I'm in the process of writing a query manager for a WinForms application that, among other things, needs to be able to deliver real-time search results to the user as they're entering a query (think Google's live results, though obviously in a thick client environment rather than the web). Since the results need to start arriving as the user types, the search will get more and more specific, so I'd like to be able to cancel a query if it's still executing while the user has entered more specific information (since the results would simply be discarded, anyway).
If this were ordinary ADO.NET, I could obviously just use the DbCommand.Cancel function and be done with it, but we're using EF4 for our data access and there doesn't appear to be an obvious way to cancel a query. Additionally, opening System.Data.Entity in Reflector and looking at EntityCommand.Cancel shows a discouragingly empty method body, despite the docs claiming that calling this would pass it on to the provider command's corresponding Cancel function.
I have considered simply letting the existing query run and spinning up a new context to execute the new search (and just disposing of the existing query once it finishes), but I don't like the idea of a single client having a multitude of open database connections running parallel queries when I'm only interested in the results of the most recent one.
All of this is leading me to believe that there's simply no way to cancel an EF query once it's been dispatched to the database, but I'm hoping that someone here might be able to point out something I've overlooked.
TL/DR Version: Is it possible to cancel an EF4 query that's currently executing?
Looks like you have found some bug in EF but when you report it to MS it will be considered as bug in documentation. Anyway I don't like the idea of interacting directly with EntityCommand. Here is my example how to kill current query:
var thread = new Thread((param) =>
{
var currentString = param as string;
if (currentString == null)
{
// TODO OMG exception
throw new Exception();
}
AdventureWorks2008R2Entities entities = null;
try // Don't use using because it can cause race condition
{
entities = new AdventureWorks2008R2Entities();
ObjectQuery<Person> query = entities.People
.Include("Password")
.Include("PersonPhone")
.Include("EmailAddress")
.Include("BusinessEntity")
.Include("BusinessEntityContact");
// Improves performance of readonly query where
// objects do not have to be tracked by context
// Edit: But it doesn't work for this query because of includes
// query.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking;
foreach (var record in query
.Where(p => p.LastName.StartsWith(currentString)))
{
// TODO fill some buffer and invoke UI update
}
}
finally
{
if (entities != null)
{
entities.Dispose();
}
}
});
thread.Start("P");
// Just for test
Thread.Sleep(500);
thread.Abort();
It is result of my playing with if after 30 minutes so it is probably not something which should be considered as final solution. I'm posting it to at least get some feedback with possible problems caused by this solution. Main points are:
Context is handled inside the thread
Result is not tracked by context
If you kill the thread query is terminated and context is disposed (connection released)
If you kill the thread before you start a new thread you should use still one connection.
I checked that query is started and terminated in SQL profiler.
Edit:
Btw. another approach to simply stop current query is inside enumeration:
public IEnumerable<T> ExecuteQuery<T>(IQueryable<T> query)
{
foreach (T record in query)
{
// Handle stop condition somehow
if (ShouldStop())
{
// Once you close enumerator, query is terminated
yield break;
}
yield return record;
}
}
Related
We have an enterprise DB that is replicated through many sites throughout the world. We would like our app to attempt to connect to one of the local sites, and if that site is down we want it to fall back to the enterprise DB. We'd like this behavior on each of our DB operations.
We are using Entity Framework, C#, and SQL Server.
At first I hoped I could just specify a "Failover Partner" in the connection string, but that only works in a mirrored DB environment, which this is not. I also looked into writing a custom IDbExecutionStrategy. But these strategies only allow you to specify the pattern for retrying a failed DB operation. It does not allow you to change the operation in any way like directing it to a new connection.
So, do you know of any good pattern for dealing with this type of operation, other than duplicating retry logic around each of our many DB operations?
Update on 2014-05-14:
I'll elaborate in response to some of the suggestions already made.
I have many places where the code looks like this:
try
{
using(var db = new MyDBContext(ConnectionString))
{
// Database operations here.
// var myList = db.MyTable.Select(...), etc.
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Log exception here, perhaps rethrow.
