I have a non-nullable database column which has a default value set. When inserting a row, sometimes a value is specified for the column, sometimes one is not. This works fine in TSQL when the column is omitted. For example, given the following table:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Table1](
[id] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[col1] [nvarchar](50) NOT NULL,
[col2] [nvarchar](50) NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_Table1] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([id] ASC)
)
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Table1]
ADD CONSTRAINT [DF_Table1_col1] DEFAULT ('DB default') FOR [col1]
The following two statements will work:
INSERT INTO Table1 (col1, col2) VALUES ('test value', '')
INSERT INTO Table1 (col2) VALUES ('')
In the second statement, the default value is used for col1.
The problem I have is when using LINQ-to-SQL (L2S) with a table like this. I want to produce the same behavior, but I can't figure out how to make L2S do that. I want to be able to run the following code and have the first row get the value I specify and the second row get the default value from the database:
var context = new DataClasses1DataContext();
var row1 = new Table1 { col1 = "test value", col2 = "" };
context.Table1s.InsertOnSubmit(row1);
context.SubmitChanges();
var row2 = new Table1 { col2 = "" };
context.Table1s.InsertOnSubmit(row2);
context.SubmitChanges();
If the Auto Generated Value property of col1 is False, the first row is created as desired, but the second row fails with a null error on col1. If Auto Generated Value is True, both rows are created with the default value from the database. I've tried various combinations of Auto Generated Value, Auto-Sync and Nullable, but nothing I've tried gives the behavior I want.
L2S does not omit the column from the insert statement when no value is specified. Instead it does something like this:
INSERT INTO Table1 (col1, col2) VALUES (null, '')
...which of course causes a null error on col1.
Is there some way to get L2S to omit a column from the insert statement if no value is given? Or is there some other way to get the behavior I want? I need the default value at the database level because not all row inserts are done via L2S, and in some cases the default value is a little more complex than a hard coded value (e.g. creating the default based on another field) so I'd rather avoid duplicating that logic.
When the SELECT query runs, the database server applies the restricting condition on each row that is being fetched while searching. If the row meets the mentioned condition, it is included. The basic syntax for writing exclude queries in SQL are as follows: SELECT column_name1, column_name2, ...
column_name1, column_name2, … : columns or field names that have to be fetched for the final result set. table_name1, table_name2: database tables from which the above-mentioned columns have to be fetched.
Find the roll_no, student_name, degree_major, society, and home_city for students excluding rows where home_city is NULL or does not exist. In order to exclude rows that are present only in the results of the first select statement but not in the second, we can use EXCEPT operator.
Unfortunately, Linq to SQL does not support database default values. See the first question here:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/linqprojectgeneral/thread/3ae5e457-099e-4d13-9a8b-df3ed4ba0bab/
What they're suggesting is that you provide an implementation of the Insert method for the entity in question. The signature being
partial void Insert[EntityName](Entity instance)
So if you had an entity called Person, that you wanted to have a default value of "Home" for a PhoneNumberDesc field, you could implement it this way:
partial void InsertPerson(Person instance)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(instance.PhoneNumberDesc))
instance.PhoneNumberDesc = "Home";
var insertParams = new List<object>();
var insertStatement = "insert into ...";
// build the rest of the insert statement and fill in the parameter values here...
this.ExecuteQuery(typeof(Person), insertStatement, insertParams.ToArray());
}
You might be able to get away with implementing the OnCreated event, which is called with each constructor for each entity. This article explains a little on how the extensibility points in Linq To SQL: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb882671.aspx
All in all, the solution really kinda sucks. Good luck!
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With