I have some views that I want to use EF 4.1 to query. These are specific optimized views that will not have keys to speak of; there will be no deletions, updates, just good ol'e select.
But EF wants a key set on the model. Is there a way to tell EF to move on, there's nothing to worry about?
More Details
The main purpose of this is to query against a set of views that have been optimized by size, query parameters and joins. The underlying tables have their PKs, FKs and so on. It's indexed, statiscized (that a word?) and optimized.
I'd like to have a class like (this is a much smaller and simpler version of what I have...):
public MyObject //this is a view
{
Name{get;set}
Age{get;set;}
TotalPimples{get;set;}
}
and a repository, built off of EF 4.1 CF where I can just
public List<MyObject> GetPimply(int numberOfPimples)
{
return db.MyObjects.Where(d=> d.TotalPimples > numberOfPimples).ToList();
}
I could expose a key, but whats the real purpose of dislaying a 2 or 3 column natural key? That will never be used?
Current Solution
Seeming as their will be no EF CF solution, I have added a complex key to the model and I am exposing it in the model. While this goes "with the grain" on what one expects a "well designed" db model to look like, in this case, IMHO, it added nothing but more logic to the model builder, more bytes over the wire, and extra properties on a class. These will never be used.
There is no way. EF demands unique identification of the record - entity key. That doesn't mean that you must expose any additional column. You can mark all your current properties (or any subset) as a key - that is exactly how EDMX does it when you add database view to the model - it goes through columns and marks all non-nullable and non-computed columns as primary key.
You must be aware of one problem - EF internally uses identity map and entity key is unique identification in this map (each entity key can be associated only with single entity instance). It means that if you are not able to choose unique identification of the record and you load multiple records with the same identification (your defined key) they will all be represented by a single entity instance. Not sure if this can cause you any issues if you don't plan to modify these records.
EF is looking for a unique way to identify records. I am not sure if you can force it to go counter to its nature of desiring something unique about objects.
But, this is an answer to the "show me how to solve my problem the way I want to solve it" question and not actually tackling your core business requirement.
If this is a "I don't want to show the user the key", then don't bind it when you bind the data to your form (web or windows). If this is a "I need to share these items, but don't want to give them the keys" issue, then map or surrogate the objects into an external domain model. Adds a bit of weight to the solution, but allows you to still do the heavy lifting with a drag and drop surface (EF).
The question is what is the business requirement that is pushing you to create a bunch of objects without a unique identifier (key).
One way to do this would be not to use views at all.
Just add the tables to your EF model and let EF create the SQL that you are currently writing by hand.
Related
I was reading about owned entity types here https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/modeling/owned-entities#feedback and I was wondering when I would use that. Especially when using .ToTable(); although I am not sure if ToTable creates a relationship with keys.
I read the entire article so I understand that it essentially forces you to access the data via nav properties and prevents the owned table from being treated as an entity. They also say Include() is not needed and the data comes down with every query for the parent table so its not like you are reducing the amount of data that comes back.
So whats the point exactly? Also whats the point of "table splitting"?
It takes the place of Complex types with the option to set it up like a 1-1 relationship /w ToTable while automatically eager-loaded. This would use the same PK in both tables, same as 1-1.
The point Table-splitting would be that you want an object model that is normalized, where the table structure is not. This would fit scenarios where you have an existing table structure and want to split off related pieces of that data into sub-entities associated with the main entity. With the ToTable option, it would be similar to a 1-1 relationship, but automatically eager-loaded. However when considering the reasons to use a 1-1 relationship I would consider this option a bad choice.
The common reasons for using it in normal 1-1 relationships would include:
Splitting off expensive to load, rarely used data. (images, binary, memo)
Encapsulating data particular to a single application off of a common entity. i.e. if I have a "Customer" which is used by a billing system vs. a CRM I might have "CustomerBillingData" and "CustomerCRMData" owned by "Customer" rather than an inherited BillingCustomer / CRMCustomer. As there is a "single" customer that may serve one or both systems. Billing doesn't care about CRM data, CRM doesn't care about Billing. If all data is in "Customer" then both systems potentially need to be updated, and I cannot rely on constraints when the data is optional to the other system. By using composition I can enforce required data for a particular system.
In neither of these cases would I want to use table-splitting or anything that automatically eager-loads, so Owned Types /w ToTable would not replace 1-1 relationships by any stretch. It's essentially a more strict version of complex types, I'd say it's strictly used for entity organization. Not something I'd admit to wanting to use very often.
As documented in questions like Entity Framework Indexing ALL foreign key columns, EF Core seems to automatically generate an index for every foreign key. This is a sound default for me (let's not get into an opinion war here...), but there are cases where it is just a waste of space and slowing down inserts and updates. How do I prevent it on a case-by-case basis?
I don't want to wholly turn it off, as it does more good than harm; I don't want to have to manually configure it for all those indices I do want. I just want to prevent it on specific FKs.
