Say I have two entities with about 20 properties per entity and a Many-to-Many relationship like so:
User (Id int,Name string, .......)
Issue (Id int,Name string, .......)
IssueAssignment (UserId,RoleId)
I want to create a new Issue and assign it to a number of existing Users. If I have code like so:
foreach(var userId in existingUserIds)
{
int id = userId
var user = _db.Users.First(r => r.Id == id);
issue.AssignedUsers.add(user);
}
_db.Users.AddObject(user);
_db.SaveChanges();
I noticed it seems terrribly inefficient when I run it against my SQL Database. If I look at
the SQL Profiler it's doing the following:
SELECT TOP(1) * FROM User WHERE UserId = userId
SELECT * FROM IssueAssignment ON User.Id = userId
INSERT INTO User ....
INSERT INTO IssueAssignment
My questions are:
(a) why do (1) and (2) have to happen at all?
(b) Both (1) and (2) bring back all fields do I need to do a object projection to limit the
fields, seems like unnecessary work too.
Thanks for the help
I have some possible clues for you:
This is how EF behaves. _db.Users is actaully a query and calling First on the query means executing the query in database.
I guess you are using EFv4 with T4 template and lazy loading is turned on. T4 templates create 'clever' objects which are able to fixup their navigation properties so once you add a User to an Issue it internally triggers fixup and tries to add the Issue to the User as well. This in turns triggers lazy loading of all issues related to the user.
So the trick is using dummy objects instead of real user. You know the id and you only want to create realtion between new issue and existing user. Try this (works with EFv4+ and POCOs):
foreach(var userId in existingUserIds)
{
var user = new User { Id = userId };
var _db.Users.Attach(user); // User with this Id mustn't be already loaded
issue.AssignedUsers.Add(user);
}
context.Issues.AddObject(issue);
context.SaveChanges();
Related
Apparently, EF6 doesn't like objects that have multiple foreign key properties that use the same key value, but do not share the same reference. For example:
var user1 = new AppUser { Id = 1 };
var user2 = new AppUser { Id = 1 };
var address = new Address
{
CreatedBy = user1, //different reference
ModifiedBy = user2 //different reference
};
When I attempt to insert this record, EF throws this exception:
Saving or accepting changes failed because more than one entity of type
'AppUser' have the same primary key value. [blah blah blah]
I've discovered that doing this resolves the issue:
var user1 = new AppUser { Id = 1 };
var user2 = user1; //same reference
I could write some helper code to normalize the references, but I'd rather EF just know they're the same object based on the ID alone.
As for why EF does this, one explanation could be that its trying to avoid doing multipe CRUD operations on the same object since separate instances of the same entity could contain different data. I'd like to be able to tell EF not to worry about that.
Update
So it's as I suspected per my last paragraph above. In absense of a means to tell EF not to do CRUD on either instance, I will just do this for now:
if (address.ModifiedBy.Id == address.CreatedBy.Id)
{
address.ModifiedBy = address.CreatedBy;
}
Works well enough so long as I am not trying to do CRUD on either.
Update2
I've previously resorted to doing this to prevent EF from validating otherwise-required null properties when all I need is the child entity's ID. However, it doesn't keep EF from going into a tizzy over separate instances with the same ID. If it's not going to do CRUD on either AppUser object, why does it care if the instances are different?
foreach (var o in new object[] { address.ModifiedBy, address.CreatedBy })
{
db.Entry(o).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
If you get AppUser from context, then you will not need to do anything, because Entity Framework will track entities:
var user1 = context.AppUsers.Find(1);
var user2 = context.AppUsers.Find(1);
var address = new Address
{
CreatedBy = user1, //different reference
ModifiedBy = user2 //different reference
};
Now, they both will point to same objects and will not cause to conflict.
You can add two extra properties to have the Id for the main objects which is the AppUser, then you can use only one AppUser object and reference it for both the created and modified by properties.
CreatedById = user1.Id,
ModifiedById = user1.Id
Otherwise, your code will end up by saving two instances of AppUser with the same primary key.
Another approach is to set both the foreign key properties to only one AppUserobject
The explanation is that EF's change tracker is an identity map. I.e. a record in the database is mapped to one, and only one, CLR object.
