Develop Reference

Entity Framework database-first - dynamically adding table to model

I have tables with the same structure but with a letter prefix of every table.
For example:
A_Company, B_Company, C_Company
There is combo box from which the user can select A, B or C, and then the code saves data into the appropriate table.
How can I do this using EF database-first?

I solved this problem adding a column for code prefix and triggers on my base table company for insert update and delete.

As the other commenters have said, it would be much better to refactor the database to a single table. If you can't do that then the only other thing that I can think of is to have a class which will select the table for you.
I would create a new class which has the same properties as your company tables, and also has the descriminator property. This would then be used as the data source for your ui.
in this class you would have to code manually to draw the data from the correct actual table (and save to it) based on the value of the discriminator. This is fine if you have only a few tables, but as your number of identical tables grows large, this will become more of a headache.
It might be possible to have the base tables all inherit from a virtual base class which would help a bit - you could then create a dictionary which the base class could use to switch the final data source on the fly.
As a final thought have you considered:
1. Creating the master table as suggested by the other commentators as a single table and then having views for each company.
Creating the master table as suggested and then having code to create the individual tables from that one at some point prior to their use?

Flattening multiple tables to a single type

I'm trying to model a database currently using EntityFramework's Fluent Configuration. I cannot edit or otherwise control the database schema. The entity I am trying to model has a lot of look-up tables - for example, one property (it's name) has a whole table devoted to it with a name associated with an id (which is it's language). In other words, it looks a bit like this in the database:
Entity
string[] Names
Entity_Names
string Name
int LanguageId // 9 = English
However, I am trying to condense this into
Entity
string Name // I only want the English name
Using a SQL query, this would be pretty simple - but how can I do this via Entity Framework's fluent configurations? There are a lot more of these instances as well, but this is the simplest example I could come up with.

If you do manage to flatten the model this way, it's almost certainly going to be a read-only view of the data. There's no way for Entity Framework to know that a string property should be looked up in another table and replaced with an integer id.
So that leaves two options if you're okay with it being view-only. Write a database view that replaces the ids with the strings and build an entity for that view.
Or build entities that are compatible with the schema model and project the data into a dto.
The second approach is the one I'd prefer as it means you'd still have a compatible entity model if you do need to CRUD.

EF DB-first mapping mess

I have a frustrating situation owing to this little quirk of EF. Here's a simple demo of the behavior. First the DB schema:
As you see, RestrictedProduct is a special case of product, which I'm intending to make a subclass of Product with some special code.
Now I import to an EF data model:
Oops! EF saw that RestrictedProduct had only 2 fields, both FKs, so it mapped it as a one-to-many relationship between Product and Restriction. So I go back to the database and add a Dummy field to RestrictedProduct, and now my EF model looks much better:
But that Dummy field is silly and pointless. Maybe I could delete it? I blow away the field from the DB table and the entity model, then refresh the model from the DB...
Oh, no! The Product-Restriction association is back, under a new name (RestrictedProduct1)! Plus, it won't compile:
Error 3034: Problem in mapping fragments starting at lines (x, y) :Two entities with possibly different keys are mapped to the same row. Ensure these two mapping fragments map both ends of the AssociationSet to the corresponding columns.
Is there any way to prevent this behavior, short of keeping the Dummy field on the RestrictedProduct table?

I just came across the same issue, and as an alternative to putting the dummy field in your RestrictedProduct table to force the creation of an entity you can also make your RestrictedProduct.RestrictionId field nullable and EF will then generate an entity for it. You can then modify it to use inheritance and any subsequent "Update model from database" will not cause undesired nav properties. Not really a nice solution but a work around.

Let's walk slowly into your problem.
1st thing you need to decide is if the restricted product is
really a special case of product or is it a possible extension
to each product.
From your original DB Scheme it seems that any product may have
a relation to a single restriction however a single restriction
can be shared among many products.. so this is a simple 1 to many
situation which means that restricted product is NOT a special case
of product! Restriction is an independent entity which has nothing
to do with product in a specific way.
Therefore EF is correct in the 1st importation of your scheme:
1. a product can have 0 or 1 restrictions.
2. a restriction is another entity which can be related to many products.
I do not see your problem.

Same model in more than one table

I have a class, suppose it's called EntityModel, and I want to make three different tables with the same columns, as defined in EntityModel. Let's call the tables tbPast, tbPresent and tbFuture. I want also to access them separetely in the Entity DbContext:
using (var db = new MyContext())
{
var element = db.Past.Find(id);
db.Past.Remove(element);
db.Present.Add(element);
db.SaveChanges();
}
The main purpose of having three tables is performance: the table will have millions of rows, and the most important is the Present, with dozens of rows. Most queries will be made in the Present table.
What is the best way to do this? Implementing three models with the same properties doesn't seem right for me.
I'm using Entity Framework, with the Code First approach, along with ASP.NET MVC 3.

You can't use the same model to generate separate tables w/ EF code-first. If you need to have some sort of grouping, use a Discriminator field and assing it any of the values: Past Present Future.
Edit:
Similar effect can be achieved through table-per-concrete type inheritance. Thus each type will have it's own table and can share most (if not all) of the fields.

default vs custom using entity framework

I've got a table of default templates. It's global to all users. If a user has no custom template, I want to pull the default. If a user decides to customize the template it should be saved in a customtemplates table - as opposed to the globaltempaltes table.
the custom table has all the globaltemplates fields plus a userid and an id relating to which global it is replacing.
To flesh this out a bit more, lets say there are 3 templates, and a user wants to customize template 2 only. I would normaly pull the whole globaltemplates table and whatever relates to the user in the customtemplates table. Then, in the class property I'd do something in the get like this:
MyTemplateA
get { return customtemplates.A ?? globaltemplates.A; }
Can I do this using straight ef4/linq without poco?
Would a partial class with some additional properties like the get above work?
Since i'm always editing only the customtemplates table (add/edit/delete) it doesn't matter which version of the template I pull. I guess it could get hairy figuring out if it's an insert or an update.

In my opinion it will not work as you expect because EF closely relates entity to table. You cannot have single entity mapped to two tables except very special situations like splitting or inheritance.
So if you have Template entity it can be mapped only to single table but you have two. What you can do is to use TPC inheritance where Template will be a base entity mapped to GlobalTemplates table and UserTemplate will be derived entity mapped to UserTemplates table. TPC (table per concrete type) is type of inheritance where table for derived entity contains all columns from table for parent entity.
But inheritance still has a few problems for your scenario:
Template is editable - if you want to have it read only you must correctly handle it in your application logic. Any changes to attached Template instance will be saved when you call SaveChanges on the context.
When you load Template you cannot directly convert it to UserTemplate to make it user specific. You must create new instance of UserTemplate and copy properties from Template to the newly created instance.