I have been using NHibernate in my project and it is working very good until the time.
Now I am facing one problem and don't know how to solve it.
Problem is I want to fetch only x columns from table instead of all and then bind this to original entity with fetched columns assigned values where for others should show null.
e.g. I have table Employee as
FieldName DataType
ID int
FName nvarchar(500)
LName nvarchar(500)
Resume nvarchar(max)
From above I want to fetch only Id, FName, LName only and bind it to Employee entity and then we would like to load Resume by making separate database call using NHibernate.
I tried
var list = session
.CreateCriteria(typeof (Employee))
.SetProjection(Projections
.ProjectionList()
.Add(Projections.Property("Id"))
.Add(Projections.Property("FName"))
.Add(Projections.Property("LName")))
.List();
but above code returns restricted column data but in form of array of object.
I wanted this to get bind to entity instead of object array.
So, please share your thoughts on this
You need to set the ResultTransformer and call ToList() with the type, otherwise NHibernate didn't know what to do with the projections. And you need also to specifiy the target property names in your Employee type.
Your query can look simething like this:
var list = session
.CreateCriteria(typeof (Employee))
.SetProjection(Projections
.ProjectionList()
.Add(Projections.Property("Id"), "Id")
.Add(Projections.Property("FName"), "FirstName")
.Add(Projections.Property("LName"), "LastName"))
.SetResultTransformer(Transformers.AliasToBean<Employee>())
.List<Employee>();
Please note: "Id", "FirstName" and "LastName" must be properties in the Employee type.
Answer from #Rabban explains it well; +1 to him. I am just putting it differently.
As you observed, SetProjection will return array of objects. To convert objects to entities, you need to call SetResultTransformer(Transformers.AliasToBean<Entity>(). The code sample is already given in other answer; I will not repeat it.
Problem with your current code is that, you need to type in column names as string. I generally avoid this approach. I prefer to use strongly typed version of same with IQueryOver as below:
public IList<TEntity> GetList<TEntity>(ProjectionList columnList, Junction where, int top) where TEntity : BaseEntity
{
IQueryOver<TEntity> query = null;
if((columnList != null) && (where != null))
{
query = session.QueryOver<TEntity>()
.Select(columnList)
.TransformUsing(Transformers.AliasToBean<TEntity>())
.Where(where);
}
else if((columnList != null) && (where == null))
{
query = session.QueryOver<TEntity>()
.Select(columnList)
.TransformUsing(Transformers.AliasToBean<TEntity>());
}
else if((columnList == null) && (where != null))
{
query = session.QueryOver<TEntity>()
.Where(where);
}
else
{
query = session.QueryOver<TEntity>();
}
IList<TEntity> result = query.Take(top).List();
return result;
}
You can pass strongly typed list of columns to this method as below:
ProjectionList columnList = Projections.ProjectionList();
columnList.Add(Projections.Property<Employee>(x => x.Id));
...
...
I am currently getting this error:
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: New transaction is not allowed because there are other threads running in the session.
while running this code:
public class ProductManager : IProductManager
{
#region Declare Models
private RivWorks.Model.Negotiation.RIV_Entities _dbRiv = RivWorks.Model.Stores.RivEntities(AppSettings.RivWorkEntities_connString);
private RivWorks.Model.NegotiationAutos.RivFeedsEntities _dbFeed = RivWorks.Model.Stores.FeedEntities(AppSettings.FeedAutosEntities_connString);
#endregion
public IProduct GetProductById(Guid productId)
{
// Do a quick sync of the feeds...
SyncFeeds();
...
// get a product...
...
