I am having to return several record sets from SQL Server to constructs a C# object. While EF doesn't currently support (possibly the beta version) returning complex objects like this I am having to resort to returning a DataSet using ADO.NET to retrieve the data before transforming it into a pleasant C# representation, see below.
SELECT * FROM ...
exec dbo.usp_SP1 #ProductID,#CatalogName
exec dbo.usp_SP2 #ProductID,#CatalogName
Its always better to make fewer database calls however due to how this query is being executed would making several requests for each DataSet be that much worst?
One database roundtrip is always better that three (or two).
Your code could be clean even with this set of queries. You just have to call DataTable.Load three times, in succession, to load all three results sets from the DbDataReader.
So yes, I recommend one bigger query and a single DataSet for all result sets.
You can reference each table result inside of a dataset.
ds.Tables[index].Rows.... So I would make one call, get all the data and return it via whether you call another sproc or just a simple SELECT.
Related
Trying to modify some fields in all table records, using Npgsql data Provider for PostgreSQL.
Each record needs:
to be read,
some fields needs to be modified by a C# procedure
and write back to table
Is there an object or mechanism that allow to point to each record to do this without multiple queries to perform the C# procedure call between the reading and writing of each record?
If you're looking for a way to update a value via an open cursor, to avoid an additional UPDATE, then that doesn't exist in PostgreSQL. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure (but not 100%) that on other databases it doesn't actually improve perf either, i.e. that an additional roundtrip for each update is required anyway. In other words, "updating a cursor" for results from a SELECT is probably API sugar rather than an actual optimization.
The most efficient way to accomplish this with Npgsql is probably to do a SELECT, buffer results in memory, iterate them to calculate the new values, and then issue a prepared batched update that updates the rows (i.e. a single command with several UPDATE ...; UPDATE ... statements). If the amount of rows is too large, this can be split into several batches, i.e. "load x rows, calculate, update those x rows; load next x rows...". You can use PostgreSQL's cursor functionality to each time load the next X rows, or simple issue new SELECTs and use LIMIT/OFFSET for paging (likely to have similar performance).
When having a query that returns multiple results, we are iterating among them using the NextResult() of the SqlDataReader. This way we are accessing results sequentially.
Is there any way to access the result in a random / non sequential way. For example jump first to the third result, then to the first e.t.c
I am searching if there is something like rdr.GetResult(1), or a workaround.
Since I was asked Why I want something like this,
First of all I have no access to the query and so I can not changes, so in my client I will have the Results in the sequence that server writes / produces them.
To process (build collections, entities --> business logic) the first I need the Information from both the second and the third one.
Again since it is not an option to modify some of the code, I can not somehow (without writing a lot of code) 'store' the connection info (eg. ids) in order to connect in a later step the two ResultSets
The most 'elegant' solution (for sure not the only one) is to process the result sets in non sequential way. So that is why I am asking if there is such a way.
Update 13/6
While Jeroen Mostert answer gives a thoughtful explanation on why, Think2ceCode1ce answer shows the right directions for a workaround. The content of the link in the comments how in additional dataset could be utilized to work in an async way. IMHO this would be the way to go if was going to write a general solution. However in my case, I based my solution in the nature of my data and the logic behind them. In short terms, (1) I read the data as they come sequentially using the SqlDataReader; (2) I store some of the data I need in a dictionary and a Collection, when I am reading the first in row but second in logic ResultSet; (3) When I am Reading the third in row, but first in logic ResultSet I am iterating in through the collection I built earlier and based on the dictionary data I am building my final result.
The final code seems more efficient and it is more maintainable than using the async DataAdapter. However this is a very specific solution based on my data.
Provides a way of reading a forward-only stream of rows from a SQL
Server database.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.sqlclient.sqldatareader(v=vs.110).aspx
You need to use DataAdapter for disconnected and non-sequential access. To use this you just have to change bit of your ADO.NET code.
Instead of
SqlDataReader sqlReader = sqlCmd.ExecuteReader();
You need
DataTable dt = new DataTable();
SqlDataAdapter sqlAdapter = new SqlDataAdapter(sqlCmd);
sqlAdapter.Fill(dt);
If your SQL returns multiple result sets, you would use DataSet instead of DataTable, and then access result sets like ds.Tables[index_or_name].
