ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Entity Framework. Delete all rows in table

How can I quickly remove all rows in the table using Entity Framework?

I am currently using:

var rows = from o in dataDb.Table
           select o;
foreach (var row in rows)
{
    dataDb.Table.Remove(row);
}
dataDb.SaveChanges();

However, it takes a long time to execute.

Are there any alternatives?

Reading the answers I wonder why none of these TRUNCATE adepts worry about foreign key constraints.
I'm kind of amazed by how the answers here just take for granted that everyone is using Microsoft SQL Server, even though support for other databases in Entity Framework goes back as far as I can find information about and certainly predates this question by several years. Tip: if an answer quotes table names in SQL statements with square brackets (like: [TableName]), it isn't portable.
Did id ever occur to you that "not using an ORM" is an answer? There is a lot of things ORM are made for - BULK OPERATIONS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. THere is no business logic involved in deleting all rows, and that is where ORM's shine.

R
Ron Sijm

For those that are googling this and ended up here like me, this is how you currently do it in EF5 and EF6:

context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");

Assuming context is a System.Data.Entity.DbContext


FYI, in order to use TRUNCATE the user must have ALTER permission on the table. (stackoverflow.com/questions/4735038/…)
@Alex Just wasted a ton of time on the error "Cannot find the object MyTable because it does not exist or you do not have permissions." for that exact reason - ALTER permissions are rarely granted to EF apps, and the error message really sends you on a wild goose chase.
I had issues since my table was part of a foreign key relationship, even though it was the leaf table in that relationship. I wound up using context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("DELETE FROM [Interests]"); instead
Note that while the [ escapes here are specific to SQL Server, the TRUNCATE command is not - it's part of ANSI SQL and so will work in most SQL dialects (though not SQLite).
9
9 revs, 4 users 68%

Warning: The following is only suitable for small tables (think < 1000 rows)

Here is a solution that uses entity framework (not SQL) to delete the rows, so it is not SQL Engine(R/DBM) specific.

This assumes that you're doing this for testing or some similar situation. Either

The amount of data is small or

The performance doesn't matter

Simply call:

VotingContext.Votes.RemoveRange(VotingContext.Votes);

Assuming this context:

public class VotingContext : DbContext
{
    public DbSet<Vote> Votes{get;set;}
    public DbSet<Poll> Polls{get;set;}
    public DbSet<Voter> Voters{get;set;}
    public DbSet<Candidacy> Candidates{get;set;}
}

For tidier code you can declare the following extension method:

public static class EntityExtensions
{
    public static void Clear<T>(this DbSet<T> dbSet) where T : class
    {
        dbSet.RemoveRange(dbSet);
    }
}

Then the above becomes:

VotingContext.Votes.Clear();
VotingContext.Voters.Clear();
VotingContext.Candidacy.Clear();
VotingContext.Polls.Clear();
await VotingTestContext.SaveChangesAsync();

I recently used this approach to clean up my test database for each testcase run (it´s obviously faster than recreating the DB from scratch each time, though I didn´t check the form of the delete commands that were generated).

Why can it be slow?

EF will get ALL the rows (VotingContext.Votes) and then will use their IDs (not sure exactly how, doesn't matter), to delete them.

So if you're working with serious amount of data you'll kill the SQL server process (it will consume all the memory) and same thing for the IIS process since EF will cache all the data same way as SQL server. Don't use this one if your table contains serious amount of data.


Great answer, speeded up my delete all rows code by a factor of 10! Note that I had to rename the Clear() static extension method to something like ClearDbSet() since I already had another Clear() static extension method defined elsewhere in my project.
@dodgy_coder renaming isn´t necessary for reason you gave, since the extension method is for DbSet, IDbSet s and not IEnumerable, IList, ICollection, ICache or any other interface that "Clear" would be required. the preference for extension method are the type on which the are defined. but if that reads clearer to you and doesn´t sound redundant, Great!. i´,m glad it helps perfomance wise! Cheers!
i'm glad you stated for small tables only. i hope people get the importance of your explanation. because this way is syntactic sugar, the proper way is the way Ron Sijm suggested. because you don't load the data before removing it. cheers though for showing and explaining this way of doing it.
This does not reset the identity key. So if you clear 10 records, the next one will still be 11.
I had to explicity call _context.SaveChanges()explicitly after RemoveRange
R
Rudi Visser

