Is there a way to combine code-first and database-first in the same context? We are running into massive development-time performance problems when editing the EDMX file (it takes 1.5 minutes to save). I've moved our non-insert/update/delete UDFs/stored procs to some custom T4 templates that automatically generate model-first code, but I can't seem to get OnModelCreating to be called when EDMX is involved.
Other things we've considered, but won't work for one reason or another:
We can't (reasonably) separate our code to multiple contexts as there is a lot of overlap in our entity relationships. It also seems like quite a people who have gone this route regret it.
We tried having 2 different contexts, but there are quite a few joins between Entities & UDFs. This may be our last hope, but I'd REALLY like to avoid it.
We can't switch to Dapper since we have unfortunately made heavy use of IQueryable.
We tried to go completely to Code-First, but there are features that we are using in EDMX that aren't supported (mostly related to insert/update/delete stored procedure mapping).
Take a look at the following link. I answered another question in a similar fashion:
How to use Repository pattern using Database first approach in entity framework
As I mentioned in that post, I would personally try to switch to a Code First approach and get rid of the EDMX files as it is already deprecated and most importantly, the maintenance effort is considerable and much more complex compared with the Code First approach.
It is not that hard switching to Code First from a Model First approach. Some steps and images down below:
Display all files at the project level and expand the EDMX file. You will notice that the EDMX file has a .TT file which will have several files nested, the Model Context and POCO clases between them as .cs or .vb classes (depending on the language you are using). See image down below:
Unload the project, right click and then edit.
See the image below, notice the dependencies between the context and the TT file
Remove the dependencies, the xml element should look like the image below:
Repeat the procedure for the Model classes (The ones with the model definition)
Reload your project, remove the EDMX file(s)
You will probably need to do some tweeks and update names/references.
I did this a few times in the past and it worked flawlessly on production. You can also look for tools that do this conversion for you.
This might be a good opportunity for you to rethink the architecture as well.
BTW: Bullet point 4 shouldn't be a show stopper for you. You can map/use Stored Procedures via EF. Look at the following link:
How to call Stored Procedure in Entity Framework 6 (Code-First)?
It also seems like quite a people who have gone this route [multiple contexts] regret it.
I'm not one of them.
Your core problem is a context that gets too large. So break it up. I know that inevitably there will be entities that should be shared among several contexts, which may give rise to duplicate class names. An easy way to solve this is to rename the classes into their context-specific names.
For example, I have an ApplicationUser table (who hasn't) that maps to a class with the same name in the main context, but to a class AuthorizationUser in my AuthorizationContext, or ReportingUser in a ReportingContext. This isn't a problem at all. Most use cases revolve around one context type anyway, so it's impossible to get confused.
I even have specialized contexts that work on the same data as other contexts, but in a more economical way. For example, a context that doesn't map to calculated columns in the database, so there are no reads after inserts and updates (apart from identity values).
So I'd recommend to go for it, because ...
Is there a way to combine code-first and database-first in the same context?
No, there isn't. Both approaches have different ways of building the DbModel (containing the store model, the class model, and the mappings between both). In a generated DbContext you even see that an UnintentionalCodeFirstException is thrown, to drive home that you're not supposed to use that method.
mostly related to insert/update/delete stored procedure mapping
As said in another answer, mapping CUD actions to stored procedures is supported in EF6 code-first.
I got here from a link in your comment on a different question, where you asked:
you mentioned that code-first & database-first is "technically possible" could you explain how to accomplish that?
First, the context of the other question was completely different. The OP there was asking if it was possible to use both database-first and code-first methodologies in the same project, but importantly, not necessarily the same context. My saying that it was "technically possible" applies to the former, not the latter. There is absolutely no way to utilize both code-first and database-first in the same context. Actually, to be a bit more specific, let's say there's no way to utilize an existing database and also migrate that same database with new entities.
