We have a lot of data that needs to be loaded into a number of tables. As far as I can see we have two options:
Include the data as part of the Configuration class seed method
Problems
1.a. this would be slow and involve writing a lot of C# code)
Use bulk insert with code first migrations - a lot quicker and probably a better solution.
Problems
2.a. It may prove tricky working with other data that gets loaded into the same tables as part of the seed.
2.b. It requires SQL Identity Insert to be switched on.
What solution is best and if it is 2 how do I go about bulk insert with code first migrations and how can I address the problems?
Bypassing EF and using ADO.NET/SQL is definitely a good approach for bulk data upload. The best approach depends on whether you want the data to be inserted as part of migration or just logic that runs on app start.
If you want it to be inserted as part of a migration (which may be nice since then you don't have to worry about defensive checks if the data exists etc.) then you can use the Sql(string) method to execute sql that uses whatever format and sql features you want (including switching IDENTITY_INSERT on/off). In EF6.1 there is also an overload that allows you to easily run a .sql file rather than having everything in code as a string.
If you want to do it on app start, then just create an instance of your context and then access Database.Connection to get the raw SqlConnection and use ADO.NET directly to insert the data.
Related
We need to process 500,000 records in a database by adding a certain value for a specific column in each record.
Currently, we are running multiple Tasks in parallel using TPL, each taking the records in batches (of size 1000) update the values, and writing them back to the database using a DBContext. This takes around 10 minutes to process.
Are there more efficient ways to process large databases?
EDIT - the value that we update with is generate dynamically, depending on the record information
Are there more efficient ways to process large databases?
Run a SQL statement to change all of the data at once. Don't feel like you have to use entities for every DB update - there's still nothing wrong with running SQL scripts on the back-end database directly. There are methods within EF to run custom SQL, or you could have a separate "support" app that does not use EF but manages the data directly.
If you are unable to use T-SQL directly then change your approach to produce the T-SQL needed to run it directly. If the values must be calculated beforehand and are different for each record this will be a much faster approach than trying to use Entity Framework on such a large dataset.
Architecture and design of your codebase plays a key role here. These types of problems are why we cleanly separate the domain logic from data access logic, so the processing and computation of business rules and values does not interfere with how you need to persist them and visa-versa.
For example, if you had 500,000 business entity classes that you retrieve from a repository class and compute all the values for them, you could simply then enumerate all of them and produce the desired SQL or pass the new values and identities to your data access layer to perform an optimized bulk update.
The reason I did not provide code in this answer is because there are many ways to develop a solution to this problem using my suggested approach.
It is important to still understand that Entity Framework was still designed around the unit of work concept (at least EF6) and is not optimized for bulk workloads (except select query scenarios). A well-designed codebase will definitely have a mix of EF and T-SQL in the data access layer (or database via functions and stored procedures) to handle performance critical operations.
I apologize if this is duplicative; I could find nothing directly pertaining.
The difficulty involves EF Core (v 3.1.8, if it matters), but is not specific or restricted thereto. I am doing code first, creating a number of entities, but the key point is that I am getting my initial data set from an app that I am trying to replace. My new app has a number of structural differences in every corresponding entity, but the data in the old app is still critical, so I will be transferring it to my new database. (Old db is hosted by MS SQL 2008; new db is hosted by MS SQL 2019, if it matters).
Most of the key fields are GUIDs, and the problem is that in EF Core, at the point in the future when I want to use the new app to do more data entry, I will also want the database to choose the GUID. In EF Core Fluent API parlance, that would be, for example:
modelBuilder.Entity("ReplaceOldApp.Models.Address", b =>
{
b.Property<Guid>("AddressID")
.ValueGeneratedOnAdd()
.HasColumnType("uniqueidentifier");
}
However, if I inform EF Core that I want the database to create the key, then it will create the tables such that when I try to transfer the data from the old database (whether using EF or some other means), the new database will ignore the old GUID and create a new, unrelated one. (Or at least, that's what I think will happen. I'm not ready to try it yet.) If that happens, then all of the data from, say, the old Person entity (such as the above-implied Address entity), will no longer be related between their corresponding entities in the new database, because all records will have shiny new GUIDs. I will have all the information, and no way to actually use it.
