Develop Reference

Execute custom SQL before running FromSqlRaw in Entity Framework Core 6 or above in SQL Server

I only need it to work for SQL Server. This is an example. The question is about a general approach.
There is a nice extension method from https://entityframework-extensions.net called WhereBulkContains. It is, sort of, great, except that the code of the methods in this library is obfuscated and they do not produce valid SQL when .ToQueryString() is called on IQueryable<T> with these extension methods applied.
Subsequently, I can't use such methods in production code as I am not "allowed" to trust such code due to business reasons. Sure, I can write tons of tests to ensure that WhereBulkContains works as expected, except that there are some complicated cases where the performance of WhereBulkContains is well below stellar, whereas properly written SQL works in a blink of an eye. And (read above), since the code of this library is obfuscated, there is no way to figure out what's wrong there without spending a large amount of time. We would've bought the license (as this is not a freeware) if the library weren't obfuscated. All together that basically kills the library for our purposes.
This is where it gets interesting. I can easily create and populate a temporary table, e.g. (I have a table called EFAgents with an int PK called AgentId in the database):
private string GetTmpAgentSql(IEnumerable<int> agentIds) => #$"
drop table if exists #tmp_Agents;
create table #tmp_Agents (AgentId int not null, primary key clustered (AgentId asc));
{(agentIds
.Chunk(1_000)
.Select(e => $#"
insert into #tmp_Agents (AgentId)
values
({e.JoinStrings("), (")});
")
.JoinStrings(""))}
select 0 as Result
";
private const string AgentSql = #"
select a.* from EFAgents a inner join #tmp_Agents t on a.AgentID = t.AgentId";
where GetContext returns EF Core database context and JoinStrings comes from Unity.Interception.Utilities and then use it as follows:
private async Task<List<EFAgent>> GetAgents(List<int> agentIds)
{
var tmpSql = GetTmpAgentSql(agentIds);
using var ctx = GetContext();
// This creates a temporary table and populates it with the ids.
// This is a proprietary port of EF SqlQuery code, but I can post the whole thing if necessary.
var _ = await ctx.GetDatabase().SqlQuery<int>(tmpSql).FirstOrDefaultAsync();
// There is a DbSet<EFAgent> called Agents.
var query = ctx.Agents
.FromSqlRaw(AgentSql)
.Join(ctx.Agents, t => t.AgentId, a => a.AgentId, (t, a) => a);
var sql = query.ToQueryString() + Environment.NewLine;
// This should provide a valid SQL; https://entityframework-extensions.net does NOT!
// WriteLine - writes to console or as requested. This is irrelevant to the question.
WriteLine(sql);
var result = await query.ToListAsync();
return result;
}
So, basically, I can do what I need in two steps:
using var ctx = GetContext();
// 1. Create a temp table and populate it - call GetTmpAgentSql.
...
// 2. Build the join starting from `FromSqlRaw` as in example above.
This is doable, half-manual, and it is going to work.
The question is how to do that in one step, e.g., call:
.WhereMyBulkContains(aListOfIdConstraints, whateverElseIsneeded, ...)
and that's all.
I am fine if I need to pass more than one parameter in each case in order to specify the constraints.
To clarify the reasons why do I need to go into all these troubles. We have to interact with a third party database. We don't have any control of the schema and data there. The database is large and poorly designed. That resulted in some ugly EFC LINQ queries. To remedy that, some of that ugliness was encapsulated into a method, which takes IQueryable<T> (and some more parameters) and returns IQueryable<T>. Under the hood this method calls WhereBulkContains. I need to replace this WhereBulkContains by, call it, WhereMyBulkContains, which would be able to provide correct ToQueryString representation (for debugging purposes) and be performant. The latter means that SQL should not contain in clause with hundreds (and even sometimes thousands) of elements. Using inner join with a [temp] table with a PK and having an index on the FK field seem to do the trick if I do that in pure SQL. But, ... I need to do that in C# and effectively in between two LINQ method calls. Refactoring everything is also not an option because that method is used in many places.
Thanks a lot!

