I have linked 2 Entities Project, Train with a many to many relationship.
Now, I want to add an existing Train to Project.Trains. Unfortunately, the collection has a lot of entries. When I write project.Trains.Add(...) it materializes the complete collection and this takes a lot of time. Is there a way to tell EF that I want to add the Train to the Project without materializing the collection, so that the action is faster?
Assuming that the Train.Projects collection will have fewer items than its Project.Trains counterpart, a quick solution would be adding the Project to the Train instead of the other way around:
train.Projects.Add(project);
Yes, there is a way of doing it, but it is very difficult, and it involves digging into the very interna of EF. If you use the proxies generated by EF, they will typically implement IEntityWithRelationships. You will be able to access the relationship manager as
var entityWithRelationships = project as IEntityWithRelationships;
var relatedEnd = entityWithRelationships.RelationshipManager.GetRelatedEnd("RelationshipName as found in Metadata");
With this setup you should be able to add the Train as follows:
context.Trains.Add(train);
relatedEnd.Add(train);
As said, it is a long way to make it work, but it would solve your problem.
You can:
1- Turn off lazy loading. This way, accessing Trains doesn't make a
query to DB. But be aware of the side effects because you may have
already relied on it.
2- Close to Relational Database world: Add FK property to Train entity and set it on the newly created
object:
newTrain.ProjectId = project.Id
3- Even more Close to Relational Database world: Add junction table of ProjectTrain, to implement Many-to-Many relation
public class ProjectTrain
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public Project Project {get;set;}
public Train Train {get;set;}
}
and add this to the context:
DBSet<ProjectTrain> ProjectTrains {get;set;}
and finally, make a new entity of ProjectTrains and set the Train and Project properties
Related
I'm following this tutorial in order to implement a local database (using SQLite) for my WPF application.
Everything works as it should, although I have a logical problem I don't know how to solve using this approach. I'll simplify it below.
Database-wise, I have 2 tables (A,B) which share a many-to-many relationship, and thus require a JOIN table as well (ABJoin).
In my actual code however, I'd like to use only 2 models: A and B, which each having a list of the other type. Like this:
public class A {
// ...fields
List<B> bList;
}
public class B {
// ...fields
List<A> aList;
}
How can it be implemented in EF+SQLite?
Searching online, I have found some solutions, but nothing that applies to SQLite, so I was not sure how they'd work.
Configure Many-to-Many Relationships in Code-First
If you are using many to many join table then your each class should have a list of the join table.
It cannot work the way you are thinking.
Are you sure that it is a good idea not to have a third entity?
Lets say your two entities were DepartmentStore and Product, a typical example for an n:n relationship. A department store can sell many products and a product may be available in many departments stores. This results in a third entity which connects the two above, in the example above this would something like ProductAvailability.
If you think about it more careful, then you might realize that the new connecting entity might have properties of its own. In my example this might be NumberOfProducts, will states the available quantity of a product in a certain department store.
In my experience, it is quite common for the connecting entity to have a real value that goes beyond just connecting two other entities.
I also took a look at you example which it about Album and Artist entities.
Do you want to make a data model where an Album can be created by more than one Artist?
Entity Framework doesn't have automatic many-to-many mapping.
Instead of this, you can map A and B to intermediate table as one-to-many.
If you are not obliged to use only EF, I suggest to try NHibernate ORM instead.
It has convenient many-to-many mapping and generally more powerful.
I am currently working towards implementing a charting library with a database that contains a large amount of data. For the table I am using, the raw data is spread out across 148 columns of data, with over 1000 rows. As I have only created models for tables that contain a few columns, I am unsure how to go about implementing a model for this particular table. My usual method of creating a model and using the Entity Framework to connect it to a database doesn't seem practical, as implementing 148 properties for each column does not seem like an efficient method.
My questions are:
What would be a good method to implement this table into an MVC project so that there are read actions that allow one to pull the data from the table?
