ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How do I delete multiple rows in Entity Framework (without foreach)

I'm deleting several items from a table using Entity Framework. There isn't a foreign key / parent object so I can't handle this with OnDeleteCascade.

Right now I'm doing this:

var widgets = context.Widgets
    .Where(w => w.WidgetId == widgetId);

foreach (Widget widget in widgets)
{
    context.Widgets.DeleteObject(widget);
}
context.SaveChanges();

It works but the foreach bugs me. I'm using EF4 but I don't want to execute SQL. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything - this is as good as it gets, right? I can abstract it with an extension method or helper, but somewhere we're still going to be doing a foreach, right?

You may want to revisit the accepted answer.
If you want to stay performant maybe you might want to check my answer here stackoverflow.com/a/35033286/274589
A few answers for EF Core are in stackoverflow.com/questions/41960215/… question

K
Kyle

EntityFramework 6 has made this a bit easier with .RemoveRange().

Example:

db.People.RemoveRange(db.People.Where(x => x.State == "CA"));
db.SaveChanges();

That's exactly what we need... Except when I use it on a large enough range, I get an out-of-memory exception! I thought the whole point of RemoveRange was to pass the processing to the database, but apparently not.
For sure this answer is easier but performance wise it might not be great. Why? what this exatly doet is same as deleting it in foreach loop, it first fetches all the rows and then delete is one by one, only gain is for saving "DetectChanges will be called once before delete any entities and will not be called again" rest is same, try using tool to see sql generated.
For a large enough range, try something like .Take(10000) and looping until RemoveRange(...).Count() == 0.
The problem is that RemoveRange input parameter is an IEnumerable so to perform delete it enumerates all the entities and run 1 DELETE query per entity.
It seems a very not effective way. I checked it in SQL Profiler: RemoveRange command actually executes SELECTcommand and SaveChanges execute DELETE command for every single record that found after the first command SEPARATELY. In my opinion, the best way is to write relevant store procedure and execute it from EF.
M
Michael Freidgeim
using (var context = new DatabaseEntities())
{
    context.ExecuteStoreCommand("DELETE FROM YOURTABLE WHERE CustomerID = {0}", customerId);
}

Addition: To support list of ids you can write

var listOfIds = String.Join(',',customerIds.Select(id => $"'{id}'").ToList());
var sql= $@"DELETE  [YOURTABLE] WHERE CustomerID in ({listOfIds})";

Note: if CustomerID Is a string, you should double-check for potential SQL injection risks, for integer CustomerID it’s safe


But how can you do this with a list of ids? This solution does not handle "lists" very well.
@JesseNewman19 If you already have a list of IDs, use a WHERE IN ({0}), and then the second argument should be String.Join(",", idList).
@Langdon that will not work, because it will send the command to sql like so: WHERE IN ("1, 2, 3"). The database then throws an error because you passed it a string instead of a list of integers.
I wish to generate a statement like that with LINQ. The closest thing I found was a lib. EntityFramework.Extended
If you are using String.Join, you may need to use string.Format and pass the already formed SQL string to the command. As long as your list only has integers, there's not risk of injection attack. Check this question: how can I pass an array to a execute store command?
K
Klaus Byskov Pedersen

this is as good as it gets, right? I can abstract it with an extension method or helper, but somewhere we're still going to be doing a foreach, right?

Well, yes, except you can make it into a two-liner:

context.Widgets.Where(w => w.WidgetId == widgetId)
               .ToList().ForEach(context.Widgets.DeleteObject);
context.SaveChanges();

You are doing a ToList() which defeats the purpose. How is that any different from the original solution?
I have problems since I only have Remove method in context object.
This is definitely not a suitable solution when a million rows (or even a few hundred) are expected. However if we know for sure there will only be a few rows this solution is neat and works perfectly well. Yes, it would involve a few round trips to the DB, but in my opinion the lost abstraction involved in calling SQL directly outweighs the benefits.
Entity Framework, as the name suggests, works best with data at entity level. Bulk data operations are best handled by good old stored procs. Performance-wise they are by far the best options and will beat any EF logic requiring a loop.
C
CarenRose

I know it's quite late but in case someone needs a simple solution, the cool thing is you can also add the where clause with it:

public static void DeleteWhere<T>(this DbContext db, Expression<Func<T, bool>> filter) where T : class
{
    string selectSql = db.Set<T>().Where(filter).ToString();
    string fromWhere = selectSql.Substring(selectSql.IndexOf("FROM"));
    string deleteSql = "DELETE [Extent1] " + fromWhere;
    db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(deleteSql);
}

Note: just tested with MSSQL2008.

