I have a page on which data table is created programmatically if the data is not there in the database tables. I have to use this data table in many events during postbacks. The data table may contain hundreds of records and there may be multiple users accessing the same page(Of course with different data source for each user). I am storing the data table in view state but I am afraid that this practice will make the page heavier. Is there any other way to preserve the data table across postbacks.The code is very long so I can not copy and past it here.
Using session will again make the whole application heavier...So is it better choice over viewstate??
You should use Session. Also it's possible to use Application or Cache but you'll have to generate and store a unique key on your page to negate possible interferention between requests from different users.
In your case the view state can get very big and will hurt page load performance. IMHO the best thing would be to revise the way your are handling the post back events.
Use Caching if more than one user needs the same data.
Using the Session if the data is specific for each zuser. But keep in mind, that if you are in a
clustered invironment it has some pitfalls.
Load the data from the database each time the user posts back to the server. No Statehandling on the server needs to be done but you loose performance while doing a network roundtrip.
For a quick fix I usually store the View State on the server. Refer to this page to read about it... http://aspguy.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/reducing-the-page-size-by-storing-viewstate-on-server/
May be you need to store the data in the Cache object
If the data table is different for each user, you should use Session or you could use Cache , assumed to make a different Cache object for each user.
But if the data table is very big probably is not a good idea to store it in memory instead of direct db access.
If data is user specific then you can use Session. However, in case of out of process session state, you may have issues because all that data needs to be marshaled back & forth from session store.
Otherwise Cache is a good option but you need to choose cache period and expiration policy on typical usage scenarios (and also need to handle cache expiry scenario gracefully).
Yet another option is to push the data into temp file - however, in such case, you need to manage file clean up etc.
I have method in my BLL that interacts with the database and retrieves data based on the defined criteria.
The returned data is a collection of FAQ objects which is defined as follows:
FAQID,
FAQContent,
AnswerContent
I would like to cache the returned data to minimize the DB interaction.
Now, based on the user selected option, I have to return either of the below:
ShowAll: all data.
ShowAnsweredOnly: faqList.Where(Answercontent != null)
ShowUnansweredOnly: faqList.Where(AnswerContent != null)
My Question:
Should I only cache all data returned from DB (e.g. FAQ_ALL) and filter other faqList modes from cache (= interacting with DB just once and filter the data from the cache item for the other two modes)? Or should I have 3 cache items: FAQ_ALL, FAQ_ANSWERED and FAQ_UNANSWERED (=interacting with database for each mode [3 times]) and return the cache item for each mode?
I'd be pleased if anyone tells me about pros/cons of each approach.
Food for thought.
How many records are you caching, how big are the tables?
How much mid-tier resources can be reserved for caching?
How many of each type data exists?
How fast filtering on the client side will be?
How often does the data change?
how often is it changed by the same application instance?
how often is it changed by other applications or server side jobs?
What is your cache invalidation policy?
What happens if you return stale data?
Can you/Should you leverage active cache invalidation, like SqlDependency or LinqToCache?
If the dataset is large then filtering on the client side will be slow and you'll need to cache two separate results (no need for a third if ALL is the union of the other two). If the data changes often then caching will return stale items frequently w/o a proactive cache invalidation in place. Active cache invalidation is achievable in the mid-tier if you control all the updates paths and there is only one mid-tier instance application, but becomes near really hard if one of those prerequisites is not satisfied.
It basically depends how volatile the data is, how much of it there is, and how often it's accessed.
For example, if the answered data didn't change much then you'd be safe caching that for a while; but if the unanswered data changed a lot (and more often) then your caching needs might be different. If this was the case it's unlikely that caching it as one dataset will be the best option.
It's not all bad though - if the discrepancy isn't too huge then you might be ok cachnig the lot.
The other point to think about is how the data is related. If the FAQ items toggle between answered and unanswered then it'd make sense to cache the base data as one - otherwise the items would be split where you wanted it together.
Alternatively, work with the data in-memory and treat the database as an add-on...