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bh8kx08z(v=vs.110).aspx
No, this is not possible. The reason why is quite elementary: if a batch returns multiple results, it must return them in order -- the statement that returns result set #2 does not run before the one that returns result set #1, nor does the client have any way of saying "please just skip that first statement entirely" (as that could have dire consequences for the batch as a whole). Indeed, there's not even any way in general to tell how many result sets a batch will produce -- all of this is done at runtime, the server doesn't know in advance what will happen.
Since there's no way, server-side, to skip or index result sets, there's no meaningful way to do it client-side either. You're free to ignore the result sets streamed back to you, but you must still process them in order before you can move on -- and once you've moved on, you can't go back.
There are two possible global workarounds:
If you process all data and cache it locally (with a DataAdapter, for example) you can go back and forth in the data as you please, but this requires keeping all data in memory.
If you enable MARS (Multiple Active Result Sets) you can execute another query even as the first one is still processing. This does require splitting up your existing single batch code into individual statements (which, if you really can't change anything about the SQL at all, is not an option), but you could go through result sets at will (without caching). It would still not be possible for you to "go back" within a single result set, though.
I have a CSV file and I have to insert it into a SQL Server database. Is there a way to speed up the LINQ inserts?
I've created a simple Repository method to save a record:
public void SaveOffer(Offer offer)
{
Offer dbOffer = this.db.Offers.SingleOrDefault (
o => o.offer_id == offer.offer_id);
// add new offer
if (dbOffer == null)
{
this.db.Offers.InsertOnSubmit(offer);
}
//update existing offer
else
{
dbOffer = offer;
}
this.db.SubmitChanges();
}
But using this method, the program is way much slower then inserting the data using ADO.net SQL inserts (new SqlConnection, new SqlCommand for select if exists, new SqlCommand for update/insert).
On 100k csv rows it takes about an hour vs 1 minute or so for the ADO.net way. For 2M csv rows it took ADO.net about 20 minutes. LINQ added about 30k of those 2M rows in 25 minutes. My database has 3 tables, linked in the dbml, but the other two tables are empty. The tests were made with all the tables empty.
P.S. I've tried to use SqlBulkCopy, but I need to do some transformations on Offer before inserting it into the db, and I think that defeats the purpose of SqlBulkCopy.
Updates/Edits:
After 18hours, the LINQ version added just ~200K rows.
I've tested the import just with LINQ inserts too, and also is really slow compared with ADO.net. I haven't seen a big difference between just inserts/submitchanges and selects/updates/inserts/submitchanges.
I still have to try batch commit, manually connecting to the db and compiled queries.
SubmitChanges does not batch changes, it does a single insert statement per object. If you want to do fast inserts, I think you need to stop using LINQ.
While SubmitChanges is executing, fire up SQL Profiler and watch the SQL being executed.
See question "Can LINQ to SQL perform batch updates and deletes? Or does it always do one row update at a time?" here: http://www.hookedonlinq.com/LINQToSQLFAQ.ashx
It links to this article: http://www.aneyfamily.com/terryandann/post/2008/04/Batch-Updates-and-Deletes-with-LINQ-to-SQL.aspx that uses extension methods to fix linq's inability to batch inserts and updates etc.
Have you tried wrapping the inserts within a transaction and/or delaying db.SubmitChanges so that you can batch several inserts?
Transactions help throughput by reducing the needs for fsync()'s, and delaying db.SubmitChanges will reduce the number of .NET<->db roundtrips.
Edit: see http://www.sidarok.com/web/blog/content/2008/05/02/10-tips-to-improve-your-linq-to-sql-application-performance.html for some more optimization principles.
Have a look at the following page for a simple walk-through of how to change your code to use a Bulk Insert instead of using LINQ's InsertOnSubmit() function.
You just need to add the (provided) BulkInsert class to your code, make a few subtle changes to your code, and you'll see a huge improvement in performance.
Mikes Knowledge Base - BulkInserts with LINQ
Good luck !
I wonder if you're suffering from an overly large set of data accumulating in the data-context, making it slow to resolve rows against the internal identity cache (which is checked once during the SingleOrDefault, and for "misses" I would expect to see a second hit when the entity is materialized).
