I have created an in-memory table in Esper engine and inserted some data. Now, I have to alter this table, add a new column, but couldn't find anything about the alteration of tables in Esper documentation, is there any other way to alter the table?
BTW, I am using EsperHA.
Any help would be appreciated.
If you have the window like this:
create window ABC ... as ABCType
... you can modify ABCType at runtime. There are update methods for event types in the runtime config APIs. When ABYType is a bean reloading the class does it too.
Related
I have a table in that table i'm inserting all my TableNames of that database.
Now I need to pass this table name to OLEDB source DYNAMICALLY from my main table one by one
Is this possible to to pass the table name as dynamically in OLEDB source.
I suspect you are then going to run some SQL against the stored table name?
You'll need to approach this differently and run what you are trying within a SQL task.
If not, give us some more information about exactly what you are trying to achieve.
My EF schema is containing views, and it is bound with an Oracle database.
Also, I do not have any control over the schema of my Oracle database, I am allowed to perform only DML operations over the views/ tables.
I can see the data getting loaded in my MVC view. There is another view, which loads individual record, and there user can change any field, and can hit the Save to update the underlying view. I know this is not as straightforward as updating tables, and so it is giving an error of operation state. Could anyone please guide me a proper way to achieve this?
We need to change the XML of EDMX file, and should change the type of the correponding view to table, in the Conceptual model's section.
I have the challenge of needing to audit data changes made by users of an MVC application.
Auditing creation and deletion of records is easy.
Updates is proving to be the problem.
I'm looking for a way to automate this, but the problem I have is that the application is using stored procedures to bring back EF "complex types".
These are then used to build a view model, and after postback, the controller receives a new view model built from the form values passed back from the view. Therefore the original values are no longer available.
Does anyone have any suggestions for a secure way to keep the original values so they can be compared with the updated values, so that changes can be stored?
(I appreciate I could go back to the database for these, but is not efficient, and I would have to retain all the parameters to remake the same call, and find a way to automate that part of the process).
Have you tried an Audit Trigger using the INSERTED and DELETED tables.
http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2008/01/27/adding-simple-trigger-based-auditing-to-your-sql-server-database.aspx
OR
In your stored procedures for insert,delete,update you can make use FOR XML AUTO. To get the XML for the record and add it to an audit table.
http://www.a2zdotnet.com/View.aspx?Id=71
UPDATE A T-SQL example
BEGIN
-- these tables would be in your database
DECLARE #table TABLE(ID INT IDENTITY(1,1) PRIMARY KEY, STR VARCHAR(10), DT DATETIME)
DECLARE #audit_table TABLE(AuditXML XML, Type VARCHAR(10), Time DATETIME)
-- this is defined at the top of your stored procedure
DECLARE #temp_table TABLE(PK INT)
-- your stored procedure will add an OUTPUT to the temp table
INSERT INTO #table
OUTPUT inserted.ID INTO #temp_table
VALUES ('test1', GetDate()),
('test2', GetDate() + 2)
-- at the end of your stored procedure update your audit table
INSERT INTO #audit_table
VALUES(
(
SELECT *
FROM #table
WHERE ID IN (SELECT PK FROM #temp_table)
FOR XML AUTO
),
'INSERTION',
GETDATE()
)
-- your audit table will have the record data
SELECT * FROM #audit_table
END
In the example above you could make temp_table a clone of table (have all of the columns from table) and in your OUTPUT clause use INSERTED.* INTO #temp_table, this would avoid have to reselect the records before getting the FOR XML AUTO. Another note, for stored procedures that do DELETE you would use DELETED.* instead of INSERTED.* in your OUTPUT.
If using SQL Server I recommend that you look into Change Data Capture (CDC).
It's an out of the box solution for auditing changes to the underlying tables of your application and it's relatively straightforward to set up, so there is no need for a custom solution that you then have to maintain.
If you have any supporting applications for your site, they'll also be covered and it also has the benefit of auditing any changes made directly against the database, such as from a DBA running a script.
Since your asp.net application may be running under one particular account, you'll probably need to add additional tracking information to capture the user who made the change. Fortunately this is also relatively straightforward. The following Stack Overflow question covers an approach to this using the ObjectStateManager
I was lookging for this myself, found this, check out Tracker for EF
Is there a way when i add a new entity to my Code First configuration the table gets automatically added so i don't have to worry about updating my DB with new tables?
you can add
Database.SetInitializer(new DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges<YourDbContext>());
in you r application start . It will recreate database for you if you have modified your configuration.
And if you do not want to drop and create database (To incremental development) you can use SqlMigrations. http://www.hanselman.com/blog/EntityFrameworkCodeFirstMigrationsAlphaNuGetPackageOfTheWeek10.aspx
From: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2010/12/06/ef-feature-ctp5-code-first-walkthrough.aspx
Setting an Initialization Strategy
In the next section we are going to start changing our model which in turn means the database schema needs to change as well. Currently there is no ‘out of the box’ solution to evolve your existing schema in place. Database evolution is something we are currently working on and a sample of the direction we are heading is provided in a recent design blog post.
There is however the opportunity to run some custom logic to initialize the database the first time a context is used in an AppDomain. This is handy if you want to insert seed data for test runs but it’s also useful to re-create the database if the model has changed. In CTP5 we include a couple of strategies you can plug in but you can also write custom ones.
Add a using statement for System.Data.Entity.Database at the top of Program.cs
using System.Data.Entity.Database;
For the walkthrough we just want to drop and re-create the database whenever the model has changed, so at the top of the Main method in my Program class I’ve added the following code
DbDatabase.SetInitializer<ProductContext>(
new DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges<ProductContext>());
I like using LINQ to SQL. The only problem is that I don't like the default way of updating tables.
Let's say I have the following table with the following columns:
ID (primary key), value1, value2, value3, value4, value5
When I need to update something I call
UPDATE ... WHERE ID=#id
LINQ to SQL calls
UPDATE ... WHERE ID=#id and value1=#value1 and value2=#value2 and value3=#value3 and value4=#value4 and value5=#value5
I can override this behavior by adding
UpdateCheck=UpdateCheck.Never
to every column, but with every update of the DataContext class with the GUI, this will be erased. Is there any way to tell LINQ to use this way of updating data?
I'm confused by this statement:
but with every update of the DataContext class with the GUI, this will be erased. Is there any way to tell LINQ to use this way of updating data?
By "the GUI", do you mean the Linq to SQL designer? Because the property sheet for each member has an "Update Check" property that you can set to "Never". If you are manually editing the .designer.cs file, don't do that, instead change the Update Check setting in the actual designer.
Designer Screen http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7912/updatecheckdesigner.png
Please note: The "default way" of updating used by Linq to SQL is called optimistic concurrency, and is a way of preventing conflicting updates from multiple users. If you turn this off by using the method above, you have to be prepared to deal with the fact that if two users have the same record open at the same time, the second user's changes will overwrite the first user's changes without any warning or confirmation. Be sure that this is the behaviour you really want.
Unfortunately, no, there's not. You have to edit the DBML manually after it is generated (or updated) - which is a pain (or use the Designer as already mentioned in the other answer).
When I last used L2S on a project, I wrote a quick utility which ran post-generation and fixed it up, but it's an unnecessary pain which (c)shouldn't be required IMHO.
Ran into this one myself. The trick is to change the way one generates the DBML--such as using l2st4. Then you can set that pesky UpdateCheck property to always be never by modifying the template.
That is how Linq works. Why don't you like this update behavior?
Read about optimistic concurrency
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb399373.aspx