In below code , I want to add myEntity object more than once to database using EF Core. but each time with different value on property id but all other properties are the same. How can I do this? because it's only adding 1 row in the database.
I want to do this because I don't want to repeat calling GetCurrentLocalDateTime() for each iteration and also in the else statement.
var myEntity = _mapper.Map<AEntity >(entityDto);
myEntity.updatedAt = _helper.GetCurrentLocalDateTime();
myEntity.CreatedAt = _helper.GetCurrentLocalDateTime();
if (entityDto.ids != null || entityDto.ids.Count > 0)
{
foreach (var id in entityDto.ids)
{
myEntity.id = id;
await _dbContext.myEntities.AddAsync(myEntity);
}
}
else
{
await _dbContext.myEntities.AddAsync(myEntity);
}
await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
You can't add a single instance of a class, change one of its properties, and add it again expecting a new instance to be added to your database. All that will happen is that you change the property of the single instance you have added.
Instead, you will need to map the DTO multiple times, so that you add multiple instance of your entity class to the DbSet.
You also need to use && instead of || in your if condition. Use OR (||) will result in a NullReferenceException if the entityDto.ids collection is null.
var now = _helper.GetCurrentLocalDateTime();
if (entityDto.ids != null && entityDto.ids.Count > 0)
{
foreach (var id in entityDto.ids)
{
var myEntity = _mapper.Map<AEntity>(entityDto);
myEntity.updatedAt = now;
myEntity.CreatedAt = now;
myEntity.id = id;
await _dbContext.myEntities.AddAsync(myEntity);
}
}
else
{
var myEntity = _mapper.Map<AEntity>(entityDto);
myEntity.updatedAt = now;
myEntity.CreatedAt = now;
await _dbContext.myEntities.AddAsync(myEntity);
}
await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync();
It uses it to add multiple data.Look at these
.AddRangeAsync()
.AddRange()
you can try to keep your data in list and save it all at once with "addrange()"
Yes, it is possible, though I would use caution to ensure that this is only to insert a number of copies:
foreach (var id in entityDto.ids)
{
myEntity.id = id;
await _dbContext.myEntities.AddAsync(myEntity);
_dbContext.Entry(myEntity).State = EntityState.Detached;
}
By detaching the entity, the DbContext will no longer be tracking it, so updating it and adding it again will be treated as a request to add a new entity.
Normally this kind of code results in a bug where developers are trying to reuse a single entity instance to update multiple data rows. This is a rather odd requirement to insert several copies of the same data, so I would ensure it is documented well so future developers don't try repurposing it. :)
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");
}
}
I have some code which when run an exception of type 'EntityCommandExecutionException' is raised.
The line which Visual Studio points to:
else if (item.FirstOrDefault().InspectionEquipmentTypes.Any())
The inner details of the exception say that:
There is already an open DataReader associated with this Command which must be closed first.
My question is the line which raised the error is not trying to use a database/datareader (to my knowledge) so I am unsure why this exception is being generated.
Edit:
public static IEnumerable<IGrouping<string,Entities.Inspection>> GetUnscheduledBatchInspections(Entities.EntityModel context)
{
var results = context.Inspections.Where(w =>
w.InspectionBatchNo != null
&& w.IsCancelled == false
&& !w.CalendarItems.Any()
&& w.Duration.HasValue).GroupBy(g => g.InspectionBatchNo);
return results;
}
Calling method:
private void MapBatchInspectionsToViewModel(ref SchedulerViewModel viewModel)
{
var batchInspections = SchedulerManager.GetUnscheduledBatchInspections(this.Context);
foreach (var item in batchInspections)
{
var bigi = new BatchInspectionGridItem();
if (item.Any())
{
bigi.BatchInspectionNo = item.First().InspectionBatchNo;
if (item.FirstOrDefault().EquipmentTypeID != null)
{
bigi.EquipmentTypeName = item.FirstOrDefault().EquipmentType.Description;
}
else if (item.FirstOrDefault().InspectionEquipmentTypes.Any())
{
bigi.EquipmentTypeName = string.Join(" / ", item.FirstOrDefault().InspectionEquipmentTypes.Select(s => s.EquipmentType.Description));
}
bigi.CustomerName = item.First().CustomerSite.Customer.CustomerName;
bigi.CustomerID = item.First().CustomerSite.Customer.CustomerID;
bigi.NumberOfInspections = item.Count();
bigi.TotalDuration = item.Sum(s => s.Duration);
}
viewModel.BatchInspectionGridViewModel.Add(bigi);
}
}
Here's what happens: while you loop through batchInspections the database reader is reading this collection from the database. Within the loop you do new database reads by the numerous First(OrDefault) calls, the Sum and the Count. That causes the exception 'There is already an open DataReader...'.