Obviously I can tell EF Core to inform the database that it will not be creating the GUIDs, and I can then read, unmunge and transfer the data from the old database to the new without fear of data loss (God willing). But then going forward, for any new data entry, the GUIDs will not be automatically genned. I can of course then mod my IEntityTypeConfiguration Fluent API classes for the various entities and do a second migration, re-genning the affected tables, but I'm worried that EF Core will decide that it needs to DROP the tables to accommodate such a change. (Again, I do not know for sure because I have not tried it: sorry.)
So my question is: How would you approach such a situation? Should I ignore EF and do something clever with MS SQL Studio? Should I do two migrations with a transfer in-between? Should I tell the database, even though it has been told to gen the keys, somehow to accept the old keys without changing things, perhaps via LINQ?
============== Edit:
I'm sure SSIS would work to transfer the data from old to new databases, but the learning curve appears daunting, and I am only trying to solve one problem, not gain a new career. Powershell ditto, although it may be a bit more of a hacker's tool, and as such knowledge of it might assist tweaking or help to solve a diverse set of one-time SQL Server headaches. However, again, as would you, I prefer to use what I know, or failing that, learn or learn more about a tool which promises to serve me consistently into the future.
With the very welcome new (to me) information about IDENTITY_INSERT, and information gained from Linq To Sql and identity_insert, I believe I should not use LINQ to SQL because it may assume that IDENTITY_INSERT is OFF and simply filter out the crucial GUID, failing therefore to provide it to the target server. Rather, it seems I can use C# to produce a series of generated SQL statements, and then run each one on the target server inside a TransactionScope(). Because each such insert will thereby run 'in the same connection', the state of IDENTITY_INSERT will be preserved for that entire insert transaction, and (creek don't rise) it should work.
Again, I appreciate your answer, Randy in Marin. It has, it seems, led me to an approach that will work within the potential constraints of my context (EF Core), while allowing me to preserve the crucial existing IDENTITY information. Peace.
Not being an EF programmer, I don't know if there is an option for identity insert that you can enable for a migration. You might search the term to see if it comes up.
Our team support database migrations. We can do it a number of ways. I would not even consider EF because it's not designed for data migrations - or for database design. (And because we tend to use what we know.)
This is not the way I would do it, but it might be better than SSIS if you have not used SSIS. If the tables are in the same database or in databases on the same server, you can use T-SQL to load each table one at a time. Even if not on the same server, a linked server would allow a distributed transaction. (I avoid linked servers like the plague, but for a one time thing like a migration I would tolerate it. I would rather restore a copy of the source database to the destination server to use as a source. Distributed transactions gone wrong have forced me to reboot critical servers.)
Each table can have a 4 part name. If the server part (e.g., using a linked server name) is not present, the local instance is used. If the database part is not present, the current database is used. This is the format I assume for the "src_table" and "dst_table".
[myserver\myinstance].[mydatabase].[myschema].[mytable]
Each table is loaded with T-SQL as follows:
TRUNCATE TABLE dst_table
SET IDENTITY_INSERT dst_table ON
INSERT dst_table (...) SELECT ... FROM src_table
SET IDENTITY_INSERT dst_table OFF -- must be turned off - only 1 table can have this ON
If there are foreign keys, some tables (e.g., def tables) would need to be loaded first.
If the table does not have an IDENTITY column (EF code creates all values), you don't use the IDENTITY_INSERT stuff. It will fail if you use it and there is not an identity column. It will fail if you don't use it and try to insert into an identity column.
If there is a lot of data in a table, the transaction might be too big or slow. Inserting in batches might be called for.
If it was something to run on a schedule, I would likely create a SSIS package to do the load.
If I wanted to try something new, I would use powershell and the DBATools module cmdlets to see if extracting to csv and importing the csv would be efficient. The import cmdlet has a column mapping parameter, among many others. PowerShell could be used to do transformation, but I think this crosses over into SSIS territory.
I have dealt with migrations where the GUIDs and IDs no longer related after the move. Using queries joining the new data to the old data, we were able to fix the related values. It's likely more work to fix it after than to plan for it to be correct from the start.
