In our shop, when we design a database, we typically include auditing attributes for each table (LastUpdateUser, LastUpdateDate, etc). This is common practice, however, I've noticed this becoming an increasing problem when you have tables that "inherit" from other tables, especially using tools such as the entity framework.
For example, if you have tables Customers and Employees, and those tables have a foreign key to table People, then in your entity / class model when you establish the inheritance, you need to change the names for the audit fields because they exist in both tables. Perhaps they need to become PersonLastUpdatedUser and PersonLastUpdatedDate, while the ones from Employees remain as simply LastUpdatedUser and LastUpdatedDate.
When designing tables for inheritance, do you put such audit fields in both tables, or do you just have them in the parent table and update the parent table whenever an attribute changes in a child table?
If you want to use inheritance than those attributes belong to parent table because the parent with related table forms single entity and you track auditing for whole entity. If you for any reason needs those attributes in both tables it should be the first warning that those tables are not good candidates for inheritance.
If you want true auditing, you create separate audit tables that are populated by triggers (never ever by the application or you will miss items that need to be audited).
and they shouw both the old and new value as well as the date and the user or application that made the change.
If you want a last updatedcolumn in each table (which I think is better than having it only in the parenta as that doesn't tell you anything about which of the tables changes last) and you want o use inheritance then you might need to create unique names by adding the table name to lastUpdated. So PersonLastUpdated and OrderLastUpdated, etc.
Or you don't use inheritance.
Related
I'm new to Filemaker, but have extensive SQL experience.
How do I add a list of children to my Filemaker layout, if I have a one-to-many relationship (a tree)? I would like to see for my current node all its children. Later I want to filter them as well.
Showing the parent is easy via the related field. But for the reverse it appears that I need to use scripts?
In SQL, I would write:
SELECT * from Element WHERE parent = {current_id};
You set up a relationship between the tables in the relationship graph using a primary key and foreign key arrangement. Then you add a portal to the related table occurrence on your main table layout. You can add filtering in the relationship itself or in the portal afterwards.
I advice you to check out this info from FileMaker on the subject.
Just starting out with Entity Framework (Code First) and I have to say I am having a lot of problems with it when loading SQL data that is fairly complex. For example, let's say I have the following tables which stores which animals belongs to which regions in the world and the animal are also categorized.
Table: Region
Id: integer
Name string
Table AnimalCategory
Id integer
Name: string
RegionId: integer -- Refers back Region
Table Animal
Id integer
AnimalCategoryId integer -- Refers back AnimalCategory
Let's say I want to create a query with Entity Framework that would load all Animals for a specific region. The easiest thing to do is to create 3 Entities Region, AnimalCategory, and Animal and use LINQ to load the data.
But let's say I am not interested in loading any AnimalCategory information and define an Entity class just to represent AnimalCategory so that I can do the JOIN. How can I do this with Entity Framework? Even with many of its Mapping functions I still don't think this is possible.
In non Entity Framework solutions this is easy to accomplish by using INNER JOINs in SPs or inline SQL. So what are my options in Entity Framework? Shall I pollute my data model with these useless tables just so I can do a JOIN?
It's a matter of choice I guess. EF choose to support many-to-many associations with transparent junction tables, i.e. where junction tables only have two foreign keys to the associated entities. They simply didn't choose to support this far less common "skipping one-to-many-to-many" scenario in a similar manner.
And I can imagine why.
To start with, in a many-to-many association, the junction table is nothing but that: a junction, an association. However, in a chain of one-to-many (or many-to-one) associations it would be exceptional for any of the involved tables to be just an association. In your example...
Animal → AnimalCategory → Region
...AnimalCategory would only have a primary key (Id) and a foreign key (RegionId). That would be useless though: Animal might just as well have a RegionId itself. There's no reason to support a data model that doesn't make sense.
What you're after though, is a model in which the table in the middle does carry information (AnimalCategory.Name), but where you'd like to map it as a transparent junction table, because a particular class model doesn't need this information.
Your focus seems to be on reading data. But EF has to support all CRUD actions. The problem here would be: how to deal with inserts? Suppose Name is a required field. There would be no way to supply its value.
Another problem would be that a statement like...
region.Animals.Add(animal);
...could mean two things:
add an Animal and a new AnimalCategory, the latter referring to the Region.
