In the past, any database administrator worth his salt would have told you never to query against a table directly. In fact, they would have prevented it by putting all tables in one schema & cutting-off direct access to that schema...thereby forcing you to query or CRUD from views & procedures etc. And further, protecting the data with security-layers like this made sense from a security perspective.
Now enters Entity Framework...
We use Entity Framework now where I work. The IQueryable is King! Everything is back into the DBO schema. And, people are going directly to tables left-and-right because Repository patterns and online examples seem to encourage this very practice.
Does Entity Framework do something under the hood that makes this practice okay now?
If so, what does it do?
Why is this okay now?
Help me understand.
Does Entity Framework do something under the hood that makes this
practice okay now?
EF doesn't really change the dynamic. It is a convenience of data access and rapid development, not a better way to get data.
If so, what does it do?
It does not. It does, I think, at least avoid constructing SELECT * type queries.
Why is this okay now?
It remains a matter of opinion and culture. In general a "strict" DBA will want you to hit only exposed objects layered on top of the tables for CRUD. It is much easier to tune such queries and maintain control of performance if the application is using the expose custom objects rather than using an ORM or hand-coding direct queries.
IMO, ORM are great for rapid protyping and basic stuff, but anything with more complex logic or substantial performance should be moved to custom built objects.
Where/when that lines is will vary substantially based on any number of things including:
Size/load of database
Availability of database professionals vs app
developers
Maturity of company
There are different types of Entity Framework (Code First, Database First, Model First). It appears you have an issue with Code First, which creates the database based on your classes and limits what you can do on the database side of things.
However with EF Database First, you can still do everything you did before. You can restrict access to your tables and expose Stored Procedures/Views for your CRUD operations. You would still benefit from EF, because of the strongly typed classes that are generated from your Views, and strongly typed methods generated from your Stored Procedures.
Now everyone can be happy - you get to cut off access to the schema and IQueryable is still king
So I'm new to Core Data, everything I read says to use it - if you use SQLite you're an evil bad person. But I'm lost on some simple things. I have a bunch of data that will be used to setup a NSCollectionView, this would be relatively simple in SQLite, but I don't want to be an evil bad person. Is there a simple tutorial someplace that I'm missing? I would love to see a example SQL database based app and the same thing with core data.
Something like here is a table structure in SQL, here is the equivalent in core data...
Here is a INSERT script in SQL, here is the equivalent in core data...
Here is a SELECT with a JOIN and a few WHERE statements, here is the equivalent in core data...
Its even the little things that I don't understand.
How do I provide a pre-populated core data system
Where do the core data files live? in the bundle like my SQLite database would?
With an update to the app what do I have to do to update the core data files if they live outside my bundle?
Justin808,
No one is an "evil bad person" for not using CD. If you prefer to use SQLite, go for it. It is used by many applications. It is a framework. If SQLite is a technology you are used to, then use SQLite. That said, CD is the Apple encouraged path for building rich, persistent model apps on their platforms. They don't provide many tools for the pure SQL community but provide a very rich set of tools for CD apps. I've attempted to answer the technology question here: Core Data VS Sqlite or FMDB…?
About your request for a line by line comparison between the same app implemented both ways, this sounds like an excellent learning opportunity for you to write one. (I teach beginning iOS programming. The app you're asking for can be quite simple. You can probably write both versions in one weekend. I would be happy to review your work and critique your blog post describing the differences. You could make an excellent contribution to other folks in your situation trying to choose between these two technologies.)
Your questions:
Something like here is a table structure in SQL, here is the
equivalent in core data...
Schemas are described differently but are substantially similar. That said, an SQL schema may not be tuned for use by CD and/or UI application or vice versa.
Here is a INSERT script in SQL, here is the equivalent in core data...
There are plenty of examples by Apple and others that tell you how to insert new entities. What is it you don't understand?
Here is a SELECT with a JOIN and a few WHERE statements, here is the
equivalent in core data...
