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.
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 am working on a EJB/JPA project.
I have two tables:
BusinessOwner and Clients.
Each of these tables has a super class, Person.
I have a table that keeps all their transactions, both BusinessOwner and Clients.
In the Transaction table, I have a field UserID, that points to the primary key of both BusinessOwners and Clients, as a foreign key.
How do i map these as in my entity class.
You should be able to have a OneToMany from Person to Transaction and a ManyToOne from Transaction to Person, but this depends on how you have mapped inheritance?
Ì am currently working on a ASP NET MVC project. We use Entity Framework and follow the Database First approach. The database already exists.
The database has been created using the convention, that every table has a specified single primary key, even if it is a junction table.
Example :
Table User :
UserId (PK);
Username
Table UserRole :
UserRoleId (PK);
UserId (FK);
RoleId (FK)
Table Role :
RoleId (PK);
Rolename
As said, the database already exists and this convention is not discussable.
When I want to create an Entity Data Model in Visual Studio, I also have three Entities. But it would only make sense to have two Entities: User and Role. The UserRole Entity makes no sense.
Is there any possibility I can influence the way that Entity Framework maps my tables, so I can get rid of those relational (useless) entities?
Is there any possibility I can influence the way that Entity Framework
maps my tables, so I can get rid of those relational (useless)
entities?
No, you cannot force EF designer to do that. When using automatic tools you will always end with junction table mapped as a separate entity because it is not considered as junction table any more - it has special data (a separate key) which gives this entity new possibilities (for example relation between two entities can exist multiple times which is not possible with normal junction table).
The only way to avoid this is abandon tooling support and use either code mapping or manually write EDMX file and don't tell EF about that additional key. Instead let EF believe that there are only those two FKs forming composite PK as expected from junction table. Obviously if your database requires those special possibilities allowed by separate PK you cannot do this.
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.
Is it possible to create associates b/t 2 non-key fields in the Entity Framework?
Example: Take the 2 tables in a legacy application (i.e. keys/structure cannot change)
Order (
OrderId : int : PK
OrderNo : varchar
)
OrderDetails (
DetailRecordId : int : PK
OrderNo : varchar
)
In the Entity Framework, I want to create an association b/t Order and OrderDetails by the OrderNo field, which is not a primary key on either table or a FK relationship in the database.
This seems to me as not only should it be easy to do, but one reasons to use something like EF. However, it seems to only want to allow me to create associations using entity keys.
The Entity Framework allows you to claim that columns are keys and that FK constraints exist where none actually exist in the database.
That is because the SSDL (StorageModel part of the EDMX) can if necessary be manipulated by you and lie about the database.
The EF will then interact with the database as if the keys and foreign keys really do exist.
This should work, but all the normal caveats about referential integrity apply.
See my Entity Framework Tips
Hope this helps.
The problem with using non-key fields to define relationships is that the keys are not guaranteed to be properly navigatable. That could lead to a situation where you have a one to one relationship between two entities where there are more than one possible rows that fufill the relationship.
...when relating data from a database, the relationships should always be based on keys. The keys enforce the referential integrity.
One more workaround:
create view vOrder which will not include PK and create Entity from it.
Set PK in this entity to OrderNo
Now you will be able create association