I think you really want to use a Table Valued Parameter.
Creating an SqlParameter from an enumeration is a little fiddly, but not too difficult to get right;
CREATE TYPE [IntValue] AS TABLE (
Id int NULL
)
private IEnumerable<SqlDataRecord> FromValues(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
var meta = new SqlMetaData(
"Id",
SqlDbType.Int
);
foreach(var value in values)
{
var record = new SqlDataRecord(
meta
);
record.SetInt32(0, value);
yield return record;
}
}
public SqlParameter ToIntTVP(IEnumerable<int> values){
return new SqlParameter()
{
TypeName = "IntValue",
SqlDbType = SqlDbType.Structured,
Value = FromValues(values)
};
}
Personally I would define a query type in EF Core to represent the TVP. Then you can use raw sql to return an IQueryable.
public class IntValue
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
modelBuilder.Entity<IntValue>(e =>
{
e.HasNoKey();
e.ToView("IntValue");
});
IQueryable<IntValue> ToIntQueryable(DbContext ctx, IEnumerable<int> values)
{
return ctx.Set<IntValue>()
.FromSqlInterpolated($"select * from {ToIntTVP(values)}");
}
Now you can compose the rest of your query using Linq.
var ids = ToIntQueryable(ctx, agentIds);
var query = ctx.Agents
.Where(a => ids.Any(i => i.Id == a.Id));

I would propose to use linq2db.EntityFrameworkCore (note that I'm one of the creators). It has built-in temporary tables support.
We can create simple and reusable function which filters records of any type:
public static class HelperMethods
{
private class KeyHolder<T>
{
[PrimaryKey]
public T Key { get; set; } = default!;
}
public static async Task<List<TEntity>> GetRecordsByIds<TEntity, TKey>(this IQueryable<TEntity> query, IEnumerable<TKey> ids, Expression<Func<TEntity, TKey>> keyFunc)
{
var ctx = LinqToDBForEFTools.GetCurrentContext(query) ??
throw new InvalidOperationException("Query should be EF Core query");
// based on DbContext options, extension retrieves connection information
using var db = ctx.CreateLinqToDbConnection();
// create temporary table and BulkCopy records into that table
using var tempTable = await db.CreateTempTableAsync(ids.Select(id => new KeyHolder<TKey> { Key = id }), tableName: "temporaryIds");
var resultQuery = query.Join(tempTable, keyFunc, t => t.Key, (q, t) => q);
// we use ToListAsyncLinqToDB to avoid collission with EF Core async methods.
return await resultQuery.ToListAsyncLinqToDB();
}
}
Then we can rewrite your function GetAgents to the following:
private async Task<List<EFAgent>> GetAgents(List<int> agentIds)
{
using var ctx = GetContext();
var result = await ctx.Agents.GetRecordsByIds(agentIds, a => a.AgentId);
return result;
}

Sql transaction error occurs sometimes [duplicate]

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");
}
}

Update sqlite database using sqlite-net in windows store app

I want to update my database using linq syntax. I have updating in my sqlite database like this
var dbpath = Path.Combine(Windows.Storage.ApplicationData.Current.LocalFolder.Path, "Users.db");
using (var db = new SQLite.SQLiteConnection(dbpath))
{
db.Update(new Booking()
{
});
db.Commit();
db.Dispose();
db.Close();
}
I want to know the update syntax syntax with simple example.Thanks

You're not even attempting to update; you're trying to insert.
Take a look here and you'll see that you can just call that instead.
var booking = db.Table<Booking>()
.Where(x => x.Name == "Jack's BBQ joint")
.FirstOrDefault();
// change something in the object
db.Update(booking);
From the docs:
/// Updates all of the columns of a table using the specified object
/// except for its primary key.
/// The object is required to have a primary key.
An alternative solution is to go lowlevel and create the queries yourself:
db.Execute("update bookings set ...");

Entity Framework. Delete all rows in table

How can I quickly remove all rows in the table using Entity Framework?
I am currently using:
var rows = from o in dataDb.Table
select o;
foreach (var row in rows)
{
dataDb.Table.Remove(row);
}
dataDb.SaveChanges();
However, it takes a long time to execute.
Are there any alternatives?

For those that are googling this and ended up here like me, this is how you currently do it in EF5 and EF6:
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");
Assuming context is a System.Data.Entity.DbContext
Edit:
Currently in net6.0 (dotnet 6 core) you can do the following:
context.Database.ExecuteSqlRaw("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");
Or use the Async overload:
await context.Database.ExecuteSqlRawAsync("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");
These are extension methods coming from Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.RelationalDatabaseFacadeExtensions
If you're having issues with foreign keys (in MySql), you might have to do the following (Doing the SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS = 0; part in a separate call does not seem to work for me)
context.Database.ExecuteSqlRaw("SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS = 0; TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName];");
So if you want to truncate your entire database (Possibly for unittesting reasons) - you can do the following:
var tableNames = context.Model.GetEntityTypes()
.Select(t => t.GetTableName())
.Distinct()
.ToList();
foreach (var tableName in tableNames)
{
context.Database.ExecuteSqlRaw($"SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS = 0; TRUNCATE TABLE `{tableName}`;");
}