return product;
}
private void SyncFeeds()
{
bool found = false;
string feedSource = "AUTO";
switch (feedSource) // companyFeedDetail.FeedSourceTable.ToUpper())
{
case "AUTO":
var clientList = from a in _dbFeed.Client.Include("Auto") select a;
foreach (RivWorks.Model.NegotiationAutos.Client client in clientList)
{
var companyFeedDetailList = from a in _dbRiv.AutoNegotiationDetails where a.ClientID == client.ClientID select a;
foreach (RivWorks.Model.Negotiation.AutoNegotiationDetails companyFeedDetail in companyFeedDetailList)
{
if (companyFeedDetail.FeedSourceTable.ToUpper() == "AUTO")
{
var company = (from a in _dbRiv.Company.Include("Product") where a.CompanyId == companyFeedDetail.CompanyId select a).First();
foreach (RivWorks.Model.NegotiationAutos.Auto sourceProduct in client.Auto)
{
foreach (RivWorks.Model.Negotiation.Product targetProduct in company.Product)
{
if (targetProduct.alternateProductID == sourceProduct.AutoID)
{
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!found)
{
var newProduct = new RivWorks.Model.Negotiation.Product();
newProduct.alternateProductID = sourceProduct.AutoID;
newProduct.isFromFeed = true;
newProduct.isDeleted = false;
newProduct.SKU = sourceProduct.StockNumber;
company.Product.Add(newProduct);
}
}
_dbRiv.SaveChanges(); // ### THIS BREAKS ### //
}
}
}
break;
}
}
}
Model #1 - This model sits in a database on our Dev Server.
Model #1 http://content.screencast.com/users/Keith.Barrows/folders/Jing/media/bdb2b000-6e60-4af0-a7a1-2bb6b05d8bc1/Model1.png
Model #2 - This model sits in a database on our Prod Server and is updated each day by automatic feeds. alt text http://content.screencast.com/users/Keith.Barrows/folders/Jing/media/4260259f-bce6-43d5-9d2a-017bd9a980d4/Model2.png
Note - The red circled items in Model #1 are the fields I use to "map" to Model #2. Please ignore the red circles in Model #2: that is from another question I had which is now answered.
Note: I still need to put in an isDeleted check so I can soft delete it from DB1 if it has gone out of our client's inventory.
All I want to do, with this particular code, is connect a company in DB1 with a client in DB2, get their product list from DB2 and INSERT it in DB1 if it is not already there. First time through should be a full pull of inventory. Each time it is run there after nothing should happen unless new inventory came in on the feed over night.
So the big question - how to I solve the transaction error I am getting? Do I need to drop and recreate my context each time through the loops (does not make sense to me)?
After much pulling out of hair I discovered that the foreach loops were the culprits. What needs to happen is to call EF but return it into an IList<T> of that target type then loop on the IList<T>.
Example:
IList<Client> clientList = from a in _dbFeed.Client.Include("Auto") select a;
foreach (RivWorks.Model.NegotiationAutos.Client client in clientList)
{
var companyFeedDetailList = from a in _dbRiv.AutoNegotiationDetails where a.ClientID == client.ClientID select a;
// ...
}
As you've already identified, you cannot save from within a foreach that is still drawing from the database via an active reader.
Calling ToList() or ToArray() is fine for small data sets, but when you have thousands of rows, you will be consuming a large amount of memory.
It's better to load the rows in chunks.
public static class EntityFrameworkUtil
{
public static IEnumerable<T> QueryInChunksOf<T>(this IQueryable<T> queryable, int chunkSize)
{
return queryable.QueryChunksOfSize(chunkSize).SelectMany(chunk => chunk);
}
public static IEnumerable<T[]> QueryChunksOfSize<T>(this IQueryable<T> queryable, int chunkSize)
{
int chunkNumber = 0;
while (true)
{
var query = (chunkNumber == 0)
? queryable
: queryable.Skip(chunkNumber * chunkSize);
var chunk = query.Take(chunkSize).ToArray();
if (chunk.Length == 0)
yield break;
yield return chunk;
chunkNumber++;
}
}
}
Given the above extension methods, you can write your query like this:
foreach (var client in clientList.OrderBy(c => c.Id).QueryInChunksOf(100))
{
// do stuff
context.SaveChanges();
}
The queryable object you call this method on must be ordered. This is because Entity Framework only supports IQueryable<T>.Skip(int) on ordered queries, which makes sense when you consider that multiple queries for different ranges require the ordering to be stable. If the ordering isn't important to you, just order by primary key as that's likely to have a clustered index.
This version will query the database in batches of 100. Note that SaveChanges() is called for each entity.
If you want to improve your throughput dramatically, you should call SaveChanges() less frequently. Use code like this instead:
foreach (var chunk in clientList.OrderBy(c => c.Id).QueryChunksOfSize(100))
{
foreach (var client in chunk)
{
// do stuff
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
This results in 100 times fewer database update calls. Of course each of those calls takes longer to complete, but you still come out way ahead in the end. Your mileage may vary, but this was worlds faster for me.
