Insert new entity to database with closed tracking change in LinqToSql - c#

Datacontext throws "object tracking is not enabled for the current datacontext instance" exception when i try to add new entities to db as below.
db.Posts.InsertOnSubmit(new entity);
Enabling tracking change is not a solution for me because it is too slow when i have many insert operation.
What is solution in this case ?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Depending on your database structure, you could consider using two datacontexts.
One with changetracking enabled, one disabled.
However, you will still have one insert statement per record. That is just how linq-2-sql operates and there is no solution to that within l-2-s. You have to look into the SqlBulkCopy class for bulkinsertions.

Typically enabling and disabling object tracking simply wires up or ignores the change tracking event handlers. If you are trying to insert so many items that it becomes too slow when trying to wire up these events, you have a much bigger problem.
Remember, LINQ to SQL will issue a separate database request for each record you are adding. The network bottleneck here will surely be a bigger issue than just wiring up the change tracking events. LINQ to SQl isn't the best choice for bulk inserts. Consider using SSIS/Bulk Copy for that kind of operation.

Related

How to access to the DBContext used in an EntityManager?

I insert/update a large amount of entities (~5000) during a process and this is taking a huge amount of time (it timeout on a 5 minutes transaction).
I read that by default the DBContext.AutoDetectChangesEnabled is set to ON and cause this kind of behavior (http://www.exsertus.be/2014/10/ef-bulk-performance/).
To my understanding, Devforce "kind of" encapsulate a DBContext within each EntityManager. Devforce use it's own implementation unless I define mine which I did. I would like to know how can I access it to be able to "play" with this property AutoDetectChangesEnabled.
Or are there any other solution to insert/update/delete large amount of entities with Devforce ?
Regards
I have worked with this EF tool "https://www.nuget.org/packages/EFUtilities" and I got big performance enhancement with large inserts, as it uses bulk copy instead of normal insert per entity.
You can check the documentation of Github here.
I have used it with a 17,000 entities insert transaction and it finished it in a few seconds.
Check this to get a better understanding and comparison with EF.
http://blog.credera.com/technology-insights/microsoft-solutions/entity-framework-batch-operations-using-ef-utilities/
A sample of using the utility to insert a list of entities is like this:
using (var db = new YourDbContext())
{
EFBatchOperation.For(db, db.BlogPosts).InsertAll(list);
}
Hope this helps.
Since you've defined your own DbContext you can alter this property setting in the DbContext constructor with Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false;
However, I'm not sure how much this change will help. If your application is n-tier and you're trying to save ~5000 entities across the wire this will always be slow, and you'll also run into communication timeouts. Generally if you need to do any bulk operations DevForce isn't the optimal approach.

Entity Framework and ADO.NET with Unit of Work pattern

We have a system built using Entity Framework 5 for creating, editing and deleting data but the problem we have is that sometimes EF is too slow or it simply isn't possible to use entity framework (Views which build data for tables based on users participating in certain groups in database, etc) and we are having to use a stored procedure to update the data.
However we have gotten ourselves into a problem where we are having to save the changes to EF in order to have the data in the database and then call the stored procedures, we can't use ITransactionScope as it always elevates to a distributed transaction and/or locks the table(s) for selects during the transaction.
We are also trying to introduce a DomainEvents pattern which will queue events and raise them after the save changes so we have the data we need in the DB but then we may end up with the first part succeeding and the second part failing.
Are there any good ways to handle this or do we need to move away from EF entirely for this scenario?
I had similar scenario . Later I break the process into small ones and use EF only, and make each small process short. Even overall time is longer, but system is easier to maintain and scale. Also I minimized joins, only update entity itself, disable EF'S AutoDetectChangesEnabled and ValidateOnSaveEnabled.
Sometimes if you look your problem in different ways, you may have better solution.
Good luck!

EF Code First - SqlServerCE Trigger

i use the entity framework code first for my application and i need a trigger.
My Application should support different database engines like
Sql Server
SqlServerCE
SqlExpress
Trigger, Stored procs are not supported in SqlServerCE, what would you do to get this
functionality?
I could do something after "SaveChanges" or something, what is a good way ?
Yes you can do something inside SaveChanges (by overriding) or after SaveChanges and call SaveChanges again to persist new data but it is not exactly the same as trigger. Simply if your requirement is to use trigger for some functionality SqlServerCE is not a choice for you. If you rewrite the trigger logic to your application you should have two versions anyway - one for big SQL using triggers and one for SQL CE not using triggers.
Code first, although it allows you to send in some raw queries and hence perform your own native database/server manipulations, basically is designed only for building a model and querying upon that model.
Now as for your question: You can directly build 'stored procedure alternatives' by adding methods to your DbContext (or extension methods for seperation of concerns).
Triggers are a little more complex. You can override the SaveChanges method in which you can basically track each change made either before it got persisted back to the database- or after.
Both problems however can also be solved by introducing a repository. See: http://huyrua.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/entity-framework-4-poco-repository-and-specification-pattern-upgraded-to-ef-4-1 This allows you to launch a script (trigger) when adding, updating or removing a certain entity

Is EF or SQL the better choice to audit data changes?