This can be demonstrated easily by trying to attach two objects with the same key:
context.AppUsers.Attach(new AppUser { Id = 1 });
context.AppUsers.Attach(new AppUser { Id = 1 });
The second line will throw an exception:
Attaching an entity of type 'AppUser' failed because another entity of the same type already has the same primary key value.
This also happens if you assign
CreatedBy = user1, //different reference
ModifiedBy = user2 //different reference
Somewhere in the process, user1 and user2 must be attached to the context, giving rise to the exception you get.
Apparently, you have a function that receives two Id values that can be different or identical. Admittedly, it would be very convenient if you could simply create two AppUser instances from these Ids, not having to worry about identical keys. Unfortunately, your solution ...
if (address.ModifiedBy.Id == address.CreatedBy.Id)
... is necessary. Solid enough, though.
In my current project i am working with the database which has very strange table structure (All Id Fields in most tables are marked as not nullable and primary while there is not auto increment increment enabled for them those Id fields need to be unique as well).
unfortunately there is not way i can modify DB so i find another why to handle my problem.
I have no issues while querying for data but during insert What i want to do is,
To get max Id from table where entity is about to be inserted and increment it by one or even better use SSELECT max(id) pattern during insert.
I was hoping to use Interceptor inside EF to achieve this but is looks too difficult for me now and all i managed to do is to identify if this is insert command or not.
Can someone help me through my way on this problem? how can i achieve this and set ID s during insert either by selecting max ID or using SELECT max(id)
public void TreeCreated(DbCommandTreeInterceptionContext context)
{
if (context.OriginalResult.CommandTreeKind != DbCommandTreeKind.Insert && context.OriginalResult.DataSpace != DataSpace.CSSpace) return;
{
var insertCommand = context.Result as DbInsertCommandTree;
var property = insertCommand?.Target.VariableType.EdmType.MetadataProperties.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == "TableName");
if (property == null) return;
var tbaleName = property?.Value as ReadOnlyCollection<EdmMember>;
var variableReference = insertCommand.Target.VariableType.Variable(insertCommand.Target.VariableName);
var tenantProperty = variableReference.Property("ID");
var tenantSetClause = DbExpressionBuilder.SetClause(tenantProperty, DbExpression.FromString("(SELECT MAX(ID) FROM SOMEHOWGETTABLENAME)"));
var filteredSetClauses = insertCommand.SetClauses.Cast<DbSetClause>().Where(sc => ((DbPropertyExpression)sc.Property).Property.Name != "ID");
var finalSetClauses = new ReadOnlyCollection<DbModificationClause>(new List<DbModificationClause>(filteredSetClauses) { tenantSetClause });
var newInsertCommand = new DbInsertCommandTree(
insertCommand.MetadataWorkspace,
insertCommand.DataSpace,
insertCommand.Target,
finalSetClauses,
insertCommand.Returning);
context.Result = newInsertCommand;
}
}
Unfortunately that concept of Interceptor is a little bit new for me and i do not understand it completely.
UPDATE
I manage to dynamically build that expression so that ID field is now included in insert statement, but the problem here is that I can not use SQL query inside it. whenever i try to use this it always results in some wrong SQL query so is there anyway i tweak insert statement so that this SELECT MAX(ID) FROM TABLE_NAME is executed during insert?
Get the next id from the context, and then set the parameter of the insert command accordingly.
void NonQueryExecuting(DbCommand command, DbCommandInterceptionContext<int> interceptionContext)
{
var context = interceptionContext.DbContexts.First() as WhateverYourEntityContainerNameIs;
// get the next id from the database using the context
var theNextId = (from foo in context...)
// update the parameter on the command
command.Parameters["YourIdField"].Value = theNextId;
}
Just bear in mind this is not terribly thread safe; if two users update the same table at exactly the same time, they could theoretically get the same id. This is going to be a problem no matter what update method you use if you manage keys in the application instead of the database. But it looks like that decision is out of your hands.
If this is going to be a problem, you might have to do something more drastic like alter the command.CommandText to replace the value in the values clause with a subquery, for example change
insert into ... values (#YourIdField, ...)
to
insert into ... values ((select max(id) from...), ...)