And it gets around the exception you were seeing.
EDIT I revisited this question after running SQL Profiler and updated a few things to improve performance. For anyone who is interested, here is some sample SQL that shows what is created by the DB.
The first loop doesn't need to skip anything, so is simpler.
SELECT TOP (100) -- the chunk size
[Extent1].[Id] AS [Id],
[Extent1].[Name] AS [Name],
FROM [dbo].[Clients] AS [Extent1]
ORDER BY [Extent1].[Id] ASC
Subsequent calls need to skip previous chunks of results, so introduces usage of row_number:
SELECT TOP (100) -- the chunk size
[Extent1].[Id] AS [Id],
[Extent1].[Name] AS [Name],
FROM (
SELECT [Extent1].[Id] AS [Id], [Extent1].[Name] AS [Name], row_number()
OVER (ORDER BY [Extent1].[Id] ASC) AS [row_number]
FROM [dbo].[Clients] AS [Extent1]
) AS [Extent1]
WHERE [Extent1].[row_number] > 100 -- the number of rows to skip
ORDER BY [Extent1].[Id] ASC
We have now posted an official response to the bug opened on Connect. The workarounds we recommend are as follows:
This error is due to Entity Framework creating an implicit transaction during the SaveChanges() call. The best way to work around the error is to use a different pattern (i.e., not saving while in the midst of reading) or by explicitly declaring a transaction. Here are three possible solutions:
// 1: Save after iteration (recommended approach in most cases)
using (var context = new MyContext())
{
foreach (var person in context.People)
{
// Change to person
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
// 2: Declare an explicit transaction
using (var transaction = new TransactionScope())
{
using (var context = new MyContext())
{
foreach (var person in context.People)
{
// Change to person
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
transaction.Complete();
}
// 3: Read rows ahead (Dangerous!)
using (var context = new MyContext())
{
var people = context.People.ToList(); // Note that this forces the database
// to evaluate the query immediately
// and could be very bad for large tables.
foreach (var person in people)
{
// Change to person
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
Indeed you cannot save changes inside a foreach loop in C# using Entity Framework.
context.SaveChanges() method acts like a commit on a regular database system (RDMS).
Just make all changes (which Entity Framework will cache) and then save all of them at once calling SaveChanges() after the loop (outside of it), like a database commit command.
This works if you can save all changes at once.
Just put context.SaveChanges() after end of your foreach(loop).
Making your queryable lists to .ToList() and it should work fine.
FYI: from a book and some lines adjusted because it's still valid:
Invoking SaveChanges() method begins a transaction which automatically rolls back all changes persisted to the database if an exception occurs before iteration completes; otherwise the transaction commits. You might be tempted to apply the method after each entity update or deletion rather than after iteration completes, especially when you're updating or deleting massive numbers of entities.
If you try to invoke SaveChanges() before all data has been processed, you incur a "New transaction is not allowed because there are other threads running in the session" exception. The exception occurs because SQL Server doesn't permit starting a new transaction on a connection that has a SqlDataReader open, even with Multiple Active Record Sets (MARS) enabled by the connection string (EF's default connection string enables MARS)
Sometimes its better to understand why things are happening ;-)
Always Use your selection as List
Eg:
var tempGroupOfFiles = Entities.Submited_Files.Where(r => r.FileStatusID == 10 && r.EventID == EventId).ToList();
Then Loop through the Collection while save changes
foreach (var item in tempGroupOfFiles)
{
var itemToUpdate = item;
if (itemToUpdate != null)
{
itemToUpdate.FileStatusID = 8;
itemToUpdate.LastModifiedDate = DateTime.Now;
}
Entities.SaveChanges();
}
I was getting this same issue but in a different situation. I had a list of items in a list box. The user can click an item and select delete but I am using a stored proc to delete the item because there is a lot of logic involved in deleting the item. When I call the stored proc the delete works fine but any future call to SaveChanges will cause the error. My solution was to call the stored proc outside of EF and this worked fine. For some reason when I call the stored proc using the EF way of doing things it leaves something open.
We started seeing this error "New transaction is not allowed because there are other threads running in the session" after migrating from EF5 to EF6.
