I've created a function import that returns the results of a stored proceedure as one of my entities. however I can't seem to traverse my through navigation properties to access the data in other entities. I know that you can use include() for objectQueries but can't find anything that will force the EF to load my relations for entity results of function imports.
Any ideas??
Thanks in advance.
This is not possible in EF 1.0
The reason is that EF will consider stored procedure values to be just values and not navigation properites.
For example, Employee entity has multiple Order entities. In Order you have a property called EmployeeID. When the database fills your query using include statements, it creates 1 projection query in SQL to populate all of the Order data that a particular Employee could have.
So if I said
var employee = context.Employees.Include("Orders").Where(e => e.ID == 1).First();
var orders = employee.Orders;
The SQL for the first query will create a projection query which will contain orders where the EmployeeID = 1.
Now when your stored procedure runs, this can do any code behind the scenes (in otherwords it can return any set of data). So when SQL runs the stored procedure, it just runs the code in that stored procedure and does not have any knowledge that EmployeeID on Order is an FK to that property. Additionally, if your stored procedure returns an Employee entity, then you are looking at another scenario where you will not even have an OrderID to pursue.
To work around this though, you can setup your query in EF using Include statements that can mirror any stored procedure. If you use the proper mix of .Select and .Include statements you should be able to do the same thing.
Related
i would like to know if you have any idea how i can achieve this, considering a query stored as string in the configuration file.
I tried to use SqlQuery applied to the DBSet, but the problem is that SqlQuery requires me to select all properties of the required entities in my query. If i don't consider any column, it will complain because is not able to map the query to the entities.
I don't want to select all properties of the entities i want to query.
Thanks
If you are using EF then why not use Database.ExecuteSqlCommand()? It's in the System.Data.Entity namespace.
For example:
int result = db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("Non SELECT SQL etc...");
Well, I ended up implementing a mechanism using reflection that basically receives a group of fields to select, and constructs dynamic objects with those fields, so when applied the query with the joins between the entities, will only bring the fields I am looking for.
So, considering Entity1, Entity2, Entity3 with the following relationship
<b>Entity1</b>{
<br/> Entity1Name, <br/> List<*Entity2*> Entity2Items, <br/> etc..
<br/>}
and
<b>Entity2</b> { <br/> Entity2Name, <br/> List<*Entity3*> Entity3Items <br/>}
I can store e.g. the following query in the configuration file, and retrieve the information:
"Entity1.Entity1Name", <br/>
"Entity1.Entity2Items.Entity2Name", <br/>
"Entity1.Entity2Items.Entity3Items.Entity3Name"
Anyway, I was just trying to see if there would be any solution out-of-the-box that would require minimal code changes.
Thank you.
I have a legacy database with a particular table -- I will call it ItemTable -- that can have billions of rows of data. To overcome database restrictions, we have decided to split the table into "silos" whenever the number of rows reaches 100,000,000. So, ItemTable will exist, then a procedure will run in the middle of the night to check the number of rows. If numberOfRows is > 100,000,000 then silo1_ItemTable will be created. Any Items added to the database from now on will be added to silo1_ItemTable (until it grows to big, then silo2_ItemTable will exist...)
ItemTable and silo1_ItemTable can be mapped to the same Item entity because the table structures are identical, but I am not sure how to set this mapping up at runtime, or how to specify the table name for my queries. All inserts should be added to the latest siloX_ItemTable, and all Reads should be from a specified siloX_ItemTable.
I have a separate siloTracker table that will give me the table name to insert/read the data from, but I am not sure how I can use this with entity framework...
Thoughts?
You could try to use the Entity Inheritance to get this. So you have a base class which has all the fields mapped to ItemTable and then you have descendant classes that inherit from ItemTable entity and is mapped to the silo tables in the db. Every time you create a new silo you create a new entity mapped to that silo table.