The predicate language in CD is different than SQL. As such, you will query things differently. In particular, CD is an almost "pure" set theoretic approach to organizing data. You use fetches to seed your "query" and set operation to refine it. Beyond that, I need to direct you to one of the many books about CD and its predicate language.
How do I provide a pre-populated core data system
CD depends upon a file like every other DB system. You provide it in your bundle and copy it into your documents directory (on iOS) when you need to mutate it.
Where do the core data files live? in the bundle like my SQLite
database would?
Yes, they do. If you are using CD with a SQLite backing store, then it is just a SQLite DB file. (There is a special issue if you allow CD to store large BLOBs in the file system.)
With an update to the app what do I have to do to update the core data
files if they live outside my bundle?
I'm not sure what you are asking here? If you update your schema between versions, just as with SQLite, you will need to migrate your database to the new schema. CD provides some tools that work very well for additive migrations.
Good luck with your choice.
Andrew
I think its quite usual task, but still solutions I saw look not so nice.
For example in Qt used approach based on MVC pattern -- you must assign all connections manually.
Or I remember one PHP engine where pages were creating from DB schema.
Which are other approaches? Which one you are prefer? What are the best practices?
Usually, there is not a one to one mapping from the database to the GUIThere are many subtle combinations that change between how you store the data and how that stored data is visualized and edited by the user.
however, you can automate a datamodel layer in your code with tools like Hibernate. You will still need to use the model as required to present your user interface.
So I'm having a head against the wall moment and hoping somebody can come help either remove the wall or stop my head from moving!!
Over the last 3/4 weeks I've been investigating ORM's in readyness for a new project. The ORM must map to an existing, large and ageing SQL database.
So I tried Subsonic. I really liked v2 and v3 after modding to work nicely with VB and named schemas in SQL was running OK. However, its lack of flexibility of having separate entity properties names vs column names had me pulling my hair out (sorry Rob).
I tried Entity Framework but I found like others it lacking in certain areas.
So I bit the bullet and tried nHibernate but after a week or so getting it working how I liked (with help from Codesmith to generate classes/hbms for me) I'm frustrated with the time it takes to startup (build a config object), despite trying a number of tricks to reduce this time.
I'm essentially after building a DAL class that I can share between apps and websites. Am I barking up the wrong tree? For a legacy project with 100s of tables should I go back to ado.net and use DTOs? Aarrgh!
Sorry for the ranty style of question. I don't have much hair left and I'd like to keep what I have!!
Thanks in advance, Ed
PS. I should add that I know SQL very well and not scared of getting my hands dirty to write fast queries. If anything I don't need to be hid from SQL
ORM let's you:
To map table rows to objects, that are the the workable pieces of object oriented programming.
To automatically navigate through object relationships
To easily add, edit and remove table rows
To query the database in a more intuitive way as you don't have to think of joins (this one will depend on the ORM and the query method)
To transparently handle L1 and L2 cache.
All of the above would have to be handled by hand if you werent using ORM.
PS: I agree to Dmitry as to the startup time of NHibernate (see question comments). Besides, did you try Fluent NHibernate? Fluent NHibernate is impressively easy. I couldn't believe my eyes when I first mapped a database. It's even easier than proprietary ORMs like DevExpress XPO.
The biggest benefit of an ORM tool is that it will help you layer your application correctly. Most project nowadays use a Data Layer to connect to the database. You start from the ORM tool to produce classes that correspond to your database objects. Then you define an interface using these methods. All persistence code uses the methods of this interface. This way the business logic layer is only coupled to this higher-layer interface and needs to know nothing about the database. In fact there should be no dependency on ADO.NET or even NHibernate.
Another advantage of ORM tools is that you de-couple your application from the database server. You could change the db engine and still use the same code. Also there isn't only the complexity of the SQL that the ORM hides from you. It can also help you with transactions logic and connection pooling.