As said by George Lica, you can probably solve this by setting MultipleActiveResultSets=True in your connection string.
Or you can finish reading batchInspections before the loop starts itereating by...
foreach (var item in batchInspections.ToList())
But it is far more efficient to first collect the data you're going to need and then loop through them:
foreach (var item in batchInspections
.Select(b => new
{
First = b.FirstOrDefault(),
Count = b.Count(),
Sum = b.Sum(s => s.Duration)
} )
.ToList())
{
var bigi = new BatchInspectionGridItem();
if (item.Any())
{
bigi.BatchInspectionNo = item.First.InspectionBatchNo;
if (item.First.EquipmentTypeID != null)
{
bigi.EquipmentTypeName = item.First.EquipmentType.Description;
}
else if (item.First.InspectionEquipmentTypes.Any())
{
bigi.EquipmentTypeName = string.Join(" / ", item.First.InspectionEquipmentTypes.Select(s => s.EquipmentType.Description));
}
bigi.CustomerName = item.First.CustomerSite.Customer.CustomerName;
bigi.CustomerID = item.First.CustomerSite.Customer.CustomerID;
bigi.NumberOfInspections = item.Count;
bigi.TotalDuration = item.Sum;
}
viewModel.BatchInspectionGridViewModel.Add(bigi);
}
I hope that SchedulerManager.GetUnscheduledBatchInspections returns an IQueryable, so that the subsequent Select into the anonymous type will be translated into SQL.
It must be said though that activating MARS is nearly always a good idea with Entity Framework, because lazy loading has a way of causing this exception.
This happens when you make queries in a nested way.
item.FirstOrDefault().InspectionEquipmentTypes.ToList().Any()
may work. I am not sure though. Try simplifying the nested queries. For example don't make queries like:
items.Where(/*some condition*/).Any();
instead make
items.Any(/*some condition*/);
If you really want to have nested queries ( i don't recommend that, i would rather do separate queries and link entities using some hashing data structures) and you are using sql server, you actually have an alternative: activate MARS. To activate it, just add in your connection string MultipleActiveResultSets=True. For more details follow this link : https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/h32h3abf(v=vs.110).aspx
I have an Asp.Net MVC 5 website and I'm using Entity Framework code first to access its database. I have a Restaurants table and I want to let users search these with a lot of parameters. Here's what I have so far:
public void FilterModel(ref IQueryable<Restaurant> model)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(RestaurantName))
{
model = model.Where(r => r.Name.ToUpper().Contains(RestaurantName));
}
if (Recommended)
{
model = model.Where(r => r.SearchSponsor);
}
//...
}
Basically I look for each property and add another Where to the chain if it's not empty.
After that, I want to group the result based on some criteria. I'm doing this right now:
private static IQueryable<Restaurant> GroupResults(IQueryable<Restaurant> model)
{
var groups = model.GroupBy(r => r.Active);
var list = new List<IGrouping<bool, Restaurant>>();
foreach (var group in groups)
{
list.Add(group);
}
if (list.Count < 1)
{
SortModel(ref model);
return model;
}
IQueryable<Restaurant> joined, actives, inactives;
if (list[0].FirstOrDefault().Active)
{
actives = list[0].AsQueryable();
inactives = list.Count == 2 ? list[1].AsQueryable() : null;
}
else
{
actives = list.Count == 2 ? list[1].AsQueryable() : null;
inactives = list[0].AsQueryable();
}
if (actives != null)
{
//....