The requirement seems simple: when data changes, audit the changes.
Here's some important pieces to the equation:
The Data in my application spans multiple tables (some cross ref. tables).
My DTO is deep, with Navigation Properties conditionally populated.
When loaded, I copy the original DTO with its "original values".
When saved is requested, the original DTO contains the changes.
Ideally, foreign keys will read like useful text not Id numbers.
Unlike TFS' cool history feature, mine seems more complicated because of the many related tables and conditional child entities.
I see three possibilities (so far):
I could use C# to reflect the objects and create a before/after record.
I could use triggers in SQL 2008R2 to catch changes and coalesce a before/after record.
I could store the raw before/after objects and let SQL 2008R2 parse them.
Please note: Right now, I seems to me that SQL 2008R2's CDC is far too heavy of an option. I am really looking for something I can build, but I admit my mind is open to anything right now.
My question
Before I get started building this:
How does everybody else handle auditing a complex EF DTO?
Is there a low(ish)-tech solution available?
Thank you in advance.
Related, but not-completely-related questions already on StackOverflow: Implementing Audit Log / Change History with MVC & Entity Framework and Create Data Audit in SQL Server and https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5773419/how-to-audit-many-to-many-relationship-in-entity-framework and Maintaining audit log for entities split across multiple tables and Linq to SQL Audit Trail / Audit Log: should I use triggers or doddleaudit? do not provide an answer.
IF audit is a real requirement I would opt for the trigger solution... since the other methods have several "shortcomings":
"blind" to any changes happening through other means than your application
if you make some code changes and forget about adding the audit code the audit trail gets "blind spots"
The trigger-based solution can be secured so that only special users can even see the audited data...
I usually work with Oracle but from my experience in such situations: allow the app only SELECT rights via Views , any insert/delete/update should be done via Stored procedures and audit trail should be done via triggers...
I've recently implemented an audit log manager on top of Entity Framework. When I instantiate my audit manager, I reflect all of the entity classes, and store the property information. Then within the object context SavingChanges event, I audit all of the changes. It works great. In the case of foreign keys, I just store their Id's before and after during changes.
The nice thing about this solution is that it doesn't require any extra coding. Once you create a log manager of sort, you don't have to worry about adding new triggers, or modifying triggers when new columns are added. Any changes to your entity classes will automatically be picked up when reflecting the classes.
Well, let's see. SQL Server auditing already exists, comes with tools, is probably already known by your DBAs, doesn't slow down your app, and can trace events that the application itself will never even see.
On the other hand, rolling your own in EF will allow you to audit non-SQL Server data sources. It also doesn't require EE.
Trigger Solution, Pros:
Cannot bypass the audit
Trigger Solution, Cons:
Cannot audit non SQL data
Cannot audit complex objects on insert
Entity Framework, Pros:
Can audit everything
Can audit complex objects in any state
Entity Framework, Cons:
Can be bypassed (like direct-to-SQL)
Requires a copy of original values
My choice is Entity Framework. Using STE makes it easier.
Either way you have to roll your own.

LLBLGen: How can I softdelete a entry

I have inherited a project that uses LLBLGen Pro for the DB layer. The DB model requires that when a entry is deleted a flag (DeletedDate is set to the current time). The last programmer ignored this requirement and has used regular deletes throughout the entire application.
Is there a way to set the code generator to do this automatically or do I have to overload each delete operator for the Entities that requires it?
I implemented this in SQL Server 2005 using INSTEAD OF triggers on delete for any soft delete table. The triggers set the delete flag and perform clean-up. The beauty of this solution is that it correctly handles deletes issued by any system that accesses the database. INSTEAD OF is relatively new in SQL Server, I know there's an Oracle equivalent.
This solution also plays nicely with our O/R mapper -- I created views that filter out soft deleted records and mapped those. The views are also used for all reporting.
You could create custom task in LLBLGen that would override those for you when you are generating entities. Check out their template studio and template examples on the website.
It depends if you are using self-servicing or adapter. If SS you will need to modify the template so that it sets the flag for you rather than deleting the entity.
If adapter, you can inherit from DataAccessAdapter and override the delete methods to set the flag for you rather than deleting the entities.
It's generally a crappy solution for performace though as every query then needs to filter out "deleted" entities - and because the selectvity on the "deleted" column won't be very high (all of your "undelted" records are null - i'm guessing this will be the majority of them) indexing it doesn't gain you a great deal - you will end up with a lot of table scans.

Categories

Resources