Could someone explain the concept of Migrators (specifically fluentmigrator)?
Here are the (possibly confused) facts Ive gleaned on the subject:
Is it a way to initially create then maintain updates for a database
by way of versioning.
The first migration (or initial version of the
database) would contain all the tables, relationships and properties
required (done either fluently or using a chunk of sql in a script).
When you want to push a change to a database, you would create a new
migration method (Up and Down), something like add a new table or modify a field.
To deploy one of these migrations, you would use a
command line specifying the dll containing the migration, the
connection string and the required version.
If you had a rather complex set of data models, wouldn't it be rather difficult and time consuming to create a migration definition for all of that?
I know with nHibernate/fluent you can easily generate tables for a database without having to define anything other than the models and map files. Is there a way to make this configuration compatible with the Migrator/Versioning?
When nhibernate/fluent is in charge of generating a database, I do not necessarily need to define every thing aspect of the tables. Its done either via convention or via the mapping files. With the migrators I would need to define this level of detail?
Lots of questions here. I'll answer the questions with a focus on FluentMigrator.
Is it a way to initially create then maintain updates for a database
by way of versioning.
FluentMigrator is a way to version control your database schema. Everyone does it in some way. Either manually, with sql scripts, with a tool like SqlCompare or a Visual Studio Database project. All these methods are easy to mess up. It is so easy to make a mistake when releasing a new version and cause the system to crash. Migrations is a better way to handle this.
FluentMigrator allows you to define a change to the schema as code and this is usually checked in to your source control with the other code changes. Meaning that you can say version 1.XX of your system should have version 123 of the database. It means if you roll back your code to the previous version you also know what version of the database to rollback to as well.
It can be used both to create the database schema from the beginning or to start with version control of the schema for an existing database.
A Migration is a way to describe a change to your database schema. FluentMigrator creates a VersionInfo table and stores the unique id (version number) of the Migration after is has been applied.
For example, if I have two Migrations one with Id 1 and one with Id 2. If then I execute the first Migration then Id 1 will be stored in the VersionInfo table and I can look there and know that the version of the database is 1 and that version 2 has not been applied yet.
Being able to know which version the database schema is very useful when pushing changes from Test to Production or if you have multiple copies of the database in Production. For example, I have a customer with offices all around the world and each office has their own copy of the database and all of them are on different versions. Without knowing the database version it would be very difficult to update them safely.
Most of the time I do not need to actually look in the VersionInfo table, FluentMigrator handles this automatically. It compares the assembly with Migrations to the VersionInfo table and figures out which changes have not been applied yet and then executes those.
The first migration (or initial version of the database) would contain
all the tables, relationships and properties required (done either
fluently or using a chunk of sql in a script).
The starting point is up to you. You can have a first migration that is an sql script that you have generated from the current database. You could could also use one of the contrib projects like FluentMigrator.T4 to generate a Fluent Migration. Or you could just decide that the existing database is the starting point and save a copy of it to be able to restore it as version 1.
I have introduced FluentMigrator to a lot of legacy databases without any major problems.
When you want to push a change to a database, you would create a new
migration method (Up and Down), something like add a new table or
modify a field.
Yes, Up is used to apply the change specified in the Migration and Down rolls it back. So Up could be to create a table and Down could be to drop the table.
To deploy one of these migrations, you would use a command line
specifying the dll containing the migration, the connection string and
the required version.
There are three runners available to execute migrations. The command line runner, the Nant task and the MSBuild task. There are usually executed as part of a build script.
The MigrationRunner class can also be used in code. You might do this if you wanted to build your own runner or if you have other needs (like building databases dynamically or automatically updating the database if a new migration is added.)
If you had a rather complex set of data models, wouldn't it be rather
difficult and time consuming to create a migration definition for all
of that?
I have mostly answered this already. It is usually quite easy to generate an sql script for a database. For Sql Server it takes less than a minute to generate the script even for large databases. This script can be saved in a .sql file and executed as the first migration using the Execute.EmbeddedSqlScript expression. It works a treat.
I know with nHibernate/fluent you can easily generate tables for a
database without having to define anything other than the models and
map files. Is there a way to make this configuration compatible with
the Migrator/Versioning?
