I am trying to solve a problem as well as learn and improve my code skills here.
I am using Entity Framework and am tasked with writing to a SQL table, where I can update or insert based on whether a row exists or not. If it doesn't exist then add it, if it does exist then update it if required.
I have 2 lists, the first list is the EF type from the table that I am writing to. The second list is a class which is made up from a SQL query but shares some of the columns from the table which needs updating, thus if they differ then update the table with the differing property values.
foreach (var tbl in Table_List)
{
foreach (var query in SQL_Query)
{
if (tbl.ID == query.ID)
{
bool changed = false;
if (tbl.Prop1 != query.Prop1)
{
tbl.Prop1 = query.Prop1;
changed = true;
}
if (tbl.Prop2 != query.Prop2)
{
tbl.Prop2 = query.Prop2;
changed = true;
}
if (changed)
await Context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
}
}
There are 10 properties in total in the class, but even if all 10 of them differ I only have to update 2 properties, the rest can stay the same. So to summarize, my question is;
Is there a better way to update these 2 properties? Something other than a bulky series of if statements and foreach loops? Any info on straight up inserting would be appreciated too, thanks very much!
EF uses an internal ChangeTracker. This means that when you change a property of an entity that is being tracked (you queried the lists using a DbSet on the Context) it will marked as "Changed" in the ChangeTracker. This is used by the SaveChangesAsync to determine what to do, ie. insert of update and what fields need to be updated.
Second, this ChangeTracker is smart enough to detect that when you set a property to the same value it already has it won't be marked as a Change.
Also with this ChangeTracker there is no need to call SaveChangesAsync after every change. You can call it at the end of the loop.
foreach (var tbl in Table_List)
{
foreach (var query in SQL_Query)
{
if (tbl.ID == query.ID)
{
tbl.Prop1 = query.Prop1;
tbl.Prop2 = query.Prop2;
}
}
}
await Context.SaveChangesAsync();
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 am using Seed() method of Configuration.cs class for filling data in database when using Update-Database command.
Among other things I am creating list of EventCategory objects like this:
private IList<EventCategory> CreateEventCategoriesTestDefinition()
{
eventCategories = new List<EventCategory>();
var eventCategoryRecruitment = new EventCategory("Recruitment");
eventCategories.Add(eventCategoryRecruitment);
var eventCategoryInternship = new EventCategory("Internship");
eventCategories.Add(eventCategoryInternship);
var eventCategoryTrainingPrograms = new EventCategory("Training Programs");
eventCategoryTrainingPrograms.Events
.Add(new Event("Managerial Training Program 2012-2014", eventCategoryTrainingPrograms));
eventCategories.Add(eventCategoryTrainingPrograms);
var eventCategoryEmployee = new EventCategory("Employee & Team Potential");
eventCategories.Add(eventCategoryEmployee);
return eventCategories;
}
Adding element by element. eventCategory is just a private property:
private IList<EventCategory> eventCategories;
From Seed() method I am calling CreateEventCategoriesTestDefinition()
Almost everything is good but when I go to database to check data I have noticed that data in EventCategory table doesn't have correct order:
As you can see it on a picture Internshipand Training Programs switched positions comparing to order of adding inCreateEventCategoriesTestDefinition() method.
Does anybody knows what is happening here? Why order of adding is not preserved? I know it should be perserved in List<>, but is not the same for IList<>?
Or this is maybe has something to do with EntityFramework?
If you are relying upon the database for your sorting order then either.
Turn auto-id incrementation off and specify your own ID
EventCategory(int id, string name)
If you have to use database identity then instead try using a sort order (int) column for your objects
EventCategory(string name, int sortOrder)
Either way, you cannot guarantee that you'll get a sorted List persisted to the database. I cant say for certain your use case here, but you shouldn't reply on SQL to sort your objects for you, but when querying the database use linq to order them before binding to a view.
e.g.
var mySortedCategories = dbContext.EventCategories.OrderBy(x => x.Name).ToList();
I'm having an issue with Entity Framework, when I execute SaveChanges, the context has quite a few objects associated with it, some of the objects are updated and some are added, afterwards I want to use the Id's of all these items (the Id's for the added items are only assigned on insert in the database). After the save changes a list of all the objects is empty.
I've seen samples on the site where the object is updated after the save so I suspect it might be how I'm getting the list of objects in the first place
Here's my code:
// Lots of processing to create or update objects
using (var localContext = this.context)
{
var updatedObjects = localContext.ChangeTracker.Entries().Where(e => e.Entity is GenerationEvent && (e.State == EntityState.Modified || e.State == EntityState.Added));
var updatedEvents = updatedObjects.Select(e => (GenerationEvent)e.Entity);
// The list has 5 items in at this point
localContext.SaveChanges();
// This list is now empty
DoSomethingWithList(updatedEvents);
}
Thanks in advance for any help.
The variable updatedEvents is a Linq query. Linq queries aren't executed immediately. By the time it is executed in your code it won't find any updated object anymore. Putting .ToList() after the Linq query will execute it immediately.
var updatedEvents = updatedObjects.Select(e => (GenerationEvent)e.Entity).ToList();
first your "using" statement is odd.
it should be
using (var context = new MyContext()) //passing in optional connection string.
{
}
Then the way you access your entities seem odd or i have no clue what you are doing there...
var updatedObjects = localContext.ChangeTracker.Entries().Where(e => e.Entity is GenerationEvent && (e.State == EntityState.Modified || e.State == EntityState.Added));
var updatedEvents = updatedObjects.Select(e => (GenerationEvent)e.Entity);
Seems like you are asking the context for all items which are considered "Add" or "Updated"
Then you are accepting the changes to the context. eg SaveChanges().
I fully expect "updatedEvents" to be empty, after save-changes is called.
Change you stuff... to something like
using (var context = new MyContext()) //passing in optional connection string.
{
LIst<EntityType> listOfChangedEntities = //ToDo:either passed in or generated
context.EntityType.AddRandge(listOfChangedEntities);
context.SaveChanges();
//after SaveChanges has been done all the entities in the
//listOfChangedEntities will now have there id's
//for update, fetch the entities... change them and Update them
}
I suspect that you are trying to create some sort of generic code to handle any type of Entity without specifying its type. Your code is not suited for this as it is, if this is what you are trying to do, I would modify the question to ask what you are trying to achieve. But the above is the Normal way of getting the Id's of the entities which have been inserted.
The other examples you are passably talking about is where they use foreign keys and navigation properties to automatically associate related entities, but your code looks way off from that.
UPDATE
routine
public static DoWork()
{
var context = new MyContext();
List<GenerationEvent > internalEntityType = new List<GenerationEvent ();
foreach(var item in SomeList)
{
var newItemEntity = new GenerationEvent();
newItemEntity.Name = "Test";
context.GenerationEvent.Add(newItemEntity);
//add to internal list
internalEntityType.Add(newItemEntity )
}
context.SaveChanges();
var first_id = internalEntityType.FirstOrDefault().Id;
//first_id will not be 0 it will be the Id the database gave it.
}
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.