Update:

The solution above won't work when EF generates sql statement with parameters, so here's the update for EF5:

public static void DeleteWhere<T>(this DbContext db, Expression<Func<T, bool>> filter) where T : class
{
    var query = db.Set<T>().Where(filter);

    string selectSql = query.ToString();
    string deleteSql = "DELETE [Extent1] " + selectSql.Substring(selectSql.IndexOf("FROM"));

    var internalQuery = query.GetType().GetFields(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance).Where(field => field.Name == "_internalQuery").Select(field => field.GetValue(query)).First();
    var objectQuery = internalQuery.GetType().GetFields(BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance).Where(field => field.Name == "_objectQuery").Select(field => field.GetValue(internalQuery)).First() as ObjectQuery;
    var parameters = objectQuery.Parameters.Select(p => new SqlParameter(p.Name, p.Value)).ToArray();

    db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(deleteSql, parameters);
}

It requires a little bit of reflection but works well.


What is DbContext? I assume your auto-generated entity framework context? I do not have a method called Set.
@Stealth: Yea, it's your EF data context, I use code-first but the auto-generated context should be the same. Sorry for the mis-typed statement it should be Set() (my company retricts the internet access I couldn't paste the code, had to type by hand so...), codes updated :)
This is the only answer that actually answers the question! Every other answer deletes each individual item one at a time, unbelievable.
Like JesseNewman19 says, I also feel this is the best answer. I stumbled on one case where it doesn't work though: when the entity has a many-to-many relationship with another one, the many-to-many record is not deleted. I've tried to get a hand on that many-to-many relationship through reflection, without success. Anyone has an idea how to address that ? (should I ask a new question ?)
For all the less technical programmers out there, I wanted to elaborate a bit more on how to implement this excellent and generic solution, because it would have saved me a few minutes of time! Continued in next comment...
C
Community

If you don't want to execute SQL directly calling DeleteObject in a loop is the best you can do today.

However you can execute SQL and still make it completely general purpose via an extension method, using the approach I describe here.

Although that answer was for 3.5. For 4.0 I would probably use the new ExecuteStoreCommand API under the hood, instead of dropping down to the StoreConnection.


ExecuteStoreCommand is not a proper way.DeleteAllSubmit is working in linq to sql but not in entity framework. I want same option in entity framework.
At this time (2020) this should not be the accepted answer.
a
andrew.fox

For anyone using EF5, following extension library can be used: https://github.com/loresoft/EntityFramework.Extended

context.Widgets.Delete(w => w.WidgetId == widgetId);

Has performance issues on large tables, not usable in my situation.
@Tomas what kind of perfromance issued did you notice? How severe was the issue and on how Large was the Table? Anyone else can confirm that?
It is really fast compare to the alternatives out there
I cannot see Delete() function in my entities in EF6.
I will strongly not recommend using this library. While it has Async versions of the methods, they are not true Async. It is just a wrapper around sync methods. You can get lots of unexpected issues by using this library in high load environment.
N
Nguyen Van Thanh

Entity Framework Core

3.1 3.0 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.1 1.0

using (YourContext context = new YourContext ())
{
    var widgets = context.Widgets.Where(w => w.WidgetId == widgetId);
    context.Widgets.RemoveRange(widgets);
    context.SaveChanges();
}

Summary:

Removes the given collection of entities from the context underlying the set with each entity being put into the Deleted state such that it will be deleted from the database when SaveChanges is called.

Remarks:

Note that if System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DbContextConfiguration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled is set to true (which is the default), then DetectChanges will be called once before delete any entities and will not be called again. This means that in some situations RemoveRange may perform significantly better than calling Remove multiple times would do. Note that if any entity exists in the context in the Added state, then this method will cause it to be detached from the context. This is because an Added entity is assumed not to exist in the database such that trying to delete it does not make sense.


