Hello everyone,

I did a search on the forums in Beginning ASP and Professional ASP regarding the ability to use transactions to encapsulate multiple CRUD statements to be executed together or not at all. But it turned up no results.

So here goes:
Using a simple example, suppose I needed to do an insert into two related tables at once within a relational SQL Server database (e.g. 2012). And suppose I wanted to do it in Linq to Entities instead of a stored procedure. Can it be done? If so, is it as reliable as using a transaction block within a stored procedure? Are there any performance or quality issues with doing it that way?

Thanks!

Keywords (for anyone who does a similar search on this concept):
Entity Framwork Transaction
SQL Server Transaction in LINQ to Entities
Multiple inserts rollback in LINQ

Hi there,

Did my previous answer about using TransactionScope not help? What is it you're not understanding from that solution?

Imar

__________________
Imar Spaanjaars
http://Imar.Spaanjaars.Com
Follow me on Twitter

Author of Beginning ASP.NET 4.5 : in C# and VB, Beginning ASP.NET Web Pages with WebMatrix
and Beginning ASP.NET 4 : in C# and VB.
Did this post help you? Click the button below this post to show your appreciation!

Oh, not at all, I just wanted to start some discussion on the topic. At this point, it seems like the Entity Framework has all but eliminated the need for stored procedures (unless of course you plan on manually editing the database).

But for anyone asking the same question... Stored Procedures in SQL Server vs. Entity Framework methods?, this could be an interesting thread. For example, when would using one over the other be considered a best practice? Are there any performance, reliability or maintenence issues with strictly using the framework in place of stored procedures when it comes to executing multiple SQL statements together (or concurrently).

It would be nice to get the opinions and feedback from those who already have had experience in this regard.

I figure I'll have more questions and comments on this as I continue along with my work.

Thanks.
WebDev

Hello all !

Does this make sense ... ?

I put in a half second delay in my code behind, after each call to a stored procedure. I did this in order to ensure the database has enough time to process the transaction before I turn around on the next line of code and reference that information in a query or view.

I thought this was prudent, but I don't know if it is necessary? Is this a good practice? Is the answer the same if I'm using the Entity Framework to call a stored procedure?

Thanks!
WebDev

>> Does this make sense ... ?

Probably not. Depending on the actual code you have written, the call is most likely executed synchronously. That means the data is done, and the data is available as soon as the code is done running. No need for a delay.

However, it depends on your code. You could have "async code" which is non-blocking. However, in that scenario, waiting for "half a second" doesn't make sense. You should respond to the code "when it's done", which could be a millisecond later, or a minute. Async code makes it easy to do that.

My guess is that you're not writing async code in which case a delay is not necessary. Post your code and we can tell for sure.

Cheers,


Imar

__________________
Imar Spaanjaars
http://Imar.Spaanjaars.Com
Follow me on Twitter

Author of Beginning ASP.NET 4.5 : in C# and VB, Beginning ASP.NET Web Pages with WebMatrix
and Beginning ASP.NET 4 : in C# and VB.
Did this post help you? Click the button below this post to show your appreciation!

Okay because it didn't "feel" right, so Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the insightful reply.