Warning: The following is only suitable for small tables (think < 1000 rows)
Here is a solution that uses entity framework (not SQL) to delete the rows, so it is not SQL Engine(R/DBM) specific.
This assumes that you're doing this for testing or some similar situation.
Either
The amount of data is small or
The performance doesn't matter
Simply call:
VotingContext.Votes.RemoveRange(VotingContext.Votes);
Assuming this context:
public class VotingContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Vote> Votes{get;set;}
public DbSet<Poll> Polls{get;set;}
public DbSet<Voter> Voters{get;set;}
public DbSet<Candidacy> Candidates{get;set;}
}
For tidier code you can declare the following extension method:
public static class EntityExtensions
{
public static void Clear<T>(this DbSet<T> dbSet) where T : class
{
dbSet.RemoveRange(dbSet);
}
}
Then the above becomes:
VotingContext.Votes.Clear();
VotingContext.Voters.Clear();
VotingContext.Candidacy.Clear();
VotingContext.Polls.Clear();
await VotingTestContext.SaveChangesAsync();
I recently used this approach to clean up my test database for each testcase run (it´s obviously faster than recreating the DB from scratch each time, though I didn´t check the form of the delete commands that were generated).
Why can it be slow?
EF will get ALL the rows (VotingContext.Votes)
and then will use their IDs (not sure exactly how, doesn't matter), to delete them.
So if you're working with serious amount of data you'll kill the SQL server process (it will consume all the memory) and same thing for the IIS process since EF will cache all the data same way as SQL server. Don't use this one if your table contains serious amount of data.

Using SQL's TRUNCATE TABLE command will be the fastest as it operates on the table and not on individual rows.
dataDb.ExecuteStoreCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [Table]");
Assuming dataDb is a DbContext (not an ObjectContext), you can wrap it and use the method like this:
var objCtx = ((System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.IObjectContextAdapter)dataDb).ObjectContext;
objCtx.ExecuteStoreCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [Table]");

var all = from c in dataDb.Table select c;
dataDb.Table.RemoveRange(all);
dataDb.SaveChanges();

using (var context = new DataDb())
{
var ctx = ((System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.IObjectContextAdapter)context).ObjectContext;
ctx.ExecuteStoreCommand("DELETE FROM [TableName] WHERE Name= {0}", Name);
}
or
using (var context = new DataDb())
{
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");
}

You can do that without Foreach
dataDB.Table.RemoveRange(dataDB.Table);
dataDB.SaveChanges();
This will remove all rows

This avoids using any sql
using (var context = new MyDbContext())
{
var itemsToDelete = context.Set<MyTable>();
context.MyTables.RemoveRange(itemsToDelete);
context.SaveChanges();
}

context.TableName.RemoveRange(context.TableName);
context.SaveChanges();

I came across this question when I had to deal with a particular case: fully updating of content in a "leaf" table (no FKs pointing to it). This involved removing all rows and putting new rows information and it should be done transactionally (I do not want to end up with an empty table, if inserts fails for whatever reason).
I have tried the public static void Clear<T>(this DbSet<T> dbSet) approach, but new rows are not inserted. Another disadvante is that the whole process is slow, as rows are deleted one by one.
So, I have switched to TRUNCATE approach, since it is much faster and it is also ROLLBACKable. It also resets the identity.
Example using repository pattern:
public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class, new()
{
private readonly IEfDbContext _context;
public void BulkInsert(IEnumerable<T> entities)
{
_context.BulkInsert(entities);
}
public void Truncate()
{
_context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand($"TRUNCATE TABLE {typeof(T).Name}");
}
}
// usage
DataAccess.TheRepository.Truncate();
var toAddBulk = new List<EnvironmentXImportingSystem>();
// fill toAddBulk from source system
// ...
DataAccess.TheRepository.BulkInsert(toAddBulk);
DataAccess.SaveChanges();
Of course, as already mentioned, this solution cannot be used by tables referenced by foreign keys (TRUNCATE fails).

EF Core 7.0 solves this problem once and for all by adding bulk update and delete semantics:
await dataDB.Table.ExecuteDeleteAsync();
Note that this syntax immediately executes the underlying (SQL) command to delete the data from the table. It does not fiddle around with tracking the entity, marking it for deletion, and waiting for UpdateDatabase to execute the transaction against the database.
Also note that multiple ExecuteDelete and ExecuteUpdate commands will not be contained in a single transaction by default. However, the DbContext transaction APIs can be used in the normal way to wrap these commands in a transaction.

