Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Entity Framework: table without primary key

People also ask

Can we have table without primary key in Entity Framework?

The Entity framework will not support to have a table without primary key, but we can overcome this issue by accessing the table with additional column via a view and marking the new column as Primary in entity framework. Entity Framework requires primary keys for entities.

Is it possible to have a table without a primary key?

Every table can have (but does not have to have) a primary key. The column or columns defined as the primary key ensure uniqueness in the table; no two rows can have the same key. The primary key of one table may also help to identify records in other tables, and be part of the second table's primary key.

Can entity have no key?

Keyless entity types characteristicsCannot have a key defined.

Can we create a table without primary key in SQL?

Should you create a database table without a primary key? No. Every table should have some column (or set of columns) that uniquely identifies one and only one row. It makes it much easier to maintain the data.


I think this is solved by Tillito:

Entity Framework and SQL Server View

I'll quote his entry below:

We had the same problem and this is the solution:

To force entity framework to use a column as a primary key, use ISNULL.

To force entity framework not to use a column as a primary key, use NULLIF.

An easy way to apply this is to wrap the select statement of your view in another select.

Example:

SELECT
  ISNULL(MyPrimaryID,-999) MyPrimaryID,
  NULLIF(AnotherProperty,'') AnotherProperty
  FROM ( ... ) AS temp

answered Apr 26 '10 at 17:00 by Tillito


The error means exactly what it says.

Even if you could work around this, trust me, you don't want to. The number of confusing bugs that could be introduced is staggering and scary, not to mention the fact that your performance will likely go down the tubes.

Don't work around this. Fix your data model.

EDIT: I've seen that a number of people are downvoting this question. That's fine, I suppose, but keep in mind that the OP asked about mapping a table without a primary key, not a view. The answer is still the same. Working around the EF's need to have a PK on tables is a bad idea from the standpoint of manageability, data integrity, and performance.

Some have commented that they do not have the ability to fix the underlying data model because they're mapping to a third-party application. That is not a good idea, as the model can change out from under you. Arguably, in that case, you would want to map to a view, which, again, is not what the OP asked.


If I want to use them and modify data, must I necessarily add a PK to those tables, or is there a workaround so that I don't have to?

For those reaching this question and are using Entity Framework Core, you no longer need to necessarily add a PK to thoses tables or doing any workaround. Since EF Core 2.1 we have a new feature Query Types

Query types must be used for:

  • Serving as the return type for ad hoc FromSql() queries.
  • Mapping to database views.
  • Mapping to tables that do not have a primary key defined.
  • Mapping to queries defined in the model.

So in your DbContext just add the following property of type DbQuery<T> instead of DbSet<T> like below. Assuming your table name is MyTable:

public DbQuery<MyTable> MyTables { get; set; }

Composite keys can also be done with Entity Framework Fluent API

public class MyModelConfiguration : EntityTypeConfiguration<MyModel>
{
     public MyModelConfiguration()
     {
        ToTable("MY_MODEL_TABLE");
        HasKey(x => new { x.SourceId, x.StartDate, x.EndDate, x.GmsDate });
        ...
     }
}