E
Edward Brey

Still seems crazy to have to pull anything back from the server just to delete it, but at least getting back just the IDs is a lot leaner than pulling down the full entities:

var ids = from w in context.Widgets where w.WidgetId == widgetId select w.Id;
context.Widgets.RemoveRange(from id in ids.AsEnumerable() select new Widget { Id = id });

Be careful - this can fail Entity Framework's entity validation because your stub Widget objects only have an initialized Id property. The way around this is to use context.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false (at least in EF6). This disables Entity Framework's own validation, but still performs the database's own validation of course.
@SammyS. I haven't experienced that, so can't speak to the details, but it seems odd that EF would bother with validation when it's deleting the row anyway.
You're absolutely correct. I confused the delete with a similar workaround for updateing entities without loading them.
P
Prem

EF 6.1

public void DeleteWhere<TEntity>(Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> predicate = null) 
where TEntity : class
{
    var dbSet = context.Set<TEntity>();
    if (predicate != null)
        dbSet.RemoveRange(dbSet.Where(predicate));
    else
        dbSet.RemoveRange(dbSet);

    context.SaveChanges();
} 

Usage:

// Delete where condition is met.
DeleteWhere<MyEntity>(d => d.Name == "Something");

Or:

// delete all from entity
DeleteWhere<MyEntity>();

This is effectively the same as db.People.RemoveRange(db.People.Where(x => x.State == "CA")); db.SaveChanges(); So no performance gain.
A
Amit Pawar

For EF 4.1,

var objectContext = (myEntities as IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext;
objectContext.ExecuteStoreCommand("delete from [myTable];");

This works, but whole point of using Entity Framework is having an object-oriented way to interact with the database. This is just directly running the SQL query.
U
UUHHIVS

You can use extensions libraries for doing that like EntityFramework.Extended or Z.EntityFramework.Plus.EF6, there are available for EF 5, 6 or Core. These libraries have great performance when you have to delete or update and they use LINQ. Example for deleting (source plus):

ctx.Users.Where(x => x.LastLoginDate < DateTime.Now.AddYears(-2)) .Delete();

or (source extended)

context.Users.Where(u => u.FirstName == "firstname") .Delete();

These use native SQL statements, so performance is great.


Pay 600$+ for bulk sql operation generator. Seriously?
@nicolay.anykienko When I used it, this library was free, there are other operations where you have to pay, right not I do not know if you have to pay
X
Xavier John

The quickest way to delete is using a stored procedure. I prefer stored procedures in a database project over dynamic SQL because renames will be handled correctly and have compiler errors. Dynamic SQL could refer to tables that have been deleted/renamed causing run time errors.

In this example, I have two tables List and ListItems. I need a fast way to delete all the ListItems of a given list.

CREATE TABLE [act].[Lists]
(
    [Id] INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY IDENTITY, 
    [Name] NVARCHAR(50) NOT NULL
)
GO
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX [IU_Name] ON [act].[Lists] ([Name])
GO
CREATE TABLE [act].[ListItems]
(
    [Id] INT NOT NULL IDENTITY, 
    [ListId] INT NOT NULL, 
    [Item] NVARCHAR(100) NOT NULL, 
    CONSTRAINT PK_ListItems_Id PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED (Id),
    CONSTRAINT [FK_ListItems_Lists] FOREIGN KEY ([ListId]) REFERENCES [act].[Lists]([Id]) ON DELETE CASCADE
)
go
CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_ListItems_Item 
ON [act].[ListItems] ([ListId], [Item]); 
GO

CREATE PROCEDURE [act].[DeleteAllItemsInList]
    @listId int
AS
    DELETE FROM act.ListItems where ListId = @listId
RETURN 0

Now the interesting part of deleting the items and updating Entity framework using an extension.