Google brought us here but we are not calling SaveChanges() inside the loop. The errors were raised when executing a stored procedure using the ObjectContext.ExecuteFunction inside a foreach loop reading from the DB.
Any call to ObjectContext.ExecuteFunction wraps the function in a transaction. Beginning a transaction while there is already an open reader causes the error.
It is possible to disable wrapping the SP in a transaction by setting the following option.
_context.Configuration.EnsureTransactionsForFunctionsAndCommands = false;
The EnsureTransactionsForFunctionsAndCommands option allows the SP to run without creating its own transaction and the error is no longer raised.
DbContextConfiguration.EnsureTransactionsForFunctionsAndCommands Property
Here are another 2 options that allow you to invoke SaveChanges() in a for each loop.
The first option is use one DBContext to generate your list objects to iterate through, and then create a 2nd DBContext to call SaveChanges() on. Here is an example:
//Get your IQueryable list of objects from your main DBContext(db)
IQueryable<Object> objects = db.Object.Where(whatever where clause you desire);
//Create a new DBContext outside of the foreach loop
using (DBContext dbMod = new DBContext())
{
//Loop through the IQueryable
foreach (Object object in objects)
{
//Get the same object you are operating on in the foreach loop from the new DBContext(dbMod) using the objects id
Object objectMod = dbMod.Object.Find(object.id);
//Make whatever changes you need on objectMod
objectMod.RightNow = DateTime.Now;
//Invoke SaveChanges() on the dbMod context
dbMod.SaveChanges()
}
}
The 2nd option is to get a list of database objects from the DBContext, but to select only the id's. And then iterate through the list of id's (presumably an int) and get the object corresponding to each int, and invoke SaveChanges() that way. The idea behind this method is grabbing a large list of integers, is a lot more efficient then getting a large list of db objects and calling .ToList() on the entire object. Here is an example of this method:
//Get the list of objects you want from your DBContext, and select just the Id's and create a list
List<int> Ids = db.Object.Where(enter where clause here)Select(m => m.Id).ToList();
var objects = Ids.Select(id => db.Objects.Find(id));
foreach (var object in objects)
{
object.RightNow = DateTime.Now;
db.SaveChanges()
}
If you get this error due to foreach and you really need to save one entity first inside loop and use generated identity further in loop, as was in my case, the easiest solution is to use another DBContext to insert entity which will return Id and use this Id in outer context
For example
using (var context = new DatabaseContext())
{
...
using (var context1 = new DatabaseContext())
{
...
context1.SaveChanges();
}
//get id of inserted object from context1 and use is.
context.SaveChanges();
}
I was also facing same issue.
Here is the cause and solution.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cbiyikoglu/archive/2006/11/21/mars-transactions-and-sql-error-3997-3988-or-3983.aspx
Make sure before firing data manipulation commands like inserts, updates, you have closed all previous active SQL readers.
Most common error is functions that read data from db and return values.
For e.g functions like isRecordExist.
In this case we immediately return from the function if we found the record and forget to close the reader.
So in the project were I had this exact same issue the problem wasn't in the foreach or the .toList() it was actually in the AutoFac configuration we used.
This created some weird situations were the above error was thrown but also a bunch of other equivalent errors were thrown.
This was our fix:
Changed this:
container.RegisterType<DataContext>().As<DbContext>().InstancePerLifetimeScope();
container.RegisterType<DbFactory>().As<IDbFactory>().SingleInstance();
container.RegisterType<UnitOfWork>().As<IUnitOfWork>().InstancePerRequest();
To:
container.RegisterType<DataContext>().As<DbContext>().As<DbContext>();
container.RegisterType<DbFactory>().As<IDbFactory>().As<IDbFactory>().InstancePerLifetimeScope();
container.RegisterType<UnitOfWork>().As<IUnitOfWork>().As<IUnitOfWork>();//.InstancePerRequest();
I know it is an old question but i faced this error today.
and i found that, this error can be thrown when a database table trigger gets an error.
for your information, you can check your tables triggers too when you get this error.
I needed to read a huge ResultSet and update some records in the table.
I tried to use chunks as suggested in Drew Noakes's answer.
Unfortunately after 50000 records I've got OutofMemoryException.