Related side question: is the fact that these index are automatically created mentioned anywhere in the EF documentation? I can't find it anywhere, which is probably why I can't find how to disable it?
Someone is bound to question why I would want to do this... so in the interest of saving time, the OPer of the linked question gave a great example in a comment:
We have a People table and an Addresses table, for example. The
People.AddressID FK was Indexed by EF but I only ever start from a
People row and search for the Addresses record; I never find an
Addresses row and then search the People.AddressID column for a
matching record.
EF Core has a configuration option to replace one of its services.
I found replacing IConventionSetBuilder to custom one would be a much cleaner approach.
https://giridharprakash.me/2020/02/12/entity-framework-core-override-conventions/
If it is really necessary to avoid the usage of some foreign keys indices - as far as I know (currently) - in .Net Core, it is necessary to remove code that will set the indices in generated migration code file.
Another approach would be to implement a custom migration generator in combination with an attribute or maybe an extension method that will avoid the index creation. You could find more information in this answer for EF6: EF6 preventing not to create Index on Foreign Key. But I'm not sure if it will work in .Net Core too. The approach seems to be bit different, here is a MS doc article that should help.
But, I strongly advise against doing this! I'm against doing this, because you have to modify generated migration files and not because of not using indices for FKs. Like you mentioned in question's comments, in real world scenarios some cases need such approach.
For other people they are not really sure if they have to avoid the usage of indices on FKs and therefor they have to modify migration files:
Before you go that way, I would suggest to implement the application with indices on FKs and would check the performance and space usage. Therefor I would produce a lot test data.
If it really results in performance and space usage issues on a test or QA stage, it's still possible to remove indices in migration files.
Because we already chat about EnsureCreated vs migrations here for completeness further information about EnsureCreated and migrations (even if you don't need it :-)):
MS doc about EnsureCreated() (It will not update your database if you have some model changes - migrations would do it)
interesting too (even if for EF7) EF7 EnsureCreated vs. Migrate Methods
Entity Framework core 2.0 (the latest version available when the question was asked) doesn't have such a mechanism, but EF Core 2.2 just might - in the form of Owned Entity Types.
Namely, since you said:
" I only ever start from a People row and search for the Addresses record; I never find an Addresses row"
Then you may want to make the Address an Owned Entity Type (and especially the variant with 'Storing owned types in separate tables', to match your choice of storing the address information in a separate Addresses table).
The docs of the feature seem to say a matching:
"Owned entities are essentially a part of the owner and cannot exist without it"
By the way, now that the feature is in EF, this may justify why EF always creates the indexes for HasMany/HasOne. It's likely because the Has* relations are meant to be used towards other entities (as opposed to 'value objects') and these, since they have their own identity, are meant to be queried independently and allow accessing other entities they relate to using navigational properties. For such a use case, it would be simply dangerous use such navigation properties without indexes (a few queries could make the database slow down hugely).
There are few caveats here though:
Turning an entity into an owned one doesn't instruct EF only about the index, but rather it instructs to map the model to database in a way that is a bit different (more on this below) but the end effect is in fact free of that extra index on People.
But chances are, this actually might be the better solution for you: this way you also say that no one should query the Address (by not allowing to create a DbSet<T> of that type), minimizing the chance of someone using it to reach the other entities with these costly indexless queries.
As to what the difference is, you'll note that if you make the Address owned by Person, EF will create a PersonId column in the Address table, which is different to your AddressId in the People table (in a sense, lack of the foreign key is a bit of a cheat: an index for querying Person from Address is there, it's just that it's the primary key index of the People table, which was there anyways). But take note that this design is actually rather good - it not only needs one column less (no AddressId in People), but it also guarantees that there's no way to make orphaned Address record that your code will never be able to access.
If you would still like to keep the AddressId column in the Addresses, then there's still one option:
Just choose a name of AddressId for the foreign key in the Addresses table and just "pretend" you don't know that it happens to have the same values as the PersonId :)
If that option isn't funny (e.g. because you can't change your database schema), then you're somewhat out of luck. But do take note that among the Current shortcomings of EF they still list "Instances of owned entity types cannot be shared by multiple owners", while some shortcomings of the previous versions are already listed as addressed. Might be worth watching that space as, it seems to me, resolving that one will probably involve introducing the ability to have your AddressId in the People, because in such a model, for the owned objects to be shared among many entities the foreign keys would need to be sitting with the owning entities to create an association to the same value for each.
in the OnModelCreating override
AFTER the call to
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
add:
var indexForRemoval = modelBuilder.Entity<You_Table_Entity>().HasIndex(x => x.Column_Index_Is_On).Metadata;
modelBuilder.Entity<You_Table_Entity>().Metadata.RemoveIndex(indexForRemoval);
'''
So I'm creating a database model using Entity Framework's Code First paradigm and I'm trying to create two tables (Players and Teams) that must share a uniqueness constraint regarding their primary key.
For example, I have 3 Players with Ids "1", "2" and "3" and when I try to create a Team with Id "2", the system should validate uniqueness and fail because there already exists a Player with Id "2".