If
using(var db = new MyDbContext())
{
await db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommandAsync(#"TRUNCATE TABLE MyTable"););
}
causes
Cannot truncate table 'MyTable' because it is being referenced by a FOREIGN KEY constraint.
I use this:
using(var db = new MyDbContext())
{
await db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommandAsync(#"DELETE FROM MyTable WHERE ID != -1");
}

var data = (from n in db.users select n);
db.users.RemoveRange(data);
db.SaveChanges();

The following works on SQLite database (using Entity Framework).
It seems that the fastest way to clear all the db tables is using context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("some SQL"), as some comments above highlighted as well. Here I am going to show how to reset the 'index' count of tables too.
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from TableA");
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from sqlite_sequence where name='TableA'");//resets the autoindex
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from TableB");
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from sqlite_sequence where name='TableB'");//resets the autoindex
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from TableC");
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from sqlite_sequence where name='TableC'");//resets the autoindex
One important point is that if you use foreign keys in your tables, you must first delete the child table before the parent table, so the sequence (hierarchy) of tables during deletion is important, otherwise a SQLite exception may occur.
Note: var context = new YourContext()

If you wish to clear your entire database.
Because of the foreign-key constraints it matters which sequence the tables are truncated. This is a way to bruteforce this sequence.
public static void ClearDatabase<T>() where T : DbContext, new()
{
using (var context = new T())
{
var tableNames = context.Database.SqlQuery<string>("SELECT TABLE_NAME FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES WHERE TABLE_TYPE = 'BASE TABLE' AND TABLE_NAME NOT LIKE '%Migration%'").ToList();
foreach (var tableName in tableNames)
{
foreach (var t in tableNames)
{
try
{
if (context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(string.Format("TRUNCATE TABLE [{0}]", tableName)) == 1)
break;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
usage:
ClearDatabase<ApplicationDbContext>();
remember to reinstantiate your DbContext after this.

In EFCore (version i am using is 3.1) you can use the following to remove all rows -
context.Database.ExecuteSqlRaw("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");

This works for me... EF v3.1.5
context.ModelName.RemoveRange(context.ModelName.ToList());
context.SaveChanges();

This works Properly in EF 5:
YourEntityModel myEntities = new YourEntityModel();
var objCtx = ((IObjectContextAdapter)myEntities).ObjectContext;
objCtx.ExecuteStoreCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");

Delete all records. Do not reset the primary index like "truncate".
/// <summary>
/// SET - DELETE all record by table - no truncate - return deleted records
/// </summary>
public static int setListDelAllMYTABLE()
{
// INIT
int retObj = 0;
using (MYDBEntities ctx = new MYDBEntities())
{
// GET - all record
var tempAllRecord = ctx.MYTABLE.ToList();
// RESET
ctx.MYTABLE.RemoveRange(tempAllRecord);
// SET - final save
retObj += ctx.SaveChanges();
}
// RET
return retObj;
}

If MVC, you can do:
public async Task<IActionResult> DeleteAll()
{
var list = await _context.YourClass.ToListAsync();
_context.YourClass.RemoveRange(list);
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
return RedirectToAction(nameof(Index));
}

Make sure when you are trying to delete parent all children will cascade on delete. Or children have nullable foreign key.

Here is a variation on the popular solution by Ron that avoids the use of hardcoded string table names by taking advantage of another popular solution on stack overflow for determining the underlying table name for an entity framework class.
With these extension methods the solution looks like this:
_dbContext.TruncateTable<TheTableName>();
(use this.TruncateTable<... if you're editing code within an EF DBContext class or partial class file)
And here's the extension class:
public static class EntityFrameworkExtensions
{
private static string ParseTableNameFromSQL(string sql)
{
Regex regex = new Regex("FROM (?<table>.*) AS");
Match match = regex.Match(sql);
string table = match.Groups["table"].Value;
return table;
}
public static string GetTableName<T>(this IObjectContextAdapter context) where T : class =>
ParseTableNameFromSQL(context.ObjectContext.CreateObjectSet<T>().ToTraceString());
public static void TruncateTable<T>(this DbContext dbContext) where T : class =>
dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand($"TRUNCATE TABLE {dbContext.GetTableName<T>()}");
public static void DeleteAllTableRows<T>(this DbContext dbContext) where T : class =>
dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand($"DELETE FROM {dbContext.GetTableName<T>()}");
}
The last extension method DeleteAllTableRows is a useful alternative if your table cannot be truncated (e.g. due to foreign key references) - this is still much faster than the Entity Framework RemoveAll alternative.