[Table("ItemTable")]
public class Item
{
//All the fields in the table goes here
}
[Table("silo1_ItemTable")]
public class Silo1Item : Item
{
}
[Table("silo2_ItemTable")]
public class Silo2Item : Item
{
}
You can find more information on this here
Other option is to create a view that creates a union of all those table and map your entity to that view.
As mentioned in my comment, to solve this problem I am using the SQLQuery method that is exposed by DBSet. Since all my item tables have the exact same schema, I can use the SQLQuery to define my own query and I can pass in the name of the table to the query. Tested on my system and it is working well.
See this link for an explanation of running raw queries with entity framework:
EF raw query documentation
If anyone has a better way to solve my question, please leave a comment.
[UPDATE]
I agree that stored procedures are also a great option, but for some reason my management is very resistant to make any changes to our database. It is easier for me (and our customers) to put the sql in code and acknowledge the fact that there is raw sql. At least I can hide it from the other layers rather easily.
[/UPDATE]
Possible solution for this problem may be using context initialization with DbCompiledModel param:
var builder = new DbModelBuilder(DbModelBuilderVersion.V6_0);
builder.Configurations.Add(new EntityTypeConfiguration<EntityName>());
builder.Entity<EntityName>().ToTable("TableNameDefinedInRuntime");
var dynamicContext = new MyDbContext(builder.Build(context.Database.Connection).Compile());
For some reason in EF6 it fails on second table request, but mapping inside context looks correct on the moment of execution.
We have a customer very large table with over 500 columns (i know someone does that!)
Many of these columns are in fact foreign keys to other tables.
We also have the requirement to eager load some of the related tables.
Is there any way in Linq to SQL or Dynamic Linq to specify what columns to be retrieved from the database?
I am looking for a linq statement that actually HAS this effect on the generated SQL Statement:
SELECT Id, Name FROM Book
When we run the reguar query generated by EF, SQL Server throws an error that you have reached the maximum number of columns that can be selected within a query!!!
Any help is much appreciated!
Yes exactly this is the case, the table has 500 columns and is self referencing our tool automatically eager loads the first level relations and this hits the SQL limit on number of columns that can be queried.
I was hoping that I can set to only load limited columns of the related Entities such as Id and Name (which is used in the UI to view the record to user)
I guess the other option is to control what FK columns should be eager loaded. However this still remains problem for tables that has a binary or ntext column which you may not want to load all the times.
Is there a way to hook multiple models (Entities) to the same table in Code First? We tried doing this I think the effort failed miserably.
Yes you can return only subset of columns by using projection:
var result = from x in context.LargeTable
select new { x.Id, x.Name };
The problem: projection and eager loading doesn't work together. Once you start using projections or custom joins you are changing shape of the query and you cannot use Include (EF will ignore it). The only way in such scenario is to manually include relations in the projected result set:
var result = from x in context.LargeTable
select new {
Id = x.Id,
Name = x.Name,
// You can filter or project relations as well
RelatedEnitites = x.SomeRelation.Where(...)
};
You can also project to specific type BUT that specific type must not be mapped (so you cannot for example project to LargeTable entity from my sample). Projection to the mapped entity can be done only on materialized data in Linq-to-objects.
Edit:
There is probably some misunderstanding how EF works. EF works on top of entities - entity is what you have mapped. If you map 500 columns to the entity, EF simply use that entity as you defined it. It means that querying loads entity and persisting saves entity.
Why it works this way? Entity is considered as atomic data structure and its data can be loaded and tracked only once - that is a key feature for ability to correctly persist changes back to the database. It doesn't mean that you should not load only subset of columns if you need it but you should understand that loading subset of columns doesn't define your original entity - it is considered as arbitrary view on data in your entity. This view is not tracked and cannot be persisted back to database without some additional effort (simply because EF doesn't hold any information about the origin of the projection).
EF also place some additional constraints on the ability to map the entity
Each table can be normally mapped only once. Why? Again because mapping table multiple times to different entities can break ability to correctly persist those entities - for example if any non-key column is mapped twice and you load instance of both entities mapped to the same record, which of mapped values will you use during saving changes?