public static class ListExtension
{
    public static void DeleteAllListItems(this List list, ActDbContext db)
    {
        if (list.Id > 0)
        {
            var listIdParameter = new SqlParameter("ListId", list.Id);
            db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("[act].[DeleteAllItemsInList] @ListId", listIdParameter);
        }
        foreach (var listItem in list.ListItems.ToList())
        {
            db.Entry(listItem).State = EntityState.Detached;
        }
    }
}

The main code can now use it is as

[TestMethod]
public void DeleteAllItemsInListAfterSavingToDatabase()
{
    using (var db = new ActDbContext())
    {
        var listName = "TestList";
        // Clean up
        var listInDb = db.Lists.Where(r => r.Name == listName).FirstOrDefault();
        if (listInDb != null)
        {
            db.Lists.Remove(listInDb);
            db.SaveChanges();
        }

        // Test
        var list = new List() { Name = listName };
        list.ListItems.Add(new ListItem() { Item = "Item 1" });
        list.ListItems.Add(new ListItem() { Item = "Item 2" });
        db.Lists.Add(list);
        db.SaveChanges();
        listInDb = db.Lists.Find(list.Id);
        Assert.AreEqual(2, list.ListItems.Count);
        list.DeleteAllListItems(db);
        db.SaveChanges();
        listInDb = db.Lists.Find(list.Id);
        Assert.AreEqual(0, list.ListItems.Count);
    }
}

Thank you for a nice example of using a Stored Procedure, and then implementing it as an extension, with the Usage code.
A
Amir

If you want to delete all rows of a table, you can execute sql command

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

TRUNCATE TABLE (Transact-SQL) Removes all rows from a table without logging the individual row deletions. TRUNCATE TABLE is similar to the DELETE statement with no WHERE clause; however, TRUNCATE TABLE is faster and uses fewer system and transaction log resources.


You should also mention that you can't run truncate table on tables that are referenced by a FOREIGN KEY constraint. (You can truncate a table that has a foreign key that references itself.). MSDN documentation
A
Alexei - check Codidact

UUHHIVS's is a very elegant and fast way for batch delete, but it must be used with care:

auto generation of transaction: its queries will be encompassed by a transaction

database context independence: its execution has nothing to do with context.SaveChanges()

These issues can be circumvented by taking control of the transaction. The following code illustrates how to batch delete and bulk insert in a transactional manner:

var repo = DataAccess.EntityRepository;
var existingData = repo.All.Where(x => x.ParentId == parentId);  

TransactionScope scope = null;
try
{
    // this starts the outer transaction 
    using (scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required))
    {
        // this starts and commits an inner transaction
        existingData.Delete();

        // var toInsert = ... 

        // this relies on EntityFramework.BulkInsert library
        repo.BulkInsert(toInsert);

        // any other context changes can be performed

        // this starts and commit an inner transaction
        DataAccess.SaveChanges();

        // this commit the outer transaction
        scope.Complete();
    }
}
catch (Exception exc)
{
    // this also rollbacks any pending transactions
    scope?.Dispose();
}

A
Abhishek Sharma

You can execute sql queries directly as follows :

    private int DeleteData()
{
    using (var ctx = new MyEntities(this.ConnectionString))
    {
        if (ctx != null)
        {

            //Delete command
            return ctx.ExecuteStoreCommand("DELETE FROM ALARM WHERE AlarmID > 100");

        }
    }
    return 0;
}

For select we may use

using (var context = new MyContext()) 
{ 
    var blogs = context.MyTable.SqlQuery("SELECT * FROM dbo.MyTable").ToList(); 
}

Given that EF does not properly support mapping of delete conditions this is probably your best bet for getting the job done.
H
Hugo Nava Kopp

You can also use the DeleteAllOnSubmit() method by passing it your results in a generic list rather than in var. This way your foreach reduces to one line of code:

List<Widgets> widgetList = context.Widgets
              .Where(w => w.WidgetId == widgetId).ToList<Widgets>();

context.Widgets.DeleteAllOnSubmit(widgetList);

context.SubmitChanges();

It probably still uses a loop internally though.


Looks like you're misunderstanding what a var is.
S
Steve Greene

Thanh's answer worked best for me. Deleted all my records in a single server trip. I struggled with actually calling the extension method, so thought I would share mine (EF 6):

I added the extension method to a helper class in my MVC project and changed the name to "RemoveWhere". I inject a dbContext into my controllers, but you could also do a using.