Works for EF Core 3
public static class EntityExtensions
{
public static async Task ClearAsync<T>(this DbSet<T> dbSet) where T : class
{
var command = dbSet.CreateDbCommand();
command.CommandText = $"TRUNCATE TABLE {dbSet.EntityType.GetSchema()}.{dbSet.EntityType.GetTableName()}";
await command.ExecuteNonQueryAsync();
}
}
but please note that dbSet.CreateDbCommand is an extension

My solution, mixing my ideas, some answers (Ron one from this thread, but also this and this for reflection) and trying to cover some different conditions.
It is based on EF6, but it should work fine, just fixing some extensions like GetTableName<TEntity>.
My solution:
uses extensions, so you only need DbSet to launch
has a row count threshold, to decide between RemoveRange or SQL execution, to avoid perfomance issues
the SQL version is based on DELETE instead of TRUNCATE, to avoid foreign key issues (it has to fit your requirements, of course)
has a parameter to save changes inline
private const int RangeLimit = 100;
private static void ClearTable<TEntity>(this DbSet<TEntity> dataSet, bool saveChanges = true) where TEntity : class
{
DbContext context = null;
if (dataSet.Count() > RangeLimit)
{
context = dataSet.GetContext();
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand($"DELETE FROM [{context.GetTableName<TEntity>()}]");
}
else
{
dataSet.RemoveRange(dataSet);
}
if (!saveChanges)
{
return;
}
if (context == null)
{
context = dataSet.GetContext();
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
private static DbContext GetContext<TEntity>(this DbSet<TEntity> dbSet)
where TEntity : class
{
var internalSet = dbSet
.GetType()
.GetField("_internalSet", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)
?.GetValue(dbSet);
var internalContext = internalSet?.GetType().BaseType
?.GetField("_internalContext", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance)
?.GetValue(internalSet);
return (DbContext)internalContext?.GetType()
.GetProperty("Owner", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public)
?.GetValue(internalContext, null);
}
public static string GetTableName<TEntity>(this DbContext context) where TEntity : class
{
return (context as IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext.CreateObjectSet<TEntity>().EntitySet.Name;
}
All you have to do, with a database table named Entries, is:
databaseContext.Entries.ClearTable();
if you want to save changes, or if you don't want:
databaseContext.Entries.ClearTable(false);
It is based on reflection, to simplify code. It has some performance tradeoff, of course, but reflection happens once for each table, hence should be completely acceptable in these conditions.

It is a very clean solution.
_context.RemoveRange(_context.ModelName);
_context.SaveChanges();

There are several issues with pretty much all the answers here:
1] Hard-coded sql. Will brackets work on all database engines?
2] Entity framework Remove and RemoveRange calls. This loads all entities into memory affected by the operation. Yikes.
3] Truncate table. Breaks with foreign key references and may not work accross all database engines.
Use https://entityframework-plus.net/, they handle the cross database platform stuff, translate the delete into the correct sql statement and don't load entities into memory, and the library is free and open source.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with the nuget package. They do offer a paid version that does even more stuff.

EF4: Get EntitySet specified as string

I have a database with many single isolated tables, and I need to fill their contents to their Entities.
Currently I have for each and every table something like this:
try
{
using(DBContext context = new DBContext())
{
var vehicleTypes = context.VehicleTypes;
return vehicleTypes;
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//handle error
}
What I'm seeking for is best described as something like this:
var vehicleTypes = context.GetEntitySet(VehicleEntity);
var buildingTypes = context.GetEntitySet(BuildingEntity);
where VehicleEntity, BuildingEntity (...) are entities from entity model.
I know I don't have this option explicitly, but something in that similar way would be nice. Extension method is also an option...
I'm working with EntityFramework 4.0, POCO Self Tracking Entities (without proxy).
Thanks
edit: My latest try was this:
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> GetTableContent<TEntity>() where TEntity:class
{
try
{
using (var context = new DBEntities())
{
var result = context.ExecuteStoreQuery<TEntity>("SELECT * FROM " + typeof(TEntity).Name); //the table names correspond to Entity type class names
return result;
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//handle error...
}
}
but I get the error:
The data reader is incompatible with the specified 'DBEntities.MyEntity'. A member of the type, 'Id', does not have a corresponding column in the data reader with the same name.
and that's true - the names don't match - but I figured it would've mapped the table from query based on edmx definition? How can I get this right?

Start with code which actually works before trying to make it "generic"
result = context.ExecuteStoreQuery<Something>("SELECT SOMETHING_ID AS ID, ..., FROM SOMETHING...");