideas??
Thanks in advance.
This is not possible in EF 1.0
The reason is that EF will consider stored procedure values to be just values and not navigation properites.
For example, Employee entity has multiple Order entities. In Order you have a property called EmployeeID. When the database fills your query using include statements, it creates 1 projection query in SQL to populate all of the Order data that a particular Employee could have.
So if I said
var employee = context.Employees.Include("Orders").Where(e => e.ID == 1).First();
var orders = employee.Orders;
The SQL for the first query will create a projection query which will contain orders where the EmployeeID = 1.
Now when your stored procedure runs, this can do any code behind the scenes (in otherwords it can return any set of data). So when SQL runs the stored procedure, it just runs the code in that stored procedure and does not have any knowledge that EmployeeID on Order is an FK to that property. Additionally, if your stored procedure returns an Employee entity, then you are looking at another scenario where you will not even have an OrderID to pursue.
To work around this though, you can setup your query in EF using Include statements that can mirror any stored procedure. If you use the proper mix of .Select and .Include statements you should be able to do the same thing.