I'd say that for new projects an ORM tool is a necessity. For legacy projects it isn't so much beneficial, unless of course you have the time/money to start from scratch.
In my experience, most ORMs end up being way more complex than SQL. Which defeats the entire purpose of using them.
One solution I'm enthusiastic about is LINQ2SQL. It excels as a thin layer about stored procedures or views. It's really easy to use and doesn't try to hide SQL.
There are basically two questions here:
What's great about ORMs? There are similar questions on Stackoverflow. See:
What are the advantages of using an ORM?
Is everyone here jumping on the ORM band wagon?
How can I improve NHibernate startup time? See:
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2007/10/26/Real-World-NHibernate-Reducing-startup-times-for-large-amount-of.aspx
http://nhforge.org/blogs/nhibernate/archive/2009/03/13/an-improvement-on-sessionfactory-initialization.aspx
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
As a web developer looking to move from hand-coded PHP sites to framework-based sites, I have seen a lot of discussion about the advantages of one ORM over another. It seems to be useful for projects of a certain (?) size, and even more important for enterprise-level applications.
What does it give me as a developer? How will my code differ from the individual SELECT statements that I use now? How will it help with DB access and security? How does it find out about the DB schema and user credentials?
Edit: #duffymo pointed out what should have been obvious to me: ORM is only useful for OOP code. My code is not OO, so I haven't run into the problems that ORM solves.
I'd say that if you aren't dealing with objects there's little point in using an ORM.
If your relational tables/columns map 1:1 with objects/attributes, there's not much point in using an ORM.
If your objects don't have any 1:1, 1:m or m:n relationships with other objects, there's not much point in using an ORM.
If you have complex, hand-tuned SQL, there's not much point in using an ORM.
If you've decided that your database will have stored procedures as its interface, there's not much point in using an ORM.
If you have a complex legacy schema that can't be refactored, there's not much point in using an ORM.
So here's the converse:
If you have a solid object model, with relationships between objects that are 1:1, 1:m, and m:n, don't have stored procedures, and like the dynamic SQL that an ORM solution will give you, by all means use an ORM.
Decisions like these are always a choice. Choose, implement, measure, evaluate.
ORMs are being hyped for being the solution to Data Access problems. Personally, after having used them in an Enterprise Project, they are far from being the solution for Enterprise Application Development. Maybe they work in small projects. Here are the problems we have experienced with them specifically nHibernate:
Configuration: ORM technologies require configuration files to map table schemas into object structures. In large enterprise systems the configuration grows very quickly and becomes extremely difficult to create and manage. Maintaining the configuration also gets tedious and unmaintainable as business requirements and models constantly change and evolve in an agile environment.
Custom Queries: The ability to map custom queries that do not fit into any defined object is either not supported or not recommended by the framework providers. Developers are forced to find work-arounds by writing adhoc objects and queries, or writing custom code to get the data they need. They may have to use Stored Procedures on a regular basis for anything more complex than a simple Select.
Proprietery binding: These frameworks require the use of proprietary libraries and proprietary object query languages that are not standardized in the computer science industry. These proprietary libraries and query languages bind the application to the specific implementation of the provider with little or no flexibility to change if required and no interoperability to collaborate with each other.
Object Query Languages: New query languages called Object Query Languages are provided to perform queries on the object model. They automatically generate SQL queries against the databse and the user is abstracted from the process. To Object Oriented developers this may seem like a benefit since they feel the problem of writing SQL is solved. The problem in practicality is that these query languages cannot support some of the intermediate to advanced SQL constructs required by most real world applications. They also prevent developers from tweaking the SQL queries if necessary.
Performance: The ORM layers use reflection and introspection to instantiate and populate the objects with data from the database. These are costly operations in terms of processing and add to the performance degradation of the mapping operations. The Object Queries that are translated to produce unoptimized queries without the option of tuning them causing significant performance losses and overloading of the database management systems. Performance tuning the SQL is almost impossible since the frameworks provide little flexiblity over controlling the SQL that gets autogenerated.