How would one structure a model so that one could read 148 columns of data from it without having to declare 148 properties?
Is the Entity Framework an efficient way of achieving this goal?
Entity Framework Database First sounds like the perfect solution for your problem.
Data first models mean how they sound; the data exists before the code does. Entity Framework will create the models as partial classes for you based on the table you direct it to.
Additionally, exceptions won't be thrown if the table changes (as long as nothing is accessing a field that doesn't exist), which can be extremely beneficial in a lot of cases. Migrations are not necessary. Instead, all you have to do is right click on the generated model and click "Update Model from Database" and it works like magic. The whole process can be significantly faster than Code First.
Here is another tutorial to help you.
yes with Database First you can create the entites so fast, also remember that is a good practice return onlye the fiedls that you really need, so, your entity has 148 columns, but your app needs only 10 fields, so convert the original entity to a model or viewmodel and use it!
One excelent tool that cal help you is AutoMapper
Regards,
Wow, that's a lot of columns!
Given your circumstances a few thoughts come to mind:
1: If your problem is the leg work of creating that many properties you could look at Entity Framework Power Tools. EF Tools is able to reverse engineer a database and create the necessary models/entity relation mappings for you, saving you a lot of the grunt work.
To save you pulling all of that data out in one go you can then use projections like so:
var result = DbContext.ChartingData.Select(x => new PartialDto {
Property1 = x.Column1,
Property50 = x.Column50,
Property109 = x.Column109
});
A tool like AutoMapper will allow you to do this with ease via simply configurable mapping profiles:
var result = DbContext.ChartingData.Project().To<PartialDto>().ToList();
2: If you have concerns with the performance of manipulating such large entities through Entity Framework then you could also look at using something like Dapper (which will happily work alongside Entity Framework).
This would save you the hassle of modelling the entities for the larger tables but allow you to easily query/update specific columns:
public class ModelledDataColumns
{
public string Property1 { get; set; }
public string Property50 { get; set; }
public string Property109 { get; set; }
}
const string sqlCommand = "SELECT Property1, Property50, Property109 FROM YourTable WHERE Id = #Id";
IEnumerable<ModelledDataColumns> collection = connection.Query<ModelledDataColumns>(sqlCommand", new { Id = 5 }).ToList();
Ultimately if you're keen to go the Entity Framework route then as far as I'm aware there's no way to pull that data from the database without having to create all of the properties one way or another.
We've been using the Entity framework-code first approach and Fluent Api, and have this requirement, an entity with multiple navigation properties and the possibility of numerous entries.
This entity reflects the data of a process and a field captures whether the entity is active in the process. I've provided an example for this.
public class ProcessEntity
{
//Other properties and Navigation properties
public bool IsInProcess { get; set; }
}
What I've been trying to do is, have an another table could be a mapping table or something that will contain only the ProcessEntity items whose IsInProcess property is set to true, ie.,this table provides the ProcessEntities that are active in the process.
The whole idea and thought behind this segregation is that, a lot of queries and reports are generated only on the items that are still in process and querying the whole table every time with a Where clause would be a performance bottleneck. Please correct me If I'm wrong.
I thought of having a mapping table but the entries have to be manually added and removed based on the condition.
Is there any other solution or alternative design ideas for this requirement?
Consider using an index.
Your second table is what an index would do.
Let the DB do its job.
Given that a boolean isnt a great differentiator, a date or similiar as part of the index may also be useful.
eg How to create index in Entity Framework 6.2 with code first
Hello I'm trying to do the impossible apparently.
I need a self referenced table with a many to many relationship to itself that also has a specific order in c# entity framework (4.2) database first.
Think of it like Friends having Friends in which they order their friendship > Best Friend to Worst Friend.
Is there anyway to do this without using the "FriendToFriend" relationship entity? I would like to be able to use Friend.Friends (removing the order column creates it), but I would have a default order based on their friendshipOrder. My work around is looking like extending the generated classes to have a new property for Friends in order.