I can't recall 100% whether the short-circuit works for SingleOrDefault (although it will in .NET 4.0).
I would try ditching the data-context (submit-changes and replace with an empty one) every n operations for some n - maybe 250 or something.
Given that you're calling SubmitChanges per isntance at the moment, you may also be wasting a lot of time checking the delta - pointless if you've only changed one row. Only call SubmitChanges in batches; not per record.
Alex gave the best answer, but I think a few things are being over looked.
One of the major bottlenecks you have here is calling SubmitChanges for each item individually. A problem I don't think most people know about is that if you haven't manually opened your DataContext's connection yourself, then the DataContext will repeatedly open and close it itself. However, if you open it yourself, and then close it yourself when you're absolutely finished, things will run a lot faster since it won't have to reconnect to the database every time. I found this out when trying to find out why DataContext.ExecuteCommand() was so unbelievably slow when executing multiple commands at once.
A few other areas where you could speed things up:
While Linq To SQL doesn't support your straight up batch processing, you should wait to call SubmitChanges() until you've analyzed everything first. You don't need to call SubmitChanges() after each InsertOnSubmit call.
If live data integrity isn't super crucial, you could retrieve a list of offer_id back from the server before you start checking to see if an offer already exists. This could significantly reduce the amount of times you're calling the server to get an existing item when it's not even there.
Why not pass an offer[] into that method, and doing all the changes in cache before submitting them to the database. Or you could use groups for submission, so you don't run out of cache. The main thing would be how long till you send over the data, the biggest time wasting is in the closing and opening of the connection.
Converting this to a compiled query is the easiest way I can think of to boost your performance here:
Change the following:
Offer dbOffer = this.db.Offers.SingleOrDefault (
o => o.offer_id == offer.offer_id);
to:
Offer dbOffer = RetrieveOffer(offer.offer_id);
private static readonly Func<DataContext, int> RetrieveOffer
{
CompiledQuery.Compile((DataContext context, int offerId) => context.Offers.SingleOrDefault(o => o.offer_id == offerid))
}
This change alone will not make it as fast as your ado.net version, but it will be a significant improvement because without the compiled query you are dynamically building the expression tree every time you run this method.
As one poster already mentioned, you must refactor your code so that submit changes is called only once if you want optimal performance.
Do you really need to check if the record exist before inserting it into the DB. I thought it looked strange as the data comes from a csv file.
P.S. I've tried to use SqlBulkCopy,
but I need to do some transformations
on Offer before inserting it into the
db, and I think that defeats the
purpose of SqlBulkCopy.
I don't think it defeat the purpose at all, why would it? Just fill a simple dataset with all the data from the csv and do a SqlBulkCopy. I did a similar thing with a collection of 30000+ rows and the import time went from minutes to seconds
I suspect it isn't the inserting or updating operations that are taking a long time, rather the code that determines if your offer already exists:
Offer dbOffer = this.db.Offers.SingleOrDefault (
o => o.offer_id == offer.offer_id);
If you look to optimise this, I think you'll be on the right track. Perhaps use the Stopwatch class to do some timing that will help to prove me right or wrong.
Usually, when not using Linq-to-Sql, you would have an insert/update procedure or sql script that would determine whether the record you pass already exists. You're doing this expensive operation in Linq, which certainly will never hope to match the speed of native sql (which is what's happening when you use a SqlCommand and select if the record exists) looking-up on a primary key.
Well you must understand linq creates code dynamically for all ADO operations that you do instead handwritten, so it will always take up more time then your manual code. Its simply an easy way to write code but if you want to talk about performance, ADO.NET code will always be faster depending upon how you write it.
I dont know if linq will try to reuse its last statement or not, if it does then seperating insert batch with update batch may improve performance little bit.