}
It was suggested that I have a routine that first checks each of the connections strings and returns the first one that successfully connects. This is reasonable as far as it goes. But some of the errors I'm seeing are timeouts on the operations, where the connection works but the DB has issues that keep it from completing the operation.
What I'm looking for is a pattern I can use to encapsulate the unit of work and say, "Try this on the first database. If it fails for any reason, rollback and try it on the second DB. If that fails, try it on the third, etc. until the operation succeeds or you have no more DBs." I'm pretty sure I can roll my own (and I'll post the result if I do), but I was hoping there might be a known way to approach this.
How about using some Dependency Injection system like autofac and registering there a factory for new context objects - it will execute logic that will try to connect first to local and in case of failure it will connect to enterprise db. Then it will return ready DbContext object. This factory will be provided to all objects that require it with Dependency Injection system - they will use it to create contexts and dispose of them when they are not needed any more.
" We would like our app to attempt to connect to one of the local sites, and if that site is down we want it to fall back to the enterprise DB. We'd like this behavior on each of our DB operations."
If your app is strictly read-only on the DB and data consistency is not absolutely vital to your app/users, then it's just a matter of trying to CONNECT until an operational site has been found. As M.Ali suggested in his remark.
Otherwise, I suggest you stop thinking along these lines immediately because you're just running 90 mph down a dead end street. As Viktor Zychla suggested in his remark.
Here is what I ended up implementing, in broad brush-strokes:
Define delegates called UnitOfWorkMethod that will execute a single Unit of Work on the Database, in a single transaction. It takes a connection string and one also returns a value:
delegate T UnitOfWorkMethod<out T>(string connectionString);
delegate void UnitOfWorkMethod(string connectionString);
Define a method called ExecuteUOW, that will take a unit of work and method try to execute it using the preferred connection string. If it fails, it tries to execute it with the next connection string:
protected T ExecuteUOW<T>(UnitOfWorkMethod<T> method)
{
// GET THE LIST OF CONNECTION STRINGS
IEnumerable<string> connectionStringList = ConnectionStringProvider.GetConnectionStringList();
// WHILE THERE ARE STILL DATABASES TO TRY, AND WE HAVEN'T DEFINITIVELY SUCCEDED OR FAILED
var uowState = UOWStateEnum.InProcess;
IEnumerator<string> stringIterator = connectionStringList.GetEnumerator();
T returnVal = default(T);
Exception lastException = null;
string connectionString = null;
while ((uowState == UOWStateEnum.InProcess) && stringIterator.MoveNext())
{
try
{
// TRY TO EXECUTE THE UNIT OF WORK AGAINST THE DB.
connectionString = stringIterator.Current;
returnVal = method(connectionString);
uowState = UOWStateEnum.Success;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
lastException = ex;
// IF IT FAILED BECAUSE OF A TRANSIENT EXCEPTION,
if (TransientChecker.IsTransient(ex))
{
// LOG THE EXCEPTION AND TRY AGAINST ANOTHER DB.
Log.TransientDBException(ex, connectionString);
}
// ELSE
else
{
// CONSIDER THE UOW FAILED.
uowState = UOWStateEnum.Failed;
}
}
}
// LOG THE FAILURE IF WE HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED.
if (uowState != UOWStateEnum.Success)
{
Log.ExceptionDuringDataAccess(lastException);
returnVal = default(T);
}
return returnVal;
}
Finally, for each operation we define our unit of work delegate method. Here an example
UnitOfWorkMethod uowMethod =
(providerConnectionString =>
{
using (var db = new MyContext(providerConnectionString ))
{
// Do my DB commands here. They will roll back if exception thrown.
}
});
ExecuteUOW(uowMethod);
When ExecuteUOW is called, it tries the delegate on each database until it either succeeds or fails on all of them.
I'm going to accept this answer since it fully addresses all of concerns raised in the original question. However, if anyone provides and answer that is more elegant, understandable, or corrects flaws in this one I'll happily accept it instead.
Thanks to all who have responded.
We have a HTTP end-point that takes a long time to run and can also be called concurrently by users. As part of this request, we update the model inside a synchronized block so that other (possibly concurrent) requests pick up that change.