What do I mean? Well, typically the user will hit "save" this will invoke code which saves to the DB; when the next user comes along they will invoke a call which gets the data out of the DB. In terms of design the DB is a first class citizen, everything has to go through it before anyone else gets a look in. The alternative is to base the design around data which is held in-memory (by the BLL) and then saved (perhaps asynchronously) to the DB. This removes the DB as a bottleneck but gives you a new set of problems - like what happens if the database connection goes down or the server dies with data only in-memory?
Pros and Cons
Getting all the data in one call might be faster (by making less calls).
Getting all the data at once if it's related makes sense.
Granularity: data that is related and has a similar "cachability" can be cached together, otherwise you might want to keep them in separate cache partitions.
I am developing a website for a client (ASP.NET, T-SQL). It is a data-entry website allowing many of their users to login and manipulate records in the same database.
There are instructions (basically a list of string) throughout the form, telling the users what to do for each section; these instructions are themselves present in the database.
On each login, I store these instructions in the Session[] object per authenticated user. The instructions are identical for everyone.
I've looked at a solution which suggested storing a common session identifier in the database and then querying it to re-use that particular session but this seems very hacky. What is a best-practices solution to accomplish this? Is there a 'common' object available to all users?
Firstly, does it matter at this point? Yes, it's bad practice and inefficent, but if you're storing 20Kb of strings in memory and have a maximum of 100 users, that's 2,000Kb of data. Hardly a lot of memory "wasted". Even at 200Kb of strings, that's 20,000Kb of data. Again, not a lot. Is it worth your time, and the client waiting for you to solve it, right now?
If you decide it is then you could:
Store the strings in the Application object or a static class so that they're retrieved once and used many times.
Retrieve the strings on every page view. This may not be as performance damaging as it seems.
Use something like the Cache class in System.Web.Caching.
Make use of Output Caching.
Make use of Windows Server AppFabric "Velocity" memory cache.
Sounds to me like you're looking for the Application Cache. Like the Session, it is an in-memory cache of data. Unlike the session, it is shared among all users; each user doesn't get their own individual copy of the data. Also, when you add data elements to the cache, you can specify criteria which will automatically invalidate that data, and cause it to be reloaded/refreshed (useful when your seldom-changing data actually does change :).
Here's some articles which should give you everything you need to know about using the Application cache (and some other caching options within ASP.NET as well):
ASP.NET Caching Overview
Using the ASP.NET Application Cache to Make Your Applications Scream
Caching Data at Application Startup
.NET Data Caching
I would suggest using the application-level Cache object. It is available everywhere as part of HttpContext. You can populate it on App_Start.
You can put any kind of object into Cache, though obviously, the smaller the better.
Here are some examples of how to populate it using C#:
1) Add items to the cache as you would add items to a dictionary by specifying the item's key & value.
Example: add the current Value property of a text box to the cache.
Cache["txt1"] = txtName.value;
or
Cache["result"] = dataset;
2) The Insert method is overloaded, allowing you to define values for the parameters of the version you're using.
Example: add only an item key & value:
Cache.Insert("MyData1", connectionString);
3) The Add method has the same signature as the Insert method, but it returns an object representing the item you added.
Cache.Add("MyData1", connectionString);
To retrieve the from cache:
stringName = Cache["MyData"];
If the cached data is not a string, you may need to cast it to the proper data type.
result = (DataSet)Cache["result"];
One of the benefits of using the Cache object as opposed to the Application object is that the CLR will dump contents of Cache if the system is in danger of running out of memory.
I have a web app, that consumes a web service. The main page runs a search - by passing parameters to a particular web service method, and I bind the results to a gridview.
I have implemented sorting and paging on the grid. By putting the datatable that the grid is bound to in the viewstate and then reading / sorting / filtering it as necessary - and rebinding to the grid.
As the amount of data coming back from the web service has increased dramatically, when I try to page/sort etc I receive the following errors.
The connection was reset
The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.
I have searched around a bit, and it seems that a very large viewstate is to blame for this.