Tight coupling: This approach creates a tight dependancy between model objects and database schemas. Developers don't want a one-to-one correlation between database fields and class fields. Changing the database schema has rippling affects in the object model and mapping configuration and vice versa.
Caches: This approach also requires the use of object caches and contexts that are necessary to maintian and track the state of the object and reduce database roundtrips for the cached data. These caches if not maintained and synchrnonized in a multi-tiered implementation can have significant ramifications in terms of data-accuracy and concurrency. Often third party caches or external caches have to be plugged in to solve this problem, adding extensive burden to the data-access layer.
For more information on our analysis you can read:
http://www.orasissoftware.com/driver.aspx?topic=whitepaper
At a very high level: ORMs help to reduce the Object-Relational impedance mismatch. They allow you to store and retrieve full live objects from a relational database without doing a lot of parsing/serialization yourself.
What does it give me as a developer?
For starters it helps you stay DRY. Either you schema or you model classes are authoritative and the other is automatically generated which reduces the number of bugs and amount of boiler plate code.
It helps with marshaling. ORMs generally handle marshaling the values of individual columns into the appropriate types so that you don't have to parse/serialize them yourself. Furthermore, it allows you to retrieve fully formed object from the DB rather than simply row objects that you have to wrap your self.
How will my code differ from the individual SELECT statements that I use now?
Since your queries will return objects rather then just rows, you will be able to access related objects using attribute access rather than creating a new query. You are generally able to write SQL directly when you need to, but for most operations (CRUD) the ORM will make the code for interacting with persistent objects simpler.
How will it help with DB access and security?
Generally speaking, ORMs have their own API for building queries (eg. attribute access) and so are less vulnerable to SQL injection attacks; however, they often allow you to inject your own SQL into the generated queries so that you can do strange things if you need to. Such injected SQL you are responsible for sanitizing yourself, but, if you stay away from using such features then the ORM should take care of sanitizing user data automatically.
How does it find out about the DB schema and user credentials?
Many ORMs come with tools that will inspect a schema and build up a set of model classes that allow you to interact with the objects in the database. [Database] user credentials are generally stored in a settings file.
If you write your data access layer by hand, you are essentially writing your own feature poor ORM.
Oren Eini has a nice blog which sums up what essential features you may need in your DAL/ORM and why it writing your own becomes a bad idea after time:
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2006/05/12/25ReasonsNotToWriteYourOwnObjectRelationalMapper.aspx
EDIT: The OP has commented in other answers that his code base isn't very object oriented. Dealing with object mapping is only one facet of ORMs. The Active Record pattern is a good example of how ORMs are still useful in scenarios where objects map 1:1 to tables.
Top Benefits:
Database Abstraction
API-centric design mentality
High Level == Less to worry about at the fundamental level (its been thought of for you)
I have to say, working with an ORM is really the evolution of database-driven applications. You worry less about the boilerplate SQL you always write, and more on how the interfaces can work together to make a very straightforward system.
I love not having to worry about INNER JOIN and SELECT COUNT(*). I just work in my high level abstraction, and I've taken care of database abstraction at the same time.
Having said that, I never have really run into an issue where I needed to run the same code on more than one database system at a time realistically. However, that's not to say that case doesn't exist, its a very real problem for some developers.
I can't speak for other ORM's, just Hibernate (for Java).
Hibernate gives me the following:
Automatically updates schema for tables on production system at run-time. Sometimes you still have to update some things manually yourself.
Automatically creates foreign keys which keeps you from writing bad code that is creating orphaned data.
Implements connection pooling. Multiple connection pooling providers are available.
Caches data for faster access. Multiple caching providers are available. This also allows you to cluster together many servers to help you scale.
Makes database access more transparent so that you can easily port your application to another database.