E.g.
MyModel m = null;
synchronized (lockObject) {
m = MyModel.findById(id);
if (m.status == PENDING) {
m.status = ACTIVE;
} else {
//render a response back to user that the operation is not allowed
}
m.save(); //Is not expected to be called unless we set m.status = ACTIVE
}
//Long running operation continues here. It can involve further changes to instance "m"
The reason for the synchronized block is to ensure that even concurrent requests get to pick up the latest status. However, the underlying JPA does not commit my changes (m.save()) until the request is complete. Since this is a long-running request, I do not want to wait until the request is complete and still want to ensure that other callers are notified of the change in status. I tried to call "m.em().flush(); JPA.em().getTransaction().commit();" after m.save(), but that makes the transaction unavailable for the subsequent action as part of the same request. Can I just given "JPA.em().getTransaction().begin();" and let Play handle the transaction from then on? If not, what is the best way to handle this use-case?
UPDATE:
Based on the response, I modified my code as follows:
MyModel m = null;
synchronized (lockObject) {
m = MyModel.findById(id);
if (m.status == PENDING) {
m.status = ACTIVE;
} else {
//render a response back to user that the operation is not allowed
}
m.save(); //Is not expected to be called unless we set m.status = ACTIVE
}
new MyModelUpdateJob(m.id).now();
And in my job, I have the following line:
doJob() {
MyModel m = MyModel.findById(id);
print m.status; //This still prints the old status as-if m.save() had no effect...
}
What am I missing?
Put your update code in a job an call
new MyModelUpdateJob(id).now().get();
thus the update will be done in another transaction that is commited at the end of the job
ouch, as soon as you add more play servers, you will be in trouble. You may want to play with optimistic locking in your example or and I advise against it pessimistic locking....ick.
HOWEVER, looking at your code, maybe read the article Building on Quicksand. I am not sure you need a synchronized block in that case at all...try to go after being idempotent.
In your case if
1. user 1 and user 2 both call that method and it is pending, then it goes to active(Idempotent)
If user 1 or user 2 wins, well that would be like you had the synchronization block anyways.
I am sure however you have a more complex scenario not shown here, BUT READ that article Building on Quicksand as it really changes the traditional way of thinking and is how google and amazon and very large scale systems operate.
Another option for distributed transactions across play servers is zookeeper which the big large nosql guys use BUT only as a last resort ;) ;)
later,
Dean
I am reviewing an application that uses Microsoft Application Blocks for Data Access to interact with the database. The application calls a function and pass a query into it. The function creates a DataReader object using Data Access application blocks (for the given query) and returns the DataReader to the caller.
The application closes DataReader object when it is done. The question I have is, whether closing the DataReader object automatically closes the underlying connection object or not. It is not clear to me whether the Data Access Application Block opens the command object with the "CommandBehavior.CloseConnection" flag.
Questions:
When the Close() method is called on a DataReader object, does it also close the underlying connection object (the DataReader is created using Microsoft Application Blocks - Database.ExecuteReader() method
If not, what is the recommended method to ensure that the connection is freed after we are done with the data reader?
Thanks in advance
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.commandbehavior.aspx
CloseConnection: When the command is executed, the associated Connection object is closed when the associated DataReader object is closed.
It is always a good practice to close and dispose of your objects manually. The GC will eventually collect them, but you don't know when, and when dealing with a database you don't want open connections hanging around eating up resources.
So to answer your questions:
1) Yes, DataReader.Close() will close the connection. This is relevant when dealing with any connected object.
As soon as you close the reader, the connection it was using is then
closed automatically as well. Because Readers are connected objects
(the need an open connection to function correctly), you can't close
the Connection before you are done with the reader.
http://p2p.wrox.com/book-beginning-asp-net-1-0/11037-sqldatareader-close-connection.html
also look at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc188705.aspx
2) I would recommend putting the connection in a using statement:
**these are done using regular SQLClient objects, but they will work with all objects that inherit from the System.Data.Common.DbCommant, System.Data.Common.DbConnection etc. classes.
using(SqlConnection con = new SqlConnection(....))