There are two exceptions which allow you mapping table multiple times
Table per hierarchy inheritance - this is a mapping where table can contains records from multiple entity types defined in inheritance hierarchy. Columns mapped to the base entity in the hierarchy must be shared by all entities. Every derived entity type can have its own columns mapped to its specific properties (other entity types have these columns always empty). It is not possible to share column for derived properties among multiple entities. There must also be one additional column called discriminator telling EF which entity type is stored in the record - this columns cannot be mapped as property because it is already mapped as type discriminator.
Table splitting - this is direct solution for the single table mapping limitation. It allows you to split table into multiple entities with some constraints:
There must be one-to-one relation between entities. You have one central entity used to load the core data and all other entities are accessible through navigation properties from this entity. Eager loading, lazy loading and explicit loading works normally.
The relation is real 1-1 so both parts or relation must always exists.
Entities must not share any property except the key - this constraint will solve the initial problem because each modifiable property is mapped only once
Every entity from the split table must have a mapped key property
Insertion requires whole object graph to be populated because other entities can contain mapped required columns
Linq-to-Sql also contains ability to mark a column as lazy loaded but this feature is currently not available in EF - you can vote for that feature.
It leads to your options for optimization
Use projections to get read-only "view" for entity
You can do that in Linq query as I showed in the previous part of this answer
You can create database view and map it as a new "entity"
In EDMX you can also use Defining query or Query view to encapsulate either SQL or ESQL projection in your mapping
Use table splitting
EDMX allows you splitting table to many entities without any problem
Code first allows you splitting table as well but there are some problems when you split table to more than two entities (I think it requires each entity type to have navigation property to all other entity types from split table - that makes it really hard to use).
Create stored procedures that query the number of columns needed and then call the stored procs from code.
I have 2 tables
Customer
Order
2 Classes
Customer
Id-Name
Order Id-Description. CustomerName
My stored procedure returns all orders with the customerName as well.
I have used the normal mapping to a Entities =OrderTable
However my customerName is not populated even though the sp returns it.
Should I use a complex type when you have an sp like
Select or.Id,or.Description,c.CustomerName
from order or
join Customer c on c.CustID=or.CustId
where or.OrderId=1
The above is just an example to explain my question.
Not sure but looks like I should use complex no?
Any suggestions?
Since your Orders entity does not have CustomerName, it won't be returned unless you create a complex type that includes all resulting columns from the stored procedure. Another option would be to use a projection or an anonymous type in a simple Linq query, which might work just as well for a query that is this simple.
We've started using Entity Framework 4 for data access and have come across an issue or perhaps lack of understanding.
Our current system is heavily reliant on Stored Procedures, these procedure contain some necessary business logic so we need to continue to use these when doing Select/Insert/Update/Delete.
The issue we are having is the following:
We've mapped a table to an entity, let's say for example this is a User entity and has the following properties - UserId, FirstName, LastName
Now in our sproc to insert a user we accept FirstName, LastName, CreatedById as parameters.
As our User Entity has no CreatedById we get an error indicating that no property of our Entity can be mapped to the "CreatedById" parameter.
Now one thing we've tried is to manually add a CreatedById scalar property to our Entity, but this results in the issue that there is no Field in our User table in the data source that maps to CreatedById. In general the additional property that we'd like to pass in is not something that is stored.
Now there is potential solution to this in that we can just map the procedures to Function Imports and not bother with using the .AddObject, .DeleteObject, .SaveChanges way of manipulating our objects but that doesn't feel like the way to go about it.
that's a good question. There are few options i can tell u.
instead of mapping the entity to the table, map it a view and have the view return CreatedById and then your problem would be solved.
Second option is to create overloaded stored procedure that takes only FirstName, LastName and calls the actual stored procedure with a default value for CreatedById. You can create overloads at the database layer or create it in the model in the ssdl layer which supports inline stored procedure.
exec myproc #firstName,#LastName,null