The answer Entity framework large data set, out of memory exception explains, that
EF creates second copy of data which uses for change detection (so
that it can persist changes to the database). EF holds this second set
for the lifetime of the context and its this set thats running you out
of memory.
The recommendation is to re-create your context for each batch.
So I've retrieved Minimal and Maximum values of the primary key- the tables have primary keys as auto incremental integers.Then I retrieved from the database chunks of records by opening context for each chunk. After processing the chunk context closes and releases the memory. It insures that memory usage is not growing.
Below is a snippet from my code:
public void ProcessContextByChunks ()
{
var tableName = "MyTable";
var startTime = DateTime.Now;
int i = 0;
var minMaxIds = GetMinMaxIds();
for (int fromKeyID= minMaxIds.From; fromKeyID <= minMaxIds.To; fromKeyID = fromKeyID+_chunkSize)
{
try
{
using (var context = InitContext())
{
var chunk = GetMyTableQuery(context).Where(r => (r.KeyID >= fromKeyID) && (r.KeyID < fromKeyID+ _chunkSize));
try
{
foreach (var row in chunk)
{
foundCount = UpdateRowIfNeeded(++i, row);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
catch (Exception exc)
{
LogChunkException(i, exc);
}
}
}
catch (Exception exc)
{
LogChunkException(i, exc);
}
}
LogSummaryLine(tableName, i, foundCount, startTime);
}
private FromToRange<int> GetminMaxIds()
{
var minMaxIds = new FromToRange<int>();
using (var context = InitContext())
{
var allRows = GetMyTableQuery(context);
minMaxIds.From = allRows.Min(n => (int?)n.KeyID ?? 0);
minMaxIds.To = allRows.Max(n => (int?)n.KeyID ?? 0);
}
return minMaxIds;
}
private IQueryable<MyTable> GetMyTableQuery(MyEFContext context)
{
return context.MyTable;
}
private MyEFContext InitContext()
{
var context = new MyEFContext();
context.Database.Connection.ConnectionString = _connectionString;
//context.Database.Log = SqlLog;
return context;
}
FromToRange is a simple structure with From and To properties.
Recently I faced the same issue in my project so posting my experience and it might help some on the same boat as i was. The issue was due to i am looping through the results of EF select query (results are not retrieved into memory).
var products = (from e in _context.Products
where e.StatusId == 1
select new { e.Name, e.Type });
foreach (var product in products)
{
//doing some insert EF Queries
//some EF select quries
await _context.SaveChangesAsync(stoppingToken); // This code breaks.
}
I have updated my Products select query to bring the results into LIST rather than IQueryable (This seems to be opening the reader throughout for each loop and hence save was failing).
var products = (from e in _context.Products
where e.StatusId == 1
select new { e.Name, e.Type })**.ToList()**; //see highlighted
The code below works for me:
private pricecheckEntities _context = new pricecheckEntities();
...
private void resetpcheckedtoFalse()
{
try
{
foreach (var product in _context.products)
{
product.pchecked = false;
_context.products.Attach(product);
_context.Entry(product).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
catch (Exception extofException)
{
MessageBox.Show(extofException.ToString());
}
productsDataGrid.Items.Refresh();
}
In my case, the problem appeared when I called Stored Procedure via EF and then later SaveChanges throw this exception. The problem was in calling the procedure, the enumerator was not disposed. I fixed the code following way:
public bool IsUserInRole(string username, string roleName, DataContext context)
{
var result = context.aspnet_UsersInRoles_IsUserInRoleEF("/", username, roleName);
//using here solved the issue
using (var en = result.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!en.MoveNext())
throw new Exception("emty result of aspnet_UsersInRoles_IsUserInRoleEF");
int? resultData = en.Current;
return resultData == 1;//1 = success, see T-SQL for return codes
}
}
I am much late to the party but today I faced the same error and how I resolved was simple. My scenario was similar to this given code I was making DB transactions inside of nested for-each loops.
The problem is as a Single DB transaction takes a little bit time longer than for-each loop so once the earlier transaction is not complete then the new traction throws an exception, so the solution is to create a new object in the for-each loop where you are making a db transaction.