Im trying to call a stored procedure using Entity framework.
If I go direcly to the web api method it works fine, but when calling it from breeze it causes an exception on the metadata method.
The error is :
"Could not find the CLR type for...".
Anyone know how to fix this?
I had the very same issue, but thank God I figured out a solution. Instead of using a stored procedure, you should use a view, as Breeze recognizes views as DbSet<T>, just like tables. Say you have a SQL server table that contains two tables Customers and Orders.
Customers (**CustomerId**, FirstName, LastName)
Orders (OrderId, #CustomerId, OrderDate, OrderTotal)
Now, say you want a query that returns orders by CustomerId. Usually, you would do that in a stored procedure, but as I said, you need to use a view instead. So the query will look like this in the view.
Select o.OrderId, c.CustomerId, o.OrderDate, o.OrderTotal
from dbo.Orders o inner join dbo.Customers c on c.CustomerId = o.CustomerId
Notice there is no filtering (where ...). So:
i. Create a [general] view that includes the filtering key(s) and name it, say, OrdersByCustomers
ii. Add the OrdersByCustomers view to the entity model in your VS project
iii. Add the entity to the Breeze controller, as such:
public IQueryable<OrdersByCustomers> OrdersByCustomerId(int id)
{
return _contextProvider.Context.OrdersByCustomers
.Where(r => r.CustomerId == id);
}
Notice the .Where(r => r.CustomerId == id) filter. We could do it in the data service file, but because we want the user to see only his personal data, we need to filter from the server so it only returns his data.
iv. Now, that the entity is set in the controller, you may invoke it in the data service file, as such:
var getOrdersByCustomerId = function(orderObservable, id)
{
var query = breeze.EntityQuery.from('OrdersByCustomerId')
.WithParameters({ CustomerId: id });
return manager.executeQuery(query)
.then(function(data) {
if (orderObservable) orderObservable(data.results);
}
.fail(function(e) {
logError('Retrieve Data Failed');
}
}
v. You probably know what to do next from here.
Hope it helps.
I have a table AccountSecurity which is a many-to-many table that relates Account entities and Securities. When I write the query below it returns all Securities that satisfy the where clause. However each Security instance in the list no longer has the reference to the AccountSecurity it came from. So when I do list[0].AccountSecurity it is empty. Is there anyway to include that information? I know I can rewrite the query to return AccountSecurities instead and use .Include("Security") on that, but I wonder if it can be done another way.
var list = (from acctSec in base.context.AccountSecurities
where acctSec.AccountId == accountId
select acctSec.Security).ToList();
UPDATE
Of course if I do two queries the graph gets populated properly, there has to be a way to do this in one shot.
var securities = (from acctSec in base.context.AccountSecurities
where acctSec.AccountId == accountId
select acctSec.Security).ToList();
//this query populates the AccountSecurities references within Security instances returned by query above
var xref = (from acctSec in base.context.AccountSecurities
where acctSec.AccountId == accountId
select acctSec).ToList();
var list = (from sec in base.context.Securities
.Include("AccountSecurity")
where sec.AccountSecurities.Any(as => as.AccountId == accountId)
select sec).ToList();
Try this:
var list = (from acctSec in base.context.AccountSecurities.Include("Security")
where acctSec.AccountId == accountId
select acctSec).ToList();
Then simply use the Security property as needed, and since it's read at the same time AccountSecurities is (single SQL with join), it will be very efficient.
In EF, it is possible to write the following line:
orderLine.OrderReference.EntityKey.EntityKeyValues[0].Value
Which results in the ID of the associated OrderReference.
What would be the solution if I wanted to know the ID's of the orderLines associated with an order?
The point of the line you show is to get the ID without loading orderLine.Order. But you can't get the IDs of a collection without loading. So just look at the ID property, either directly or from the context.
// from context
var lineIds = (from o in Context.Orders
where o.Id = someId
from l in o.Lines
select l.Id).AsEnumerable();
// from loaded order
if (!order.Lines.IsLoaded) order.Lines.Load();
var lineIds = from l in order.Lines
select l.Id;