{
//blah blah blah
con.close();
}
Dispose will be called at the end of the using, which will call close, but I still like to implicitly call it.
or, you can put it in a try/catch statement:
SQLConnection con = new SqlConnection(...);
try
{
con.open();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
}
finally
{
//depending on the version of .NET you might want to do:
//if(con.State != System.Data.ConnectionState.Closed)
// con.Close();
con.close();
}
Miguel Angel Utiel's answer is right, if you use "CommandBehavior.CloseConnection", the connection will close after reader closed. just like this:
OracleDataReader odr = oc.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);
odr.Close();
if (oc.Connection.State == System.Data.ConnectionState.Closed) {
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("connection is closed");
}
if your ExecuteReader() with no parameter,just like
OracleDataReader odr = oc.ExecuteReader();
odr.Close();
if (oc.Connection.State != System.Data.ConnectionState.Closed) {
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("connection is openning");
}
read:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.commandbehavior.aspx
We're trying to play around with RIA Services. I can't seem to figure out how to delete a record. Here's the code I'm trying to use.
SomeDomainContext _SomeDomainContext = (SomeDomainContext)(productDataSource.DomainContext);
Product luckyProduct = (Product)(TheDataGrid.SelectedItem);
_SomeDomainContext.Products.Remove(luckyProduct);
productDataSource.SubmitChanges();
The removing the object from the Entity part works fine, but it doesn't seem to do anything to the DB. Am I using the objects like I'm supposed to, or is there a different way of saving things?
The error system is a little finicky. Try this o get the error if there is one and that will give you an idea. My problem was dependencies to other tables needing deletion first before the object could be. Ex: Tasks deleted before deleting the Ticket.
System.Windows.Ria.Data.SubmitOperation op = productDataSource.SubmitChanges();
op.Completed += new EventHandler(op_Completed);
void TicketsLoaded_Completed(object sender, EventArgs e) {
System.Windows.Ria.Data.SubmitOperation op = (System.Windows.Ria.Data.SubmitOperation)sender;
if (op.Error != null) {
ErrorWindow view = new ErrorWindow(op.Error);
view.Show();
}
}
In the code snippet above, I'd suggest using the callback parameter rather than an event handler.
productsDataSource.SubmitChanges(delegate(SubmitOperation operation) {
if (operation.HasError) {
MessageBox.Show(operation.Error.Message);
}
}, null);
The callback model is designed for the caller of Load/SubmitChanges, while the event is designed for other code that gets a reference to a LoadOperation/SubmitOperation.
Hope that helps...
[I am new to ADO.NET and the Entity Framework, so forgive me if this questions seems odd.]
In my WPF application a user can switch between different databases at run time. When they do this I want to be able to do a quick check that the database is still available. What I have easily available is the ObjectContext. The test I am preforming is getting the count on the total records of a very small table and if it returns results then it passed, if I get an exception then it fails. I don't like this test, it seemed the easiest to do with the ObjectContext.
I have tried setting the connection timeout it in the connection string and on the ObjectConntext and either seem to change anything for the first scenario, while the second one is already fast so it isn't noticeable if it changes anything.
Scenario One
If the connect was down when before first access it takes about 30 seconds before it gives me the exception that the underlying provider failed.
Scenario Two
If the database was up when I started the application and I access it, and then the connect drops while using the test is quick and returns almost instantly.
I want the first scenario described to be as quick as the second one.
Please let me know how best to resolve this, and if there is a better way to test the connectivity to a DB quickly please advise.
There really is no easy or quick way to resolve this. The ConnectionTimeout value is getting ignored with the Entity Framework. The solution I used is creating a method that checks if a context is valid by passing in the location you which to validate and then it getting the count from a known very small table. If this throws an exception the context is not valid otherwise it is. Here is some sample code showing this.
public bool IsContextValid(SomeDbLocation location)
{
bool isValid = false;
try
{
context = GetContext(location);
context.SomeSmallTable.Count();
isValid = true;
}
catch
{
isValid = false;
}
return isValid;
}
You may need to use context.Database.Connection.Open()