For the above mentioned scenarios the solution will be like this:
foreach (RivWorks.Model.Negotiation.AutoNegotiationDetails companyFeedDetail in companyFeedDetailList)
{
private RivWorks.Model.Negotiation.RIV_Entities _dbRiv = RivWorks.Model.Stores.RivEntities(AppSettings.RivWorkEntities_connString);
if (companyFeedDetail.FeedSourceTable.ToUpper() == "AUTO")
{
var company = (from a in _dbRiv.Company.Include("Product") where a.CompanyId == companyFeedDetail.CompanyId select a).First();
foreach (RivWorks.Model.NegotiationAutos.Auto sourceProduct in client.Auto)
{
foreach (RivWorks.Model.Negotiation.Product targetProduct in company.Product)
{
if (targetProduct.alternateProductID == sourceProduct.AutoID)
{
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!found)
{
var newProduct = new RivWorks.Model.Negotiation.Product();
newProduct.alternateProductID = sourceProduct.AutoID;
newProduct.isFromFeed = true;
newProduct.isDeleted = false;
newProduct.SKU = sourceProduct.StockNumber;
company.Product.Add(newProduct);
}
}
_dbRiv.SaveChanges(); // ### THIS BREAKS ### //
}
}
I am a little bit late, but I had this error too. I solved the problem by checking what where the values that where updating.
I found out that my query was wrong and that there where over 250+ edits pending. So I corrected my query, and now it works correct.
So in my situation: Check the query for errors, by debugging over the result that the query returns. After that correct the query.
Hope this helps resolving future problems.
My situation was similar others above. I had an IQueryable which I was doing a foreach on. This in turn called a method with SaveChanges(). Booom exception here as there was already a transaction open from the query above.
// Example:
var myList = _context.Table.Where(x => x.time == null);
foreach(var i in myList)
{
MyFunction(i); // <<-- Has _context.SaveChanges() which throws exception
}
Adding ToList() to the end of the query was the solution in my case.
// Fix
var myList = _context.Table.Where(x => x.time == null).ToList();
Most of answers related with loops. But my problem was different. While i was trying to use multiple dbcontext.Savechanges() command in same scope, i got the error many times.
In my case for ef core 3.1 using
dbcontext.Database.BeginTransaction()
and
dbcontext.Database.CommitTransaction();
has fixed the problem. Here is my entire Code :
public IActionResult ApplyForCourse()
{
var master = _userService.GetMasterFromCurrentUser();
var trainee = new Trainee
{
CourseId = courseId,
JobStatus = model.JobStatus,
Gender = model.Gender,
Name = model.Name,
Surname = model.Surname,
Telephone = model.Telephone,
Email = model.Email,
BirthDate = model.BirthDate,
Description = model.Description,
EducationStatus = EducationStatus.AppliedForEducation,
TraineeType = TraineeType.SiteFirst
};
dbcontext.Trainees.Add(trainee);
dbcontext.SaveChanges();
dbcontext.Database.BeginTransaction();
var user = userManager.GetUserAsync(User).Result;
master.TraineeId = trainee.Id;
master.DateOfBirth = model.BirthDate;
master.EducationStatus = trainee.EducationStatus;
user.Gender = model.Gender;
user.Email = model.Email;
dbcontext.Database.CommitTransaction();
dbcontext.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Home");
}
}
I would like to do something like what is described in this article. However, the article is from 2006, and requires extension methods the author wrote. I'm hoping there's something more built-in at this point.
The intent here is to save a method that contains only operations translatable to T-SQL and use it to assign specific properties in a LINQ-to-SQL select statement. If there's a radically different way to do this then what I've attempted, then that's also a valid answer.
How do I do it?
What I've Tried
I have a query sort of like this:
var theData = (
from inv in dc.Inventory
where inv.IsDeleted == false
join data in cdc.InventoryDatas
on inv.InvKey equals data.ReInvKey
where data.ReColKey == colKey
select new MyClass {
SerialNumber = inv.SerialNumber,
Data = InventoryData.DataExpression( data ),
Name = inv.Name,
}
);
Where InventoryData.DataExpression is defined as such:
public static Expression<Func<InventoryData, string>> DataExpression = (
d => d.TextData != null ? d.TextData
: d.IntegerData != null ? d.IntegerData.ToString()
: d.DecimalData != null ? d.DecimalData.ToString()
: d.DateData != null ? d.DateData.ToString()
: d.BooleanData != null ? d.BooleanData.ToString()
: null
);
But it's not quite right. How can I make this work?