Make queries easier to write. The following query that would normally require you to write 'join' three times can be written like this:
"from Invoice i where i.customer.address.city = ?" this retrieves all invoices with a specific city
a list of Invoice objects are returned. I can then call invoice.getCustomer().getCompanyName(); if the data is not already in the cache the database is queried automatically in the background
You can reverse-engineer a database to create the hibernate schema (haven't tried this myself) or you can create the schema from scratch.
There is of course a learning curve as with any new technology but I think it's well worth it.
When needed you can still drop down to the lower SQL level to write an optimized query.
Most databases used are relational databases which does not directly translate to objects. What an Object-Relational Mapper does is take the data, create a shell around it with utility functions for updating, removing, inserting, and other operations that can be performed. So instead of thinking of it as an array of rows, you now have a list of objets that you can manipulate as you would any other and simply call obj.Save() when you're done.
I suggest you take a look at some of the ORM's that are in use, a favourite of mine is the ORM used in the python framework, django. The idea is that you write a definition of how your data looks in the database and the ORM takes care of validation, checks and any mechanics that need to run before the data is inserted.
What does it give me as a developer?
Saves you time, since you don't have to code the db access portion.
How will my code differ from the individual SELECT statements that I use now?
You will use either attributes or xml files to define the class mapping to the database tables.
How will it help with DB access and security?
Most frameworks try to adhere to db best practices where applicable, such as parametrized SQL and such. Because the implementation detail is coded in the framework, you don't have to worry about it. For this reason, however, it's also important to understand the framework you're using, and be aware of any design flaws or bugs that may open unexpected holes.
How does it find out about the DB schema and user credentials?
You provide the connection string as always. The framework providers (e.g. SQL, Oracle, MySQL specific classes) provide the implementation that queries the db schema, processes the class mappings, and renders / executes the db access code as necessary.
Personally I've not had a great experience with using ORM technology to date. I'm currently working for a company that uses nHibernate and I really can't get on with it. Give me a stored proc and DAL any day! More code sure ... but also more control and code that's easier to debug - from my experience using an early version of nHibernate it has to be added.
Using an ORM will remove dependencies from your code on a particular SQL dialect. Instead of directly interacting with the database you'll be interacting with an abstraction layer that provides insulation between your code and the database implementation. Additionally, ORMs typically provide protection from SQL injection by constructing parameterized queries. Granted you could do this yourself, but it's nice to have the framework guarantee.
ORMs work in one of two ways: some discover the schema from an existing database -- the LINQToSQL designer does this --, others require you to map your class onto a table. In both cases, once the schema has been mapped, the ORM may be able to create (recreate) your database structure for you. DB permissions probably still need to be applied by hand or via custom SQL.
Typically, the credentials supplied programatically via the API or using a configuration file -- or both, defaults coming from a configuration file, but able to be override in code.
While I agree with the accepted answer almost completely, I think it can be amended with lightweight alternatives in mind.
If you have complex, hand-tuned SQL
If your objects don't have any 1:1, 1:m or m:n relationships with other objects
If you have a complex legacy schema that can't be refactored
...then you might benefit from a lightweight ORM where SQL is is not
obscured or abstracted to the point where it is easier to write your
own database integration.
These are a few of the many reasons why the developer team at my company decided that we needed to make a more flexible abstraction to reside on top of the JDBC.
There are many open source alternatives around that accomplish similar things, and jORM is our proposed solution.
I would recommend to evaluate a few of the strongest candidates before choosing a lightweight ORM. They are slightly different in their approach to abstract databases, but might look similar from a top down view.
jORM
ActiveJDBC
ORMLite
my concern with ORM frameworks is probably the very thing that makes it attractive to lots of developers.
nameley that it obviates the need to 'care' about what's going on at the DB level. Most of the problems that we see during the day to day running of our apps are related to database problems. I worry slightly about a world that is 100% ORM that people won't know about what queries are hitting the database, or if they do, they are unsure about how to change them or optimize them.
{I realize this may be a contraversial answer :) }