The terminology gets a bit confused here due to some unfortunate naming by Microsoft when EF was being developed. Originally, you had just Model-first and Database-first. Both utilized EDMX. The only difference was that Model-first would let you design your entities and create a database from that, while Database-first took an existing database and created entities from that.
With EF 4.1, Code-first was introduced, which discarded EDMX entirely and let you work with POCOs (plain old class objects). However, despite the name, Code-first can and always has been able to work with an existing database or create a new one. Code-first, then is really Model-first and Database-first, combined, minus the horrid EDMX. Recently, the EF team has finally taken it a step further and deprecated EDMX entirely, including both the Model-first and Database-first methodologies. It is not recommended to continue to use either one at this point, and you can expect EDMX support to be dropped entirely in future versions of Visual Studio.
With all that said, let's go with the facts. You cannot both have an existing database and a EF-managed database in a single context. You would at least need two: one for your existing tables and one for those managed by EF. More to the point, these two contexts must reference different databases. If there are any existing tables in an EF-managed database, EF will attempt to remove them. Long and short, you have to segregate your EF-managed stuff from your externally managed stuff, which means you can't create foreign keys between entities in one context and another.
Your only real option here is to just do everything "database-first". In other words, you'll have to just treat your database as existing and manually create new tables, alter columns, etc. without relying on EF migrations at all. In this regard, you should also go ahead and dump the EDMX. Generate all your entities as POCOs and simply disable the database initializer in your context. In other words, Code-first with an existing database. I have additional information, if you need it.
Thank you to everyone for the well thought out and thorough answers.
Many of these other answers assume that the stored procedure mappings in EF Code-First work the same, but they do not. I'm a bit fuzzy on this as it's been about 6 months since I looked at it, but I believe as of EF 6.3 code first stored procedures require that you pass every column from your entity to your insert/update stored procedure and that you only pass the key column(s) to your delete procedure. There isn't an option to pick and choose which columns you can pass. We have a requirement to maintain who deleted a record so we have to pass some additional information besides just a simple key.
That being said, what I ended up doing was using a T4 template to automatically generate my EDMX/Context/Model files from the database (with some additional meta-data). This took our developer time experience down from 1.5 minutes to about 5 seconds.
My hope is EF stored procedure mappings will be improved to achieve parody with EDMX and I can then just code-generate the Code-First mappings and remove the EDMX generation completely.
I'm trying to implement EF TPH using the "Database First" with the help of the following document from Microsoft,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/jj618292.aspx
I do understand how this works but it sounds a little naive the way it's done or I'm missing something which I would like someone to enlighten me on this.
To my understanding, the whole point of implementing a database first approach is when you have a pre-exisiting database or if you prefer to do your work first hand on your database and work your way up, however, this document suggests that the inheriting tables (Student, Instructor) are meant to be created at the EF design area using a field on the base class which they call a "Discriminator" field which your inherited entities end up pointing to.
However, my question is, why would you have to create these inherited table at the ER designer where you initially intended to create your table structure first hand before working your way up the entity framework and how would this change that you applied on the ER designer (adding the inherited tables) be mapped into the back-end database, and at the end of the day when I want to make a change to my database later on, where will I have to make these changes (on MS SQL or the ER designer). If I end up adding tables from the ER end, then that would pretty much defeat the purpose of the "Database First" methodology, because I basically ended up using the procedures in the "Model First" approach which doesn't make sense at all.
Your help in clearing this up would be much appreciated.
PLEASE NOTE: I would rather have everything done at my database and rather not use the "Model First" approach. I'm interested to implement the TPH and be able to make any changes directly to my database and have those changes mapped into my EF sublayer (not the other way around).
Many Thanks
I don't see how EF could ever infer inheritance for you. Maybe it would be possible to have it triggered it by a field explicitly named "Discriminator" in a table, but what if you want a different name for the discriminator? And then, what should be the names of the derived classes? EF has no clue. The names are nowhere in the data model.