This works just fine when select only data from one table, and when I don't combine other expressions in the right side of the assignment statement for the same property:
Data = InventoryData.DataExpression.Compile()( data )
as do
select InventoryData.CompiledDataExpression( data )
and
select data.GetData()
where CompiledDataExpression is defined as
public static Func<InventoryData, string> CompiledDataExpression
= InventoryData.DataExpression.Compile();
and GetData is defined as
public string GetData() {
// execute the compiled delegete on this InventoryData
var ret = InventoryData.CompiledDataExpression( this );
return ret;
}
However, the delegate is not actually compiled to T-SQL. Instead, whole objects of the type associated with the table are pulled, and then the delegate is executed upon them locally.
I get an error when I try the full query, which joins on other tables and assigns the delegate to just one of several properties, some of which pull data from the other tables.
I have two tables Studies and Series. Series are FK'd back to Studies so one Study contains a variable number of Series.
Each Series item has a Deleted column indicating it has been logically deleted from the database.
I am trying to implement a Deleted property in the Study class that returns true only if all the contained Series are deleted.
I am using O/R Designer generated classes, so I added the following to the user modifiable partial class for the Study type:
public bool Deleted
{
get
{
var nonDeletedSeries = from s in Series
where !s.Deleted
select s;
return nonDeletedSeries.Count() == 0;
}
set
{
foreach (var series in Series)
{
series.Deleted = value;
}
}
}
This gives an exception "The member 'PiccoloDatabase.Study.Deleted' has no supported translation to SQL." when this simple query is executed that invokes get:
IQueryable<Study> dataQuery = dbCtxt.Studies;
dataQuery = dataQuery.Where((s) => !s.Deleted);
foreach (var study in dataQuery)
{
...
}
Based on this http://www.foliotek.com/devblog/using-custom-properties-inside-linq-to-sql-queries/, I tried the following approach:
static Expression<Func<Study, bool>> DeletedExpr = t => false;
public bool Deleted
{
get
{
var nameFunc = DeletedExpr.Compile();
return nameFunc(this);
}
set
{ ... same as before
}
}
I get the same exception when a query is run that there is no supported translation to SQL. (
The logic of the lambda expression is irrelevant yet - just trying to get past the exception.)
Am I missing some fundamental property or something to allow translation to SQL? I've read most of the posts on SO about this exception, but nothing seems to fit my case exactly.
I believe the point of LINQ-to-SQL is that your entities are mapped for you and must have correlations in the database. It appears that you are trying to mix the LINQ-to-Objects and LINQ-to-SQL.
If the Series table has a Deleted field in the database, and the Study table does not but you would like to translate logical Study.Deleted into SQL, then extension would be a way to go.
public static class StudyExtensions
{
public static IQueryable<study> AllDeleted(this IQueryable<study> studies)
{
return studies.Where(study => !study.series.Any(series => !series.deleted));
}
}
class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
DBDataContext db = new DBDataContext();
db.Log = Console.Out;
var deletedStudies =
from study in db.studies.AllDeleted()
select study;
foreach (var study in deletedStudies)
{
Console.WriteLine(study.name);
}
}
}
This maps your "deleted study" expression into SQL:
SELECT t0.study_id, t0.name
FROM study AS t0
WHERE NOT EXISTS(
SELECT NULL AS EMPTY
FROM series AS t1
WHERE (NOT (t1.deleted = 1)) AND (t1.fk_study_id = t0.study_id)
)
Alternatively you could build actual expressions and inject them into your query, but that is an overkill.
If however, neither Series nor Study has the Deleted field in the database, but only in memory, then you need to first convert your query to IEnumerable and only then access the Deleted property. However doing so would transfer records into memory before applying the predicate and could potentially be expensive. I.e.
var deletedStudies =
from study in db.studies.ToList()
where study.Deleted
select study;
foreach (var study in deletedStudies)
{
Console.WriteLine(study.name);
}
When you make your query, you will want to use the statically defined Expression, not the property.