Add an Animal referring to an existing AnimalCategory - without being able to choose which one.
EF wouldn't want to choose for some default behavior. You'd have to make the choice yourself, so you can't do without access to AnimalCategory.
I'm really new to Entity Framework (currently using EF5) and vs2012 and am having difficulty trying to figure something out.
I have an .edmx that was generated from my database. It has two tables in it: Item and 3rdPartyItem. In short, the Item table is the main table for all the company items while the 3rdPartyItem table is a table that is used to hold additional attributes for items. This 3rdPartyItem table was created by an outside company and is used with their software for the company, so I can't mess with either table. What I'm trying to do is show a list of Items in a grid but I need to show a combination of all the fields for both tables. In vs2012, if I create a relationship and make it 'zero-to-one' (because for each record in the Item table, there doesn't necessarily have to be one in the 3rdPartyItem table), vs complains about not being mapped correctly. When I set the mapping, it then complains that there's multiple relationships. I did some research and found that you can't create a relationship with 2 primary keys, so I was thinking that was the problem. But how can I change the .edmx so that in code, I can access Items and 3rdPartyItem like so:
var items = dbContext.Items;
items.3rdPartyItem.SomeField <--field from 3rdPartyItem table.
not too sure if it's even possible, but it would be very, very helpful if so. Any ideas?
What you're looking for is table-per-type (TPT) mapping inheritance. You can view an MSDN walkthrough here (although you'd want your base type to be instantiable):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj618293.aspx
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.
I'm having trouble configuring entity relationships when one entity inherits from another. I'm new to ADO Entity Framework -- perhaps someone more experienced has some tips for how this is best done. I'm using .net 4.
Database tables with fields:
Products (int ID, nvarchar Description)
FoodProducts (int ProductID, bit IsHuge)
Flavors (int ID, int FoodProductID, nvarchar Description)
There are constraints between Products and FoodProducts as well as FoodProducts and Flavors.
Using the designer I create a model from the database. The designer seems to get it right, with a 1:0..1 association between Product and FoodProduct entities, and 1:* association between Flavor and FoodProduct. No errors when I save or build.
Next I set FoodProduct entity to inherit from Product entity. Then I get errors concerning relationship between Product and FoodProduct. Ok, starting fresh, I first delete the relationship between Product and FoodProduct before setting the inheritance. But now I get errors about the relationship between FoodProduct and Flavor. So I delete and then recreate that relationship, connecting Flavor.ID to FoodProduct.ProductID. Now I get other errors.
My question is this: Should I instead be creating relationship between Flavor.FoodProductID and Product.ID? If so, I assume I then could (or should) delete the FoodProduct.ProductID property. Since my database will have many of these types of relationships, am I better off first creating the entity model and exporting the tables to SQL, or importing the database schema and then making many tweaks?
My intent is that there will be several types of products, some of which require many additional fields, some of which do not. So there may be zero or one FoodProducts records associated with each Product record. At least by my thinking, the table for each sub-type (FoodProducts) should be able to "borrow" the primary key from Products (as a FK) to uniquely identify each of its records.
You can find a screen capture here: http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/9720/entityframework.jpg (I'd embed the img but haven't earned the requisite rep' yet!)
Well, I deleted the FoodProduct.ProductID field, as it should always return the same value as Product.ID anyway. Then, as you hinted, I had to manually map the Products.ID field to FoodProducts.ProductID field. Errors resolved. I'll write a little code to test functionality. Thanks for the "observations"!
Couple of observations:
FoodProducts needs a primary key (e,g identity - FoodProductID). Are you sure it should be a 1:0..1 between Food and FoodProducts? I would have thought it should be 1:0..*. For this cardinality to work you need a unique PK on this table.
When you setup inheritance for entities, the parent entity's properties are inherited. So FoodProducts will inherit ID from the Product table.
BUT, on the physical model (database), this field still needs to be mapped to a column on the FoodProducts table - which is why you need the identity field.
After you setup inheritance, you still need to map all the columns on the derived tables. My money is on you have not mapped "ID" on FoodProducts to any column.
If you screencapped your model and show the errors you are getting it would be much easier to diagnose the issue.