Any one else have any better ideas?
Entity framework does not support ordered collections. This is one of many situations where EF shows its immaturity.
Try nHibernate if it is a viable option. It supports ordered collections.
With EF you will have to map the intermediate table with extra column and manually adjust the ordering according to your logic.
I know I'm late to this, but when designing this as a data model, I would prefer to add a relationship table, and that relationship table should have a property that defines the order (for example, worst friend is 0, best is 100).
Then, in EF, I would explicitly order by that property, if the list I'm retrieving should be of that order.
That means that whatever method you use to query the data, that relationship can be consistently used. So if you were using EF, you could use it (although, yes, it's not as handy as Friend.Friends, but the code would be clearer as to its intention - Friend.FriendRelationships.Select(p => p.Friend).OrderBy(p => p.OrderValue)), and if you were using direct SQL, then you could use it too.
If I came across Friend.Friends in code, I would have no idea what ordering would be applied to it.
If you must have it though, you could always add it as a non-db property -
public class Friend
{
public virtual List<FriendRelationship> UnorderedFriendList { get; set; }
[NotMapped]
public IEnumerable<Friend> Friends
{
get
{
return UnorderedFriendList.Select(p => p.Friend).OrderByDescending(p => p.OrderValue);
}
}
}
I am using repository pattern in a .NET C# application that does not use an ORM. However the issue I am having is how to fill One-to-many List properties of an entity. e.g. if a customer has a list of orders i.e. if the Customer class has a List property called Orders and my repository has a method called GetCustomerById, then?
Should I load the Orders list within the GetCustomerById method?
What if the Order itself has another list property and so on?
What if I want to do lazy loading? Where would I put the code to load the Orders property in customer? Inside the Orders property get{} accessor? But then I would have to inject repository into the domain entity? which I don't think is the right solution.
This also raises questions for Features like Change Tracking, Deleting etc? So i think the end result is can I do DDD without ORM ?
But right now I am only interested in lazy loading List properties in my domain entities? Any idea?
Nabeel
I am assuming this is a very common issue for anyone not using an ORM in a Domain Driven Design? Any idea?
can I do DDD without ORM ?
Yes, but an ORM simplifies things.
To be honest I think your problem isn't to do with whether you need an ORM or not - it's that you are thinking too much about the data rather than behaviour which is the key for success with DDD. In terms of the data model, most entities will have associations to most another entities in some form, and from this perspective you could traverse all around the model. This is what it looks like with your customer and orders and perhaps why you think you need lazy loading. But you need to use aggregates to break these relationships up into behavioural groups.
For example why have you modelled the customer aggregate to have a list of order? If the answer is "because a customer can have orders" then I'm not sure you're in the mindset of DDD.
What behaviour is there that requires the customer to have a list of orders? When you give more thought to the behaviour of your domain (i.e. what data is required at what point) you can model your aggregates based around use cases and things become much clearer and much easier as you are only change tracking for a small set of objects in the aggregate boundary.
I suspect that Customer should be a separate aggregate without a list of orders, and Order should be an aggregate with a list of order lines. If you need to perform operations on each order for a customer then use orderRepository.GetOrdersForCustomer(customerID); make your changes then use orderRespository.Save(order);
Regarding change tracking without an ORM there are various ways you can do this, for example the order aggregate could raise events that the order repository is listening to for deleted order lines. These could then be deleted when the unit of work completed. Or a slightly less elegant way is to maintain deleted lists, i.e. order.DeletedOrderLines which your repository can obviously read.
To Summarise:
I think you need to think more about behaviour than data
ORM's make life easier for change tracking, but you can do it without one and you can definitely do DDD without one.
EDIT in response to comment:
I don't think I'd implement lazy loading for order lines. What operations are you likely to perform on the order without needing the order lines? Not many I suspect.
