I have my app using core data with the data model below. However, I'm switching to a standard database with columns and rows. Can anyone help me with setting up this new database schema?
First of all you need to create tables for each of the Entities and their attributes (note I added "id" to each of the tables for relationships):
Routine (name, timestamp, id)
Exercise - this looks like a duplicate to me, so leaving one only here (muscleGroup, musclePicture, name, timeStamp, id)
Session (timeStamp, id)
Set (reps, timeStamp, unit, weight, id)
Now that you have tables that describe each of the entities, you need to create tables that will describe the relationships between these entities - as before table names are in capitals and their fields are in parenthesis:
RoutineExercises (routine_id, exercise_id)
SessionExercises (session_id, exercise_id)
ExerciseSets (exercise_id, set_id)
That's it! Now if you need to add an exercise to a routine, you simply:
Add an entry into Exercise table
Establish the relationship by adding a tuple into RoutineExercises table where routine_id is your routine ID and exercise_id is the ID of the newly created entry in the Exercise table
This will hold true for all the rest of the relationships.
NOTE: Your core data model has one-to-many and many-to-many relationships. If you want to specifically enforce that a relationship is one-to-many (e.g. Exercise can only have 1 routine), then you will need to make "exercise_id" as the index for the RoutineExercises table. If you want a many-to-many relationships to be allowed (i.e. each exercise is allowed to have multiple routines), then set the tuple of (routine_id, exercise_id) as the index.
Related
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 am using EF 6 Code-First, table per type, and I have two concrete classes Group and User. Group has a navigation property Members which contains a collection of User. I have mapped this many-to-many relationship in EF using Fluent syntax:
modelBuilder.Entity<Group>
.HasMany<User>(g => g.Members)
.WithMany(u => u.Groups);
I would like to be able to say when a member has joined a group so that I can query for, say, the newest member(s). I am not sure of how this is best accomplished within the framework.
I see the following options:
Create and use an audit table (ie GroupMembershipAudit consisting of Group, User, join/unjoin, and DateTime
Add a column to the autogenerated many-to-many table between User and Group
Is there anything within EF to facilitate this sort of storage of many-to-many historical info like this / append columns to the many-to-many relationship?
Add a column to the autogenerated many-to-many table between User and
Group
That is not possible - auto-generated junction tables can contain only keys (that is called Pure Join Table). According to Working with Many-to-Many Data Relationships article: If the join table contains fields that are not keys, the table is not a PJT and therefore Entity Framework cannot create a direct-navigation (many-to-many) association between the tables. (Join tables with non-key fields are also known as join tables with payload.)
Create and use an audit table (ie GroupMembershipAudit consisting of
Group, User, join/unjoin, and DateTime
Actually you should create GroupMembershipAudit entity. With Code First table will be generated, you don't need to create it manually.
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.
Let's say I have a Database with 3 tables: Keywords, Documents, and KeywordDocuments. KeywordDocuments has only 3 columns, KeywordDocumentID, KeywordID, and DocumentID.
The relationship between Documents and KeywordDocuments is the same as Keywords and KeywordDocuments, i.e. one-to-many.
Watching Julie Lerman's video on EF, she said that we don't need KeywordDocuments's entity in the model. How do I eliminate that entity while making sure that in the relationship will be respected in the underline database?
Thanks for helping
Remove the KeywordDocumentID column from the KeywordDocument table. It will then contain only the foreign key columns from the tables for which it represents a many to many relationship.
Create a new composite primary key on the KeywordDocument table which includes both the KeywordID and the DocumentID columns. This will replace the original primary key that you had on the KeywordDocumentID column - that key would have been deleted along with the column.
A table such as this will not result in an entity being generated in the model. Rather, both of the other entities (Keyword and Document in this case) will have navigation properties based on EntityCollection. Document will have a collection of Keywords and vice verca.
Lets say I have 2 tables on my physical model, Receipt(ID, Location) and LineItem(ID, ReceiptID, ItemName) where a Receipt has multiple LineItems and ReceiptID is a Foreign Key to Receipt's ID.
I want to model these as a single table in my conceptual model, where I only see a table of LineItems with the Location included on each LineItem.
Every time I try to model this in the Entity Modeler, I get an error about how the Primary Key must be the same for every table being combined into the single conceptual entity.
Is this even possible to model using the entity framework?
Thanks!
No there is no way to model this directly. You must either create database view and map that view or import both entities and create QueryView in the model. In both cases resulting entity combining your two tables will become readonly and the only way to support CUD operations will be mapping stored procedures.