}
if (inactives != null)
{
SortModel(ref inactives);
}
if (actives == null || inactives == null)
{
return actives ?? inactives;
}
joined = actives.Union(inactives).AsQueryable();
return joined;
}
This works but it's got a lot of complications which I rather not talk about for the sake of keeping this question small.
I was wondering if this is the right and efficient way to do it. It seems kind of "dirty"! Lots of ifs and Wheres. Stored procedures, inverted indices, etc. This is my first "big" project and I want to learn from your experience to do this the "right" way.
Looking at the GroupResults Method I get a little confused about what you are doing. It seems the intention is to receive an arbitrary list of restuarants and return an ordered list of restaurants ordered by Active and some other criteria.
If thats true you may just do something like this and your job's done:
model.OrderBy(x => x.Active).ThenBy(x => Name);
If SortModel is somehow more sophisticated you may either add a comparer to the statement or stick with your current solution but change it to this:
if (model == null || !model.Any())
{
return model;
}
var active = model.Where(x=>x.Active);
var inactives = model.Where(x=>!x.Active);
// if (inactives == null) //not needed as where always return at least an empty list. Mabye check for inactive.Any()
SortModel(ref inactives); //You may also remove the ref as it's an reference anyway
joined = actives.Union(inactives).AsQueryable();
return joined;
Regarding the way you are handling your searching, I think it is simple, easy to read and understand, and it works. New team members will be able to look at that code and know immediately what it is doing and how it works. I think that is a pretty good indication that your approach is sound.
There is a many to many relationship between Artist and ArtistType. I can easily add artist ArtistType like below
foreach (var artistType in this._db.ArtistTypes
.Where(artistType => vm.SelectedIds.Contains(artistType.ArtistTypeID)))
{
artist.ArtistTypes.Add(artistType);
}
_db.ArtistDetails.Add(artist);
_db.SaveChanges();
This goes and updates the many to many association table with correct mapping. But when I try to remove any item from table I do not get any error but it does not remove it from the table?
foreach (var artistType in this._db.ArtistTypes
.Where(at => vm.SelectedIds.Contains(at.ArtistTypeID)))
{
artistDetail.ArtistTypes.Remove(artistType);
}
this._db.Entry(artistDetail).State = EntityState.Modified;
this._db.SaveChanges();
What am I missing?
Standard way is to load the artist including the current related types from the database and then remove the types with the selected Ids from the loaded types collection. Change tracking will recognize which types have been removed and write the correct DELETE statements to the join table:
var artist = this._db.Artists.Include(a => a.ArtistTypes)
.SingleOrDefault(a => a.ArtistID == someArtistID);
if (artist != null)
{
foreach (var artistType in artist.ArtistTypes
.Where(at => vm.SelectedIds.Contains(at.ArtistTypeID)).ToList())
{
artist.ArtistTypes.Remove(artistType);
}
this._db.SaveChanges();
}
For removing only one field, I came up with this solution. It seems odd but in EF, most of the things are odd anyway because we try to tell EF the database ops in terms of OOP.
using (var db = new Context())
{
//Create existing entities without fetch:
var artist = new Artist() { ArtistID = _artistID };
var type = new Type() { TypeID = _typeID };
//Add one entity to other's list
//This is in memory, not connected.
//So we do this because we try to tell EF that we want to remove this item
//Without fetch, we should add it first in order to remove :)
artist.ArtistTypes.Add(type);
//Attach that entity which you add an item to its list:
db.Artists.Attach(artist);
//It's now connected and recognized by EF as database operation
//After attaching, remove that item from list and save db
artist.ArtistTypes.Remove(type);
db.SaveChanges();
}
That's it! With this solution, you are no longer fetching all entries of joined table ArtistTypes.