At the moment, there is no such integration and in practise I, at least, don't miss it. There was some discussion about connecting Fluent NHibernate and FluentMigrator but it would be a lot of work. It would enable scaffolding to generate changes to the model like EF Code First migrations do. It's not on the roadmap at the moment however.
When nhibernate/fluent is in charge of generating a database, I do not
necessarily need to define every thing aspect of the tables. Its done
either via convention or via the mapping files. With the migrators I
would need to define this level of detail?
Yes, you would need to define at that level of detail. FluentMigrators' migrations are a DSL (own little language) for defining schema changes that are translated to sql. You can write sql directly as well using the Execute.Sql expression. Entity Frameworks migrations have that sort of integration which has both advantages and disadvantages.
Check out the wiki or one of the tutorials here, here (part 1) or here (part 2) for more help getting started.
We have a process where our database guys script changes (and version them using Juneau) to our application's database out-of-band with our code base. They're good at accounting for new columns being null, and not wiping existing data, but occasionally a column rename sneaks in that isn't fully communicated. So they will make some changes to the database schema on a testing server, we'll update Entity Framework to work with those changes, and then commit our code. This process works okay, except for when it's time to deploy.
We have TFS set up to deploy the successful build to the appropriate servers, but there's no guarantee that the database for that environment has been updated. We don't care if extra fields/tables/views/etc. exist in the target database, but we want change the build to check that the database contains at least everything EF is aware of.
I looked at this question, but I don't need the schema to match exactly. Plus, we don't want it creating/modifying the database directly. And this question seems like it's trying to achieve a similar ideal, but still not quite what we're looking to achieve. We just want a integration test of sorts to verify our version of EF will work with the target schema.
I wonder why you try to deploy your application without changes to database. Your application is dependent on the database so the deployment should always be done after the database. It looks like you are going to invest a lot of time to develop validation to fix your incorrect deployment process (where fixing the process itself is the correct solution).
Anyway you can create some "validation" of the database but it will take some time. If you are using EDMX file you can open it as XML and read its SSDL part which describes all expected tables, columns, relations, views (in form of SELECT SQL queries), stored procedures and functions. You can parse this XML part and use system database views (sys.tables, sys.columns, ...) to query if these objects exists in the database.
Another approach can be using database diff. tool to compare your current test database with the target one. This will require the tool which can be executed from command line and you will have to parse its output to find breaking changes.
What is the standard way of copying data from one oracle database to another.
1) Read data from source table and copy to temp table on destination using configuration( i.e. there are more than 1 table and each table has separate temp table)
2) Right now there is no clob data, but in future clob data might be used.
3) Read everything to memory(if large data read in chunks)
Should not use Oracle links
Should not use files
Code should be only using C# but not any database procedures.
One way that I've used to do this is to use a DataReader on the source database and just perform inserts on the target database (using Bind Parameters for sure).
Note that the DataReader is excellent at not using much memory as it moves through a table (I believe that by default it uses a Fast Forward, Read Only cursor). This means that only a small amount of data is held in memory at a given time.
Here are the things to watch out for:
Relationships
If you're working with data that has relationships, you're going to need to deal with that. There are two ways that I've seen to deal with this:
Temporarily drop the relationships in the target database before doing the copy, then recreate them after.
Copy the data in the correct order for the relationships to work correctly (this is usually pretty difficult / inefficient)
Auto Generated Id Values
These columns are usually handled by disabling the auto increment functionality for the given table and allowing identity insert (I'm using some SQL Server terms, I can't remember how it works on Oracle).
Transactions
If you're moving a lot of data, transactions will be expensive.
Repeatability / Deleting Target Data
Unless you're way more awesome than the rest of us, you'll probably have to run this thing more than once (at least during development). That means you might want a way to delete the target data.
Platform Specific Methods
In SQL Server, there are ways to perform bulk inserts that are blazingly fast (by giving up little things like referential integrity checking). There might be a similar feature within the Oracle toolset.
Table / Column Metadata
I haven't had to do this in Oracle yet, but it looks like you can get metadata on tables and columns using the views mentioned here.