This is a common question, but the explanations found so far and observed behaviour are some way apart.
We have want the following nHibernate strategy in our MVC website:
A SessionScope for the request (to track changes)
An ActiveRecord.TransactonScope to wrap our inserts only (to enable rollback/commit of batch)
Selects to be outside a Transaction (to reduce extent of locks)
Delayed Flush of inserts (so that our insert/updates occur as a UoW at end of session)
Now currently we:
Don't get the implied transaction from the SessionScope (with FlushAction Auto or Never)
If we use ActiveRecord.TransactionScope there is no delayed flush and any contained selects are also caught up in a long-running transaction.
I'm wondering if it's because we have an old version of nHibernate (it was from trunk very near 2.0).
We just can't get the expected nHibernate behaviour, and performance sucks (using NHProf and SqlProfiler to monitor db locks).
Here's what we have tried since:
Written our own TransactionScope (inherits from ITransactionScope) that:
Opens a ActiveRecord.TransactionScope on the Commit, not in the ctor (delays transaction until needed)
Opens a 'SessionScope' in the ctor if none are available (as a guard)
Converted our ids to Guid from identity
This stopped the auto flush of insert/update outside of the Transaction (!)
Now we have the following application behaviour:
Request from MVC
SELECTs needed by services are fired, all outside a transaction
Repository.Add calls do not hit the db until scope.Commit is called in our Controllers
All INSERTs / UPDATEs occur wrapped inside a transaction as an atomic unit, with no SELECTs contained.
... But for some reason nHProf now != sqlProfiler (selects seems to happen in the db before nHProf reports it).
NOTE
Before I get flamed I realise the issues here, and know that the SELECTs aren't in the Transaction. That's the design. Some of our operations will contain the SELECTs (we now have a couple of our own TransactionScope implementations) in serialised transactions. The vast majority of our code does not need up-to-the-minute live data, and we have serialised workloads with individual operators.
ALSO
If anyone knows how to get an identity column (non-PK) refreshed post-insert without a need to manually refresh the entity, and in particular by using ActiveRecord markup (I think it's possible in nHibernate mapping files using a 'generated' attribute) please let me know!!
Related
So I'm using the Nhibernate.Linq API to run a query. The query itself only takes about 50 ms, but the total time spent by NHibernate to return the result is around 500ms.
The query is something like as follows, session.Query<T>().Where(i => i.ForeignKey == someValue).Take(5).ToList().AsQueryable(). And this query executes in less than ~50ms from the debug log of creating the HQLQueryPlan, through setting up params, opening the connection, hydrating the C# objects and finishing.
However, before it even began getting that far, the debug log shows that NHibernate spent ~400ms cascading saves and updates, and then reports a bundle of Collection found: logs which appear to be Collection properties of the objects that I'm asking for. I should add the ISession being used is read only, and has absolutely not modified or created any entity. After spending these 400ms, it then logs that it flushed 0 changes.
Why is NHibernate cascading a load of save/update commands during execution of a .Query<T>(), is it trying to make sure that the correct data is retrieved? Is this the result of some configuration that I have set?
Such behavior is possible for queries executed only inside transaction and when:
You have set FlushMode to FlushMode.Always
Or NHibernate detected that your query involves tables that are modified in current session. This behaviour can be disabled by setting FlushMode to values less than FlushMode.Auto (that's default) (so it's FlushMode.Commit or FlushMode.Manual)
You can change FlushMode for your session or specify default flush mode in default_flush_mode configuration setting. See spec for details
I was wondering if it's a good practice to nest two transactions? For example wrapping my NHibernate transaction with TransactionScope for the benefit of the Tests (making sure that the db rollbacks all the changes that were made in the test).
The other option is to keep the entities that I insert into the Db in memory and delete them at the end of the test.
Which one is better?
First of all, nhibernate doesn't support nested transactions!
TransactionScope on the other side will not create a new transaction if there is already one opened. If you only use transaction scope, it will create a new transaction for the connection.
If you then open a transaction within the scope, this will still work with nhibernate.