Still, it is database first. But EF just creates a first draft of the mapping. Nearly always you need to make modifications to the conceptual model (the model you see in the edmx), like renaming properties or classes, renaming/adding/removing associations. Or applying inheritance. When you update the the model from the database it may be necessary to apply some more manual changes. For instance, with TPH inheritance you may have to decide in which class to put a new field.
Maybe you are a bit side tracked by the idea that you "have to create these inherited tables at the ER designer". You define classes that map to one and the same table.
I'm building my EF (v4.0.30319) data model from my SQL Server database. Each table has Created and Updated fields populated via database triggers.
This database is the backend of a ASP.NET Web API application and I recently discovered a problem. The problem is, since the Created and Updated fields are not populated in the model passed into the api endpoint, they are written to the database as NULL. This overwrites any values already in the database for those properties.
I discovered I can edit the EF data model and just delete those two columns from the entity. It works and the datetimes are not overwritten with NULL. But this leads to another, less serious but more annoying, problem... my data model has a bunch of tables that contain these properties and all the tables need to be updated by removing these two columns.
Is there a way to tell EF to ignore certain columns in entities across the entire data model without manually deleting them?
As far as I know, no. Generating the model from the database is going to always create all of the fields from the database table. Well, as long as it has a primary key it will.
It is possible to only update the fields that you want i.e. don't include the "Created" and "Updated" fields in your create and update methods. I'd have to say though, that I'd think it'd be better if those fields didn't even exist on the model at that point. You may at one point see those fields on the model and not remember that they won't get persisted to the DB.
You may want to look into just inserting the datetimes into those fields when you call your create() and update() methods. Then you could just ditch the triggers. You'd obviously want to use a class library for all of your database operations so this functionality would be in one place. To keep it nice and neat, you know?
Trying to understand Entity Framework. My approach is database first. However I would like to define other entites in the model that is closer to my business objects. I guess I could write queries in the db and include them in the model. But I would also like to define entirely new entities in the model though they would be based on underlying tables in the db. How do I do that - does anyone know a tutorial?
Regards
Bjørn
db Oldtimer, EF Newbie
Database first means that you have existing database and you can either create model by updating from database or manually. You can use wizard to create initial model and modify it manually to define new entities but you must not use update from database any more or some of your changes will be deleted. Also your custom modifications must follow EF mapping rules (for example it is not directly possible to map multiple entities to the same table except some more advanced mapping scenarios like splitting and inheritance) and some of them (custom queries) must be done directly in EDMX source (XML) because designer doesn't support them - this requires more complex knowledge of EF mapping and it will be definitely hard for newbie.
You can check specification of that XML. For entities mapped to custom queries you will have to use DefiningQuery element in SSDL part of EDMX.
If we've been using an Entity Framework 4 model for some time, and we eventually want to switch the underlying database to a different vendor's product (say, from SQL Server to MySQL), is it simple to adjust the table and column mappings in the entity model without needing to update any of the entity class code?
We're trying to design code that is as database agnostic as possible, so I'd like to know in advance how much trouble we're in for if we ever switch our databases around. Ideally, we'd like to not have to touch our applications that use our entity classes. I can't seem to find any way in the entity designer or XML editor to adjust the underlying database column names without it giving me an error.
(I can, however, edit the entity's property names in the designer while leaving the database column names alone, but that's the opposite of what I need.)
Thanks!
EDMX is not database agnostic. SSDL part of EDMX is tightly coupled with database server (in case of MSSQL even with its version). You need separate SSDL for each supported database server.
I don't understand how changing column names relates to database agnostic model. Reverse is true! If you need your database to have different column names for different server products you need separate mapping for each of them!
Changing column names when using model first is possible only if you modify T4 template used for generating database creation SQL script. But every time you create that script designer will delete whole your storage description (SSDL) and mapping (MSL) and replace them with a new one.
The easiest way to have database agnostic code is using code first but even then you can have problems with some type and feature inconsistency among servers.
If you want database agnostic ORM you should probably check NHibernate.