This code runs ok, and prevents large amounts of data:
if (repository2.GeoItems.GetChangeSet().Inserts.Count > 1000)
{
repository2.GeoItems.SubmitChanges();
}
Then, at the end of the bulk insertion, use this:
repository2.GeoItems.SubmitChanges();
My goal is to maximise performance. The basics of the scenario are:
I read some data from SQL Server 2005 into a DataTable (1000 records x 10 columns)
I do some processing in .NET of the data, all records have at least 1 field changed in the DataTable, but potentially all 10 fields could be changed
I also add some new records in to the DataTable
I do a SqlDataAdapter.Update(myDataTable.GetChanges()) to persist the updates (an inserts) back to the db using a InsertCommand and UpdateCommand I defined at the start
Assume table being updated contains 10s of millions of records
This is fine. However, if a row has changed in the DataTable then ALL columns for that record are updated in the database even if only 1 out of 9 columns has actually changed value. This means unnecessary work, particularly if indexes are involved. I don't believe SQL Server optimises this scenario?
I think, if I was able to only update the columns that had actually changed for any given record, that I should see a noticeable performance improvement (esp. as cumulatively I will be dealing with millions of rows).
I found this article: http://netcode.ru/dotnet/?lang=&katID=30&skatID=253&artID=6635
But don't like the idea of doing multiple UPDATEs within the sproc.
Short of creating individual UPDATE statements for each changed DataRow and then firing them in somehow in a batch, I'm looking for other people's experiences/suggestions.
(Please assume I can't use triggers)
Thanks in advance
Edit: Any way to get SqlDataAdapter to send UPDATE statements specific to each changed DataRow (only to update the actual changed columns in that row) rather than giving a general .UpdateCommand that updates all columns?
Isn't it possible to implement your own IDataAdapter where you implement this functionality ?
Offcourse, the DataAdapter only fires the correct SqlCommand, which is determined by the RowState of each DataRow.
So, this means that you would have to generate the SQL command that has to be executed for each situation ...
But, I wonder if it is worth the effort. How much performance will you gain ?
I think that - if it is really necessary - I would disable all my indexes and constraints, do the update using the regular SqlDataAdapter, and afterwards enable the indexes and constraints.
you might try is do create an XML of your changed dataset, pass it as a parameter ot a sproc and the do a single update by using sql nodes() function to translate the xml into a tabular form.
you should never try to update a clustered index. if you do it's time to rethink your db schema.
I would VERY much suggest that you do this with a stored procedure.
Lets say that you have 10 million records you have to update. And lets say that each record has 100 bytes (for 10 columns this could be too small, but lets be conservative). This amounts to cca 100 MB of data that must be transferred from database (network traffic), stored in memory and than returned to database in form of UPDATE or INSERT that are much more verbose for transfer to database.
I expect that SP would perform much better.
Than again you could divide you work into smaller SP (that are called from main SP) that would update just the necessary fields and that way gain additional performance.
Disabling indexes/constraints is also an option.
EDIT:
Another thing you must consider is potential number of different update statements. In case of 10 fields per row any field could stay the same or change. So if you construct your UPDATE statement to reflect this you could potentially get 10^2 = 1024 different UPDATE statements and any of those must be parsed by SQL Server, execution plan calculated and parsed statement stored in some area. There is a price to do this.
A search query returned this error. I have a feeling its because the in clause is ginormous on a subordinant object, when I'm trying to ORM the other object.
Apparently in clauses shouldn't be built 1 parameter at a time. Thanks ibatis.
Your best bet is to revise your application to pass less than 2100 parameters to the stored procedure. This is a DBMS limit that can't be raised.
I got this same error when using an apparently innocent LINQ to SQL query. I just wanted to retrieve all the records whose ids were amongst the ones stored in an array:
dataContext.MyTable.Where(item => ids.Contains(item.Id)).ToArray();
It turned out that the ids array had more than 2100 items, and it seems that the DataContext adds one parameter for each item in the array in the resulting SQL query.
At the end it was a bug in my code, since the ids array had not to have so many items. But anyway it is worth to keep in mind that some extra validation is needed when using such constructs in LINQ to SQL.
You can do a few things:
Pump the params into a temp table and use said temp table to filter your query. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/9947259/37055
Create a comma-delimited array, and pass the array into SQL Server as a varchar(x). Split it out via TSQL (here are a few methods) and use the resulting rowset to filter your search results.
Have a look at your application logic. It's more than a little strange to be passing 2100 parameters to a stored procedure.
If you are passing 2100 parameters to a single stored procedure, you are simply doing something wrong. Don't raise the limit or try to work around this abomination, figure out how to do things right.