Back to your question, it pretty much depends on the amount of objects you create within the TransactionScope. If it becomes too many, you will simply spam the transaction log of your database. Apart from that, the concept is perfectly fine I would say.
And one important thing to mention, if you use TransactionScope, and you create multiple sessions/transaction with nhibernate, the scope might switch to distributed transactions which requires MSDTC to run on the target server, otherwise it will simply fail.
When doing a criteria query with NHibernate, I want to get fresh results and not old ones from a cache.
The process is basically:
Query persistent objects into NHibernate application.
Change database entries externally (another program, manual edit in SSMS / MSSQL etc.).
Query persistence objects (with same query code), previously loaded objects shall be refreshed from database.
Here's the code (slightly changed object names):
public IOrder GetOrderByOrderId(int orderId)
{
...
IList result;
var query =
session.CreateCriteria(typeof(Order))
.SetFetchMode("Products", FetchMode.Eager)
.SetFetchMode("Customer", FetchMode.Eager)
.SetFetchMode("OrderItems", FetchMode.Eager)
.Add(Restrictions.Eq("OrderId", orderId));
query.SetCacheMode(CacheMode.Ignore);
query.SetCacheable(false);
result = query.List();
...
}
The SetCacheMode and SetCacheable have been added by me to disable the cache. Also, the NHibernate factory is set up with config parameter UseQueryCache=false:
Cfg.SetProperty(NHibernate.Cfg.Environment.UseQueryCache, "false");
No matter what I do, including Put/Refresh cache modes, for query or session: NHibernate keeps returning me outdated objects the second time the query is called, without the externally committed changes. Info btw.: the outdated value in this case is the value of a Version column (to test if a stale object state can be detected before saving). But I need fresh query results for multiple reasons!
NHibernate even generates an SQL query, but it is never used for the values returned.
Keeping the sessions open is neccessary to do dynamic updates on dirty columns only (also no stateless sessions for solution!); I don't want to add Clear(), Evict() or such everywhere in code, especially since the query is on a lower level and doesn't remember the objects previously loaded. Pessimistic locking would kill performance (multi-user environment!)
Is there any way to force NHibernate, by configuration, to send queries directly to the DB and get fresh results, not using unwanted caching functions?
First of all: this doesn't have anything to do with second-level caching (which is what SetCacheMode and SetCacheable control). Even if it did, those control caching of the query, not caching of the returned entities.
When an object has already been loaded into the current session (also called "first-level cache" by some people, although it's not a cache but an Identity Map), querying it again from the DB using any method will never override its value.
This is by design and there are good reasons for it behaving this way.
If you need to update potentially changed values in multiple records with a query, you will have to Evict them previously.
Alternatively, you might want to read about Stateless Sessions.
Is this code running in a transaction? Or is that external process running in a transaction? If one of those two is still in a transaction, you will not see any updates.
If that is not the case, you might be able to find the problem in the log messages that NHibernate is creating. These are very informative and will always tell you exactly what it is doing.
Keeping the sessions open is neccessary to do dynamic updates on dirty columns only
This is either the problem or it will become a problem in the future. NHibernate is doing all it can to make your life better, but you are trying to do as much as possible to prevent NHibernate to do it's job properly.
If you want NHibernate to update the dirty columns only, you could look at the dynamic-update-attribute in your class mapping file.
I am dealing with a strange issue related to NHibernate and distributed transactions in a WCF service. See Deadlocks causing 'Server failed to resume the transaction' with NHibernate and distributed transactions for more details.
One thing that seems to solve my problem is using NHibernate's AdoNetTransactionFactory, instead of AdoNetWithDistributedTransactionsFactory.
I believe that the AdoNetWithDistributedTransactionsFactory is involved with making NHibernate's second-level caching mechanism work right, but we're not using that. What (if any) other problems exist with using AdoNetTransactionFactory with distributed transactions?
Thanks for your time!
I notice that you mentioned from your other question/answer:
SqlConnection class is not thread-safe, and that includes closing the connection
on a separate thread. Based on this response we have filed a
bug report for NHibernate.