// make a list of items to delete or just use conditionals against fields
var idsToFilter = dbContext.Products
    .Where(p => p.IsExpired)
    .Select(p => p.ProductId)
    .ToList();

// build the expression
Expression<Func<Product, bool>> deleteList = 
    (a) => idsToFilter.Contains(a.ProductId);

// Run the extension method (make sure you have `using namespace` at the top)
dbContext.RemoveWhere(deleteList);

This generated a single delete statement for the group.


S
Seagull

I came up with a great library Zack.EFCore.Batch. It will convert your expression into simple DELETE FROM .... WHERE query. (Like some answers proposed) https://github.com/yangzhongke/Zack.EFCore.Batch

The usage example:

await ctx.DeleteRangeAsync<Book>(b => b.Price > n);

The Zack.EFCore.Batch library has lots of benefits over Z.EntityFramework.Extended https://entityframework-extensions.net/ which does not have true Async methods. (They are just wrappers around sync methods) You can get lots of unexpected issues by using this library in high load environment.


E
Erçin Dedeoğlu

EF 6.=>

var assignmentAddedContent = dbHazirBot.tbl_AssignmentAddedContent.Where(a =>
a.HazirBot_CategoryAssignmentID == categoryAssignment.HazirBot_CategoryAssignmentID);
dbHazirBot.tbl_AssignmentAddedContent.RemoveRange(assignmentAddedContent);
dbHazirBot.SaveChanges();

L
LOTUSMS

Best : in EF6 => .RemoveRange()

Example:

db.Table.RemoveRange(db.Table.Where(x => Field == "Something"));

How is this any different from Kyle's answer?
m
mohammed elshoraky
 context.Widgets.RemoveRange(context.Widgets.Where(w => w.WidgetId == widgetId).ToList());
                db.SaveChanges();

This only works on type List. Or probably its an extension method? Or is it from EF Core?
B
Brian Quinn

See the answer 'favorite bit of code' that works

Here is how I used it:

     // Delete all rows from the WebLog table via the EF database context object
    // using a where clause that returns an IEnumerable typed list WebLog class 
    public IEnumerable<WebLog> DeleteAllWebLogEntries()
    {
        IEnumerable<WebLog> myEntities = context.WebLog.Where(e => e.WebLog_ID > 0);
        context.WebLog.RemoveRange(myEntities);
        context.SaveChanges();

        return myEntities;
    }

How your answer differs from user1308743 answer?
I was simply sharing a working example. Whatever I can do to give back for the help I get here.
A
Amarjeet Singh

If you are using Generic Repository:

Inside Generic repository, following could be new method.

       public void RemoveMultiple(Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate)
        {
             IQueryable<T> query = _context.Set<T>().Where(predicate);
             _context.Set<T>().RemoveRange(query.AsNoTracking());
            
        }

Usage:

_unitOfWork.YOUR_ENTITY.RemoveMultiple(x => x.AccountId == accountId);
 _unitOfWork.Complete();

V
Vladimir

In EF 6.2 this works perfectly, sending the delete directly to the database without first loading the entities:

context.Widgets.Where(predicate).Delete();

With a fixed predicate it's quite straightforward:

context.Widgets.Where(w => w.WidgetId == widgetId).Delete();

And if you need a dynamic predicate have a look at LINQKit (Nuget package available), something like this works fine in my case:

Expression<Func<Widget, bool>> predicate = PredicateBuilder.New<Widget>(x => x.UserID == userID);
if (somePropertyValue != null)
{
    predicate = predicate.And(w => w.SomeProperty == somePropertyValue);
}
context.Widgets.Where(predicate).Delete();

With raw EF 6.2 this is not possible. Maybe you are using Z.EntityFramework.Plus or something similar? (entityframework.net/batch-delete)
First one is raw EF 6.2 and works find. Second one is, as I mentioned, using LINQKit.
Hmm, I can't find this method. Could you check on which class and in which namespace this method resides?
I third that (Delete() method is inherently non-existent).