Is this possible with data annotations? Both these entities share a common Interface called IParticipant if that helps!
Txs in advance lads!
The scenario you are describing here isn't really ideal. This isn't really a restriction on Entity Framework; it's more a restriction on the database stack. By default, the Id primary key is an Identity column, and SQL itself isn't really supportive of the idea of "shared" Identity columns. You can disable Identity and manage the Id properties yourself, but then Entity Framework cannot automatically build navigation properties for your entities.
The best option here is to use one single participant table, in a technique called "Table Per Hierarchy", or TPH. Entity Framework can manage the single table using an internal discriminator column. Shared properties can be put into the base class, and non-shared properties can be put on the individual classes, which Entity Framework will composite into a single large table in the DB. The main drawback to this strategy is that columns for non-shared properties will automatically be nullable in the database. This article describes this scenario very well.
The more I try to come up with a solution, I realize that this is an example of the XY Problem. There is not really a good solution to this question, because this question is already a proposed solution. There is a problem here that has led you to create an Interface which you suggest requires the entities which are using the interface to have a unique Id. This really sounds like an issue with the design of the Interface itself, as Interfaces should be agnostic to the entity they are applied to. Perhaps providing some code and showing what your problem actually is would be helpful, since the proposed solution you are asking how to implement here isn't really practical.
I did work on ADO.NET Entity Framework v2 about two years ago. I have faint memories.
Incidentally, I happen to be working in a very secured (for want of a euphemism) environment where a lot of links are blocked and there's not much one can do. It does get in the way of studying and working, more than a bit.
Therefore, I have to rely on this forum for a few basic questions I have to get started again. This time, I am working on Entity Framework 4. Here are my questions.
All these questions relate to the EDM generated entities, i.e. not the Code First model.
1) Is my understanding correct? I can rename any column name in the EDM designer generated model and nothing breaks.
2) Foreign keys are expressed as navigational properties in the generated entity classes. No special consideration is required to maintain foreign key relationships. I recall in version 1 of EF, you had just ID properties and the navigational IQueryable/IEnumerable/EntityCollection/RelatedEnd properties were introduced in version 2. I just need to know if I need to do anything to retain/maintain foreign key relationships and referential data integrity. I assume I don't need to. A confirmation would be nice.
3) What are all the possible ways to execute a stored procedure? I recall -- one way to use ExecuteSQL or something on the Context.Database object, another to use EntityClient API and the third was to specify stored procedure names in the InsertCommand, SelectCommand, etc. thingies in the mapping window of the EDM designer. Is this correct?
4) How do you use those SelectCommand thingies in the mapping window on an entity? Do you just supply the names of the stored procedures or user defined SQL functions?
5) How do I create an entity out of a subset of a table? Do I just create an entity from the table and then delete the columns I don't need from the designer? What happens if there are required (NOT NULL in SQL) values that are not in the subset I choose?
6) How do I create a table out of a query or join of two or more tables.
1) You can rename columns in the designer and nothing should break (if the name is valid)
2) Navigation properties point to related entities. In EF4 foreign keys were added. Foreign key properties basically expose the database way of handling relations. However, they are helpful since you don't have to load related entities just to change relationship - you can just change the key value to the id of the other entity and save your changes
3) Yes. You can either execute the procedure directly - this is for stored procedures that are not related to CUD (Create/Update/Delete) operations. You can map CUD operations to stored procedure as opposed to having EF execute SQL statements it came up with for your CUD operations.
4) I think this is a bit out of scope - you probably can find a lot of blogs with images how to do it. Any decent book on EF should also have a chapter (or two) on this. Post a question to stackoverflow if you hit a specific problem.
5) Remove properties in the designer and then supply default value to the S-Space definition. I believe you cannot do this with the designer. You need to rightclick on the edmx file and open it with the Xml editor and manually edit it. Also see this: Issue in EF, mapping fragment,no default value and is not nullable
6) You can either create a view in the database or you can create entity set using E-SQL in your edmx file (I think this will be read only though) or you may be able to use Entity Splitting. Each of these is probably a big topic itself so I think you should find more about these and come back if you have more specific questions / problems
I want to create an entity in EF without a public key. The backing table has got a non-unique clustered key, but the data in the table conceptually doesn't have a unique primary key it can use.
It looks like EF really doesn't like this. Is there any way of getting EF to accept that the table has no primary key and make it work with it anyway, with no performance hit? I don't care if the result is read-only.
As I understand it, as the Entity Framework is based on the Domain Driven Design concept of Entities, each Entity by definition must have a unique identifier. If the concept which the data in your table represents does not conceptually have a unique identifier then it is not an Entity, in the sense intended by the framework.
With this in mind I'd define a Stored Procedure, make it available through my object context, then make the objects encapsulating this data available via a class which lazy-loads the data, manually maps it into the objects you're using and presents it in a read-only manner.
You may also be able to accomplish this by exposing a view and then mapping your entity to the view.