Using SQL's TRUNCATE TABLE command will be the fastest as it operates on the table and not on individual rows.

dataDb.ExecuteStoreCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [Table]");

Assuming dataDb is a DbContext (not an ObjectContext), you can wrap it and use the method like this:

var objCtx = ((System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.IObjectContextAdapter)dataDb).ObjectContext;
objCtx.ExecuteStoreCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [Table]");

If you get a permissions error when you try this, just change TRUNCATE TABLE to DELETE FROM
@codeMonkey just take note that these are different operations, but will have (almost) the same net effect 👍
But DELETE doesn't reset the IDENTITY seed. This could be problematic in certain situations.
u
user3328890
var all = from c in dataDb.Table select c;
dataDb.Table.RemoveRange(all);
dataDb.SaveChanges();

This should not be used cause you execute a full select and a delete after instead of just a delete. From time-performance view this is a big NOT!
@HellBaby Unless it's a rarely called and thus the performance is quite irrelevant.
Even if its rarely called this is bad. A table with merely 3000 entries could take upwards of 30 seconds due to how slow EF change tracking is.
This is only suitable for small tables ( < 1000 rows)
Perfect for my In-memory Database in my Unit Tests :)
A
AlG
using (var context = new DataDb())
{
     var ctx = ((System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.IObjectContextAdapter)context).ObjectContext;
     ctx.ExecuteStoreCommand("DELETE FROM [TableName] WHERE Name= {0}", Name);
}

or

using (var context = new DataDb())
{
     context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");
}

but when i write it."query.Delete();" - "Delete" does not recognized
add reference of System.Data.Entity and EntityFrameWork in ur current project
What extension method is Delete?
As far as I know there isn't an extension method Delete on IQueryable -- I'm guessing Manish was using something like EntityFramework.Extended: github.com/loresoft/EntityFramework.Extended
I've edited my answer, earlier it was misleading. @null, you are right, this .Delete was a custom extension and in the heat of posting the answer first, totally forgot to mention the definition of this custom .Delete. :)
O
Omid Farvid

You can do that without Foreach

dataDB.Table.RemoveRange(dataDB.Table);
dataDB.SaveChanges();

This will remove all rows


Will it truncate navigation property items?
only for small tables
R
Rob Sedgwick

This avoids using any sql

using (var context = new MyDbContext())
{
    var itemsToDelete = context.Set<MyTable>();
    context.MyTables.RemoveRange(itemsToDelete);
    context.SaveChanges();
}

I voted up for the simplicity (for small tables) but avoid using dispose with entity framework: stackoverflow.com/a/15667073/3231884
A
Alexei - check Codidact

I came across this question when I had to deal with a particular case: fully updating of content in a "leaf" table (no FKs pointing to it). This involved removing all rows and putting new rows information and it should be done transactionally (I do not want to end up with an empty table, if inserts fails for whatever reason).

I have tried the public static void Clear<T>(this DbSet<T> dbSet) approach, but new rows are not inserted. Another disadvante is that the whole process is slow, as rows are deleted one by one.

So, I have switched to TRUNCATE approach, since it is much faster and it is also ROLLBACKable. It also resets the identity.

Example using repository pattern:

public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class, new()
{
    private readonly IEfDbContext _context;

    public void BulkInsert(IEnumerable<T> entities)
    {
        _context.BulkInsert(entities);
    }

    public void Truncate()
    {
        _context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand($"TRUNCATE TABLE {typeof(T).Name}");
    }
 }

 // usage 
 DataAccess.TheRepository.Truncate();
 var toAddBulk = new List<EnvironmentXImportingSystem>();

 // fill toAddBulk from source system
 // ...

 DataAccess.TheRepository.BulkInsert(toAddBulk);
 DataAccess.SaveChanges();

Of course, as already mentioned, this solution cannot be used by tables referenced by foreign keys (TRUNCATE fails).