Effectively, instead of:
dataQuery = dataQuery.Where((s) => !s.Deleted);
Whenever you are making a Linq to SQL query, you will instead want to use:
dataQuery = dataQuery.Where(DeletedExpr);
Note that this will require that you can see DeletedExpr from dataQuery, so you will either need to move it out of your class, or expose it (i.e. make it public, in which case you would access it via the class definition: Series.DeletedExpr).
Also, an Expression is limited in that it cannot have a function body. So, DeletedExpr might look something like:
public static Expression<Func<Study, bool>> DeletedExpr = s => s.Series.Any(se => se.Deleted);
The property is added simply for convenience, so that you can also use it as a part of your code objects without needing to duplicate the code, i.e.
var s = new Study();
if (s.Deleted)
...
Is there a "best practice" way of handling bulk inserts (via LINQ) but discard records that may already be in the table? Or I am going to have to either do a bulk insert into an import table then delete duplicates, or insert one record at a time?
08/26/2010 - EDIT #1:
I am looking at the Intersect and Except methods right now. I am gathering up data from separate sources, converting into a List, want to "compare" to the target DB then INSERT just the NEW records.
List<DTO.GatherACH> allACHes = new List<DTO.GatherACH>();
State.IState myState = null;
State.Factory factory = State.Factory.Instance;
foreach (DTO.Rule rule in Helpers.Config.Rules)
{
myState = factory.CreateState(rule.StateName);
List<DTO.GatherACH> stateACHes = myState.GatherACH();
allACHes.AddRange(stateACHes);
}
List<Model.ACH> newRecords = new List<Model.ACH>(); // Create a disconnected "record set"...
foreach (DTO.GatherACH record in allACHes)
{
var storeInfo = dbZach.StoreInfoes.Where(a => a.StoreCode == record.StoreCode && (a.TypeID == 2 || a.TypeID == 4)).FirstOrDefault();
Model.ACH insertACH = new Model.ACH
{
StoreInfoID = storeInfo.ID,
SourceDatabaseID = (byte)sourceDB.ID,
LoanID = (long)record.LoanID,
PaymentID = (long)record.PaymentID,
LastName = record.LastName,
FirstName = record.FirstName,
MICR = record.MICR,
Amount = (decimal)record.Amount,
CheckDate = record.CheckDate
};
newRecords.Add(insertACH);
}
The above code builds the newRecords list. Now, I am trying to get the records from this List that are not in the DB by comparing on the 3 field Unique Index:
AchExceptComparer myComparer = new AchExceptComparer();
var validRecords = dbZach.ACHes.Intersect(newRecords, myComparer).ToList();
The comparer looks like:
class AchExceptComparer : IEqualityComparer<Model.ACH>
{
public bool Equals(Model.ACH x, Model.ACH y)
{
return (x.LoanID == y.LoanID && x.PaymentID == y.PaymentID && x.SourceDatabaseID == y.SourceDatabaseID);
}
public int GetHashCode(Model.ACH obj)
{
return base.GetHashCode();
}
}
However, I am getting this error:
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.Linq.IQueryable1[MisterMoney.LARS.ZACH.Model.ACH] Intersect[ACH](System.Linq.IQueryable1[MisterMoney.LARS.ZACH.Model.ACH], System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable1[MisterMoney.LARS.ZACH.Model.ACH], System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer1[MisterMoney.LARS.ZACH.Model.ACH])' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
Any ideas? And yes, this is completely inline with the original question. :)
You can't do bulk inserts with LINQ to SQL (I presume you were referring to LINQ to SQL when you said "LINQ"). However, based on what you're describing, I'd recommend checking out the new MERGE operator of SQL Server 2008.
Inserting, Updating, and Deleting Data by Using MERGE
Another example here.
I recommend you just write the SQL yourself to do the inserting, I find it is a lot faster and you can get it to work exactly how you want it to. When I did something similar to this (just a one-off program) I just used a Dictionary to hold the ID's I had inserted already, to avoid duplicates.
I find LINQ to SQL is good for one record or a small set that does its entire lifespan in the LINQ to SQL.
Or you can try to use SQL Server 2008's Bulk Insert .
One thing to watch out for is if you queue more than 2000 or so records without calling SubmitChanges() - TSQL has a limit on the number of statements per execution, so you cannot simply queue up every record and then call SubmitChanges() as this will throw an SqlException, you need to periodically clear the queue to avoid this.