However, from NHibernate's documentation:
11.2. Threads and connections
You should observe the following practices when creating NHibernate Sessions:
Never create more than one concurrent ISession or ITransaction instance per database connection.
Be extremely careful when creating more than one ISession per database per transaction. The ISession itself keeps track of updates made to loaded objects, so a different ISession might see stale data.
The ISession is not threadsafe! Never access the same ISession in two concurrent threads. An ISession is usually only a single unit-of-work!
If you are trying to multi-thread the connection with NHibernate perhaps it is just not going to work. Have you considered a different ORM such as Entity Framework?
No matter what ORM you choose though, the database connection will not be thread safe. This is universal.
"many DB drivers are not thread safe. Using a singleton means that if you have many threads, they will all share the same connection. The singleton pattern does not give you thread saftey. It merely allows many threads to easily share a "global" instance." - https://stackoverflow.com/a/6507820/1026459
Using AdoNetTransactionFactory with distributed system transactions will cause those transaction to be ignored by NHibernate, which has the following consequences:
ConnectionReleaseMode.AfterTransaction will not be honored. Instead, NHibernate will release the connection after each statement, and so will re-acquire a connection from the pool for the next one. Depending on your data provider, this may trigger escalation of the transaction to distributed.
FlushMode.Commit will not be honored. Explicit flushes will be required instead. (Auto flushes before queries may still occur.)
Works needing to be isolated from current system transaction will still be included inside it. (Unless the connection string Enlist property is false.) Such works may include id generators queries such as retrieving the next high value for a table hilo generator. If the transaction gets roll-backed, NHibernate may then use conflicting ids.
The NHibernate session will not be able to correctly track locks it holds on entities. Considering itself outside of a transaction, it will consider it has no lock on them. So it may try (on user code request by example) to re-lock them with lower lock level than the one the transaction already holds on them in database. Not sure what outcome could result of that. (At best, ignored, at worst...)
Second level cache will be disabled as soon as you start modifying data. NHibernate sort of "invalidate" cache entries in such situation, and re-enable them only on transaction completion, updated. But since it will not be aware of transactions...
Some extensions (maybe Envers) may rely on NHibernate transaction events, and will no more work as expected.
I strongly recommend upgrading to nhibernate 3.2(or a version close to it). Why? Since 2.1, there has been significant improvements (read rewrite) to the AdoNetWithDistributedTransactionFactory. Matter of fact, it now handles TransactionScopes/ambient-transactions and the like correctly. When we ran 2.1 in production we encounter many issues related to distributed transactions. We pretty much had to fix a ton of stuff ourselves and recompile NHibernate. 3.2 seems to have fixed many issues around the subject.
I don't have the source near me but, if memory doesn't fail me, the AdoNetTransactionFactory doesn't check/handle ambient transactions. So, you are down to NHibernate booting transactions when one is not present in the session(by means of ISession.BeginTransaction()).
Is there a difference between Session.Save and Transaction.Commit ?
When I should use which?
It seems that sometimes Session.Save must use in conjunction with Transaction.Commit, sometimes no. Can anyone tell why this is so?
They're differenrt-- Session.Save saves an object and Transaction.Commit commits a bunch of work (multiple Gets, Loads, Saves, Updates, etc).
You'll want to use both. Here's a quick explanation with a link for more reading. The NHibernate documentation says the following:
In an ISession, every database operation occurs inside a transaction
that isolates the database operations (even read-only operations).
If you don't explicitly define your transaction, one will be created implicitly every time you read from or write to the database. Not very efficient. So even if you're just reading, you'll want to put everything inside a transaction and commit the transaction when you're done. Ayende Rahien explains further in this blog post.
When you look at some code samples out there, it may seem like people aren't using transactions but they may just be beginning/committing the transaction outside of the code you're looking at. In my ASP.Net MVC app, for example, I use an action filter (TransactionAttribute) to handle the transaction outside of my Controller Actions.