Two comments: 1. The table name should be wrapped in [...]. One of my classes/tables is called "Transaction", which is a SQL keyword. 2. If the goal is to clear all tables in a DB for unit testing, issues with foreign key constraints can easily be worked around by ordering the tables to process them in a way that child tables get truncated before parent tables.
@Christoph - 1. Yes, that is true. I missed that, because I always name tables to avoid keywords as it might lead to trouble. 2. If I remember correctly, tables referenced by FKs cannot be truncate (SQL Server throws Cannot truncate table because it is being referenced by a FOREIGN KEY constraint), even if they are empty, so FKs must be dropped and recreated in order to use TRUNCATE anyway.
M
Mangesh
context.TableName.RemoveRange(context.TableName);
context.SaveChanges();

@mahen3d Which link?
J
James Skemp

If

using(var db = new MyDbContext())
{
    await db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommandAsync(@"TRUNCATE TABLE MyTable"););
}

causes

Cannot truncate table 'MyTable' because it is being referenced by a FOREIGN KEY constraint.

I use this:

using(var db = new MyDbContext())
{
    await db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommandAsync(@"DELETE FROM MyTable WHERE ID != -1");
}

If you have foreign key constrains: (1) SQL could be simplified to "DELETE FROM MyTable". (2) This will not reset the Id counter if you have it set to autoincrement (truncate does).
D
DBB
var data = (from n in db.users select n);
db.users.RemoveRange(data);
db.SaveChanges();

K
Kristian Nissen

If you wish to clear your entire database.

Because of the foreign-key constraints it matters which sequence the tables are truncated. This is a way to bruteforce this sequence.

    public static void ClearDatabase<T>() where T : DbContext, new()
    {
        using (var context = new T())
        {
            var tableNames = context.Database.SqlQuery<string>("SELECT TABLE_NAME FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.TABLES WHERE TABLE_TYPE = 'BASE TABLE' AND TABLE_NAME NOT LIKE '%Migration%'").ToList();
            foreach (var tableName in tableNames)
            {
                foreach (var t in tableNames)
                {
                    try
                    {

                        if (context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(string.Format("TRUNCATE TABLE [{0}]", tableName)) == 1)
                            break;

                    }
                    catch (Exception ex)
                    {

                    }
                }
            }

            context.SaveChanges();
        }
    }

usage:

ClearDatabase<ApplicationDbContext>();

remember to reinstantiate your DbContext after this.


J
James Skemp

The following works on SQLite database (using Entity Framework).

It seems that the fastest way to clear all the db tables is using context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("some SQL"), as some comments above highlighted as well. Here I am going to show how to reset the 'index' count of tables too.

context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from TableA");
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from sqlite_sequence where name='TableA'");//resets the autoindex

context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from TableB");
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from sqlite_sequence where name='TableB'");//resets the autoindex 

context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from TableC");
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("delete from sqlite_sequence where name='TableC'");//resets the autoindex 

One important point is that if you use foreign keys in your tables, you must first delete the child table before the parent table, so the sequence (hierarchy) of tables during deletion is important, otherwise a SQLite exception may occur.

Note: var context = new YourContext()


b
bsod_

In EFCore (version i am using is 3.1) you can use the following to remove all rows -

context.Database.ExecuteSqlRaw("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");

N
Nismi Mohamed

This works for me... EF v3.1.5

context.ModelName.RemoveRange(context.ModelName.ToList());
context.SaveChanges();

worked for me also .. Entity Framework Core (dotnet 6)
L
Lucas Trzesniewski

This works Properly in EF 5:

YourEntityModel myEntities = new YourEntityModel();

var objCtx = ((IObjectContextAdapter)myEntities).ObjectContext;
objCtx.ExecuteStoreCommand("TRUNCATE TABLE [TableName]");

А
Алексей Телятников

Works for EF Core 3

public static class EntityExtensions
{
    public static async Task ClearAsync<T>(this DbSet<T> dbSet) where T : class
    {
        var command = dbSet.CreateDbCommand();
        command.CommandText = $"TRUNCATE TABLE {dbSet.EntityType.GetSchema()}.{dbSet.EntityType.GetTableName()}";
        await command.ExecuteNonQueryAsync();
    }
}

but please note that dbSet.CreateDbCommand is an extension


Nice! However, why wouldn't ya supply the extension then!
R
Roberto Mutti

Delete all records. Do not reset the primary index like "truncate".