However, I'm not one to be confined to the 'rules' of DDD when it doesn't seem to make sense, so... If in the unlikely scenario that there are a number of operations performed on the order object that didn't require the order lines to be populated AND there are often a large number of order lines associated to an order (both would have to be true for me to consider it an issue) then I'd do this:
Have this private field in the order object:
private Func<Guid, IList<OrderLine>> _lazilyGetOrderLines;
Which would be passed by the order repository to the order on creation:
Order order = new Order(this.GetOrderLines);
Where this is a private method on the OrderRepository:
private IList<OrderLine> GetOrderLines(Guid orderId)
{
//DAL Code here
}
Then in the order lines property could look like:
public IEnumberable<OrderLine> OrderLines
{
get
{
if (_orderLines == null)
_orderLines = _lazilyGetOrderLines(this.OrderId);
return _orderLines;
}
}
Edit 2
I've found this blog post which has a similar solution to mine but slightly more elegant:
http://thinkbeforecoding.com/post/2009/02/07/Lazy-load-and-persistence-ignorance
1) Should I load the Orders list within the GetCustomerById method?
It's probably a good idea to separate the order mapping code from the customer mapping code. If you're writing your data access code by hand, calling that mapping module from the GetCustomerById method is your best option.
2) What if the Order itself has another list property and so on?
The logic to put all those together has to live somewhere; the related aggregate repository is as good a place as any.
3) What if I want to do lazy loading? Where would I put the code to load the Orders property in customer? Inside the Orders property get{} accessor? But then I would have to inject repository into the domain entity? which I don't think is the right solution.
The best solution I've seen is to make your repository return subclassed domain entities (using something like Castle DynamicProxy) - that lets you maintain persistence ignorance in your domain model.
Another possible answer is to create a new Proxy object that inherits from Customer, call it CustomerProxy, and handle the lazy load there. All this is pseudo-code, so it's to give you an idea, not just copy and paste it for use.
Example:
public class Customer
{
public id {get; set;}
public name {get; set;}
etc...
public virtual IList<Order> Orders {get; protected set;}
}
here is the Customer "proxy" class... this class does not live in the business layer, but in the Data Layer along with your Context and Data Mappers. Note that any collections you want to make lazy-load you should declare as virtual (I believe EF 4.0 also requires you to make props virtual, as if spins up proxy classes at runtime on pure POCO's so the Context can keep track of changes)
internal sealed class CustomerProxy : Customer
{
private bool _ordersLoaded = false;
public override IList<Order> Orders
{
get
{
IList<Order> orders = new List<Order>();
if (!_ordersLoaded)
{
//assuming you are using mappers to translate entities to db and back
//mappers also live in the data layer
CustomerDataMapper mapper = new CustomerDataMapper();
orders = mapper.GetOrdersByCustomerID(this.ID);
_ordersLoaded = true;
// Cache Cases for later use of the instance
base.Orders = orders;
}
else
{
orders = base.Orders;
}
return orders;
}
}
}
So, in this case, our entity object, Customer is still free from database/datamapper code calls, which is what we want... "pure" POCO's. You've delegated the lazy-load to the proxy object which lives in the Data layer, and does instantiate data mappers and make calls.
there is one drawback to this approach, which is calling client code can't override the lazy load... it's either on or off. So it's up to you in your particular usage circumstance. If you know maybe 75% of the time you'll always needs the Orders of a Customer, than lazy-load is probably not the best bet. It would be better for your CustomerDataMapper to populate that collection at the time you get a Customer entity.
Again, I think NHibernate and EF 4.0 both allow you to change lazy-loading characteristics at runtime, so, as per usual, it makes sense to use an ORM, b/c a lot of functionality is provided for you.
If you don't use Orders that often, then use a lazy-load to populate the Orders collection.
I hope that this is "right", and is a way of accomplishing lazy-load the correct way for Domain Model designs. I'm still a newbie at this stuff...
Mike