How entity framework works for large number of records?

Question

I see already a un-answered question here on.

My question is -

Is EF really production ready for large application?

The question originated from these underlying questions -

1. EF pulls all the records into memory then performs the query operation. How EF would behave when table has around ~1000 records?
2. For simple edit I have to pull the record edit it and then push to db using SaveChanges()

Solution 1

I faced a similar situation where we had a large database with many tables 7- 10 million records each. we used Entity framework to display the data. To get nice performance here's what I learned; My 10 Golden rules for Entity Framework:

1. Understand that call to database made only when the actual records are required. all the operations are just used to make the query (SQL) so try to fetch only a piece of data rather then requesting a large number of records. Trim the fetch size as much as possible

2. Yes, (In some cases stored procedures are a better choice, they are not that evil as some make you believe), you should use stored procedures where necessary. Import them into your model and have function imports for them. You can also call them directly ExecuteStoreCommand(), ExecuteStoreQuery<>(). Same goes for functions and views but EF has a really odd way of calling functions "SELECT dbo.blah(@id)".

3. EF performs slower when it has to populate an Entity with deep hierarchy. be extremely careful with entities with deep hierarchy

4. Sometimes when you are requesting records and you are not required to modify them you should tell EF not to watch the property changes (AutoDetectChanges). that way record retrieval is much faster

5. Indexing of database is good but in case of EF it becomes very important. The columns you use for retrieval and sorting should be properly indexed.

6. When you model is large, VS2010/VS2012 Model designer gets real crazy. so break your model into medium sized models. There is a limitation that the Entities from different models cannot be shared even though they may be pointing to the same table in the database.

7. When you have to make changes in the same entity at different places, use the same entity, make changes and save it only once. The point is to AVOID retrieving the same record, make changes & save it multiple times. (Real performance gain tip).

8. When you need the info in only one or two columns try not to fetch the full entity. you can either execute your sql directly or have a mini entity something. You may need to cache some frequently used data in your application also.

9. Transactions are slow. be careful with them.

10. SQL Profiler or any query profiler is your friend. Run it when developing your application to see what does EF sends to database. When you perform a join using LINQ or Lambda expression in ur application, EF usually generates a Select-Where-In-Select style query which may not always perform well. If u find any such case, roll up ur sleeves, perform the join on DB and have EF retrieve results. (I forgot this one, the most important one!)

if you keep these things in mind EF should give almost similar performance as plain ADO.NET if not the same.

Solution 2

1. EF pulls all the records into memory then performs the query operation. How EF would behave when table has around ~1000 records?

That's not true! EF fetches only necessary records and queries are transformed into proper SQL statements. EF can cache objects locally within DataContext (and track all changes made to entities), but as long as you follow the rule to keep context open only when needed, it won't be a problem.

2. For simple edit I have to pull the record edit it and then push to db using SaveChanges()

It's true, but I would not bother in doing that unless you really see the performance problems. Because 1. is not true, you'll only get one record from DB fetched before it's saved. You can bypass that, by creating the SQL query as a string and sending it as a plain string.

Solution 3

1. EF translates your LINQ query into an SQL query, so it doesn't pull all records into memory. The generated SQL might not always be the most efficient, but a thousand records won't be a problem at all.
2. Yes, that's one way of doing it (assuming you only want to edit one record). If you are changing several records, you can get them all using one query and SaveChanges() will persist all of those changes.

Solution 4

EF is not a bad ORM framework. It is a different one with its own characteristics. Compare Microsoft Entity Framework 6, against say NetTiers which is powered by Microsoft Enterprise Library 6.

These are two entirely different beasts. The accepted answer is really good because it goes through the nuances of EF6. Whats key to understand is that each ORM has its own strengths and weaknesses. Compare the project requirements and its data access patterns against the ORM's behavior patterns.

For Example: NetTiers will always give you higher raw performance than EF6. However that is primarily because it is not a point and click ORM and as part and parcel of generating the ORM you will be optimizing your data model, adding custom stored procedures where relevant, etc... if you engineered your data model with the same effort for EF6 you could probably get close to the same performance.

Also consider can you modify the ORM? for example with NetTiers you can add extensions to the codesmith templates to include your own design patterns over and above what is generated by the base ORM library.

Also consider EF6 makes significant use of reflection whereas NetTiers or any library powered by Microsoft Enterprise Library will make heavy use of Generics instead. These are two entirely different approaches. Why so? Because EF6 is based on dynamic reflection whereas NetTiers is based on static reflection. Which is faster and which is better entirely depends on the usage patterns that will be required of the ORM.

Sometimes a hybrid approach works better: Consider for example EF6 for Web API OData endpoints, A few large tables wrapped with NetTiers & Microsoft Enterprise Library with custom stored procedures, and a few large masterdata tables wrapped with a custom built write through object cache where on initial load the record set is streamed into the memory cache using an ADO data reader.

These are all different and they all have their best fit scenarios: EF6, NetTiers, NHibernate, Wilson OR Mapper, XPO from Dev Express, etc...

Solution 5

There is no simple answer for your question. The main thing is about what you want to do with your data? And do you need so much data at one time?

EF translated your Queries to SQL so at this time there is no Object in Memory. When you get the data, then the selected records are in memory. If you are selecting a large amount of large objects then it can be a performance killer if you need to manipulate them all.

If you don't need to manipulate them all you can disable change tracking and enable it later for single objects you need to manipulate.

So you see it depends on your type of application. If you need to manipulate a mass of data efficient, then don't use a OR-Mapper!

Otherwise EF is fine, but consider how many objects you really need at one time and what you want to do with them.

View more solutions