/// <summary>
/// SET - DELETE all record by table - no truncate - return deleted records
/// </summary>
public static int setListDelAllMYTABLE()
{
    // INIT
    int retObj = 0;
    using (MYDBEntities ctx = new MYDBEntities())
    {
        // GET - all record
        var tempAllRecord = ctx.MYTABLE.ToList();
        // RESET
        ctx.MYTABLE.RemoveRange(tempAllRecord);
        // SET - final save
        retObj += ctx.SaveChanges();
    }
    // RET
    return retObj;
}

why would you pull out all the records to delete them? extremely inefficient
Because performance was not my priority. It's based on modularity, so if you want to add a where condition or check the data before removing it, you can. EF6 is the slowest tool about SQL I/O, so why using EF6 if performance was the priority should be the question..
T
Thomas Koelle

In my code I didn't really have nice access to the Database object, so you can do it on the DbSet where you also is allowed to use any kind of sql. It will sort of end out like this:

var p = await _db.Persons.FromSql("truncate table Persons;select top 0 * from Persons").ToListAsync();

D
Diego Venâncio

If MVC, you can do:

public async Task<IActionResult> DeleteAll()
{
    var list = await _context.YourClass.ToListAsync();
    _context.YourClass.RemoveRange(list);
    await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
    return RedirectToAction(nameof(Index));
}

E
E. Radokhlebov

Make sure when you are trying to delete parent all children will cascade on delete. Or children have nullable foreign key.


A
Alain

Here is a variation on the popular solution by Ron that avoids the use of hardcoded string table names by taking advantage of another popular solution on stack overflow for determining the underlying table name for an entity framework class.

With these extension methods the solution looks like this:

_dbContext.TruncateTable<TheTableName>();

(use this.TruncateTable<... if you're editing code within an EF DBContext class or partial class file)

And here's the extension class:

public static class EntityFrameworkExtensions
{
    private static string ParseTableNameFromSQL(string sql)
    {
        Regex regex = new Regex("FROM (?<table>.*) AS");
        Match match = regex.Match(sql);

        string table = match.Groups["table"].Value;
        return table;
    }
    
    public static string GetTableName<T>(this IObjectContextAdapter context) where T : class =>
        ParseTableNameFromSQL(context.ObjectContext.CreateObjectSet<T>().ToTraceString());
    
    public static void TruncateTable<T>(this DbContext dbContext) where T : class =>
        dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand($"TRUNCATE TABLE {dbContext.GetTableName<T>()}");

    public static void DeleteAllTableRows<T>(this DbContext dbContext) where T : class =>
        dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand($"DELETE FROM {dbContext.GetTableName<T>()}");
}

The last extension method DeleteAllTableRows is a useful alternative if your table cannot be truncated (e.g. due to foreign key references) - this is still much faster than the Entity Framework RemoveAll alternative.


Yet another truncate table answer :(. Hardly ever can a table be truncated.
@GertArnold just for you, I added a DELETE FROM extension as well (which indeed, I often have to fall back on in a number of scenarios)
This appears to be using the DbContext from System.Data.Entity instead of Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore. You say this is based on a "popular solution on Stack Overflow"; do you have a link to this popular solution?
n
nima chapi
  var list = db.Discounts.ToList().Select(x => x as Discount);
        foreach (var item in list)
        {
            db.Discounts.Remove(item);
        }
        db.SaveChanges();

j
jjxtra

There are several issues with pretty much all the answers here:

1] Hard-coded sql. Will brackets work on all database engines?
2] Entity framework Remove and RemoveRange calls. This loads all entities into memory affected by the operation. Yikes.
3] Truncate table. Breaks with foreign key references and may not work accross all database engines.

Use https://entityframework-plus.net/, they handle the cross database platform stuff, translate the delete into the correct sql statement and don't load entities into memory, and the library is free and open source.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with the nuget package. They do offer a paid version that does even more stuff.


Using a third-party library (when not absolutely necessary) is also an issue. They change, they get deprecated, they turn into paid libraries, etc. I'd rather use SQL.
Sure. You can always take a snapshot of the 3rd party library and integrate it as is, no chance of breakage if you do it that way.
But even if you reference the nuget package directly that’s why one writes integration tests ;) but to each their own.