But surely the only other option is to
Limit the results
Stick the datatable in the session rather than the viewstate
Something else I am unaware of
Previously I did have the datatable in the session, as some of this data needed to persist from page to page - (not being posted however so viewstate was not an option). As the amount of data rose and the necessity to persist it was removed, I used the viewstate instead. Thinking this was a better option than the session because of the amount of data the session would have to hold and the number of users using the app.
It appears maybe not.
I thought that when the viewstate got very big, that .net split it over more than one hidden viewstate field, but it seems all I'm getting is one mammoth viewstate that I have trouble viewing in the source.
Can anyone enlighten me as to how to avoid the error I'm getting? If it is indeed to do with the amount of data in the viewstate?
It sounds like your caching the whole dataset for all pages even though you are only presenting one page of that data. I would change your pagination to only require the data for the current page the user is on.
If the query is heavy and you don't want to have to be constantly calling it over and over because there is a lot of paging back and forth (you should test typical useage pattern) then I would implement some type of caching on the web service end to cache page by page (by specific user if the data is specific to a user) and have it expire rather quick (eg a few minuites).
I think you need to limit the total amount of data your dealing with. Change your code to not pass back extra data that might never be needed is a good place to start.
EDIT: Based on your comments:
You can't change the web service
The user can manipulate the query by filtering or sorting
There is a large amount of data returned by the web service
The data is user specific
Well I think you have a perfect case for using the Session then. This can be taxing the the server with large amounts of users and data so you might want to implement some logic to clear the data from the Session and not wait for it to expire (like on certain landing pages you know the user will go when they are done, clear the session data).
You really want to get it out of the ViewState beacuse it is a huge bandwidth hog. Just look at your physical page size and that data is being passed back and forth with every action. Moving it to the Session would eliminate that bandwidth useage and allow for you to do everything you need.
You could also look at the data the web service is bringing back and store it in a custom object that you make as 'thin' as possible. If your storing a DataSet or a DataTable in your Session, those objects have some extra overhead you probably don't need so store the data as an array of some custom thin object and just bind to that. You would need to map the result from the WS to your custom object but this is a good option you cut down on memory useage.
Let me know if there is something else I am missing.
I wouldn't put the data in either the view state or the session. Instead store the bare minimum information to re-request the dataset from the web service and store that (in either view state or session, or even on the URL). Then call the web service using that data and reaction the data on each request. If necessary, look to use some form of caching (memCache) to improve performance.
For the sake of argument assume that I have a webform that allows a user to edit order details. User can perform the following functions:
Change shipping/payment details (all simple text/dropdowns)
Add/Remove/Edit products in the order - this is done with a grid
Add/Remove attachments
Products and attachments are stored in separate DB tables with foreign key to the order.
Entity Framework (4.0) is used as ORM.
I want to allow the users to make whatever changes they want to the order and only when they hit 'Save' do I want to commit the changes to the database. This is not a problem with textboxes/checkboxes etc. as I can just rely on ViewState to get the required information. However the grid is presenting a much larger problem for me as I can't figure out a nice and easy way to persist the changes the user made without committing the changes to the database. Storing the Order object tree in Session/ViewState is not really an option I'd like to go with as the objects could get very large.
So the question is - how can I go about preserving the changes the user made until ready to 'Save'.
Quick note - I have searched SO to try to find a solution, however all I found were suggestions to use Session and/or ViewState - both of which I would rather not use due to potential size of my object trees
If you have control over the schema of the database and the other applications that utilize order data, you could add a flag or status column to the orders table that differentiates between temporary and finalized orders. Then, you can simply store your intermediate changes to the database. There are other benefits as well; for example, a user that had a browser crash could return to the application and be able to resume the order process.
I think sticking to the database for storing data is the only reliable way to persist data, even temporary data. Using session state, control state, cookies, temporary files, etc., can introduce a lot of things that can go wrong, especially if your application resides in a web farm.
If using the Session is not your preferred solution, which is probably wise, the best possible solution would be to create your own temporary database tables (or as others have mentioned, add a temporary flag to your existing database tables) and persist the data there, storing a single identifier in the Session (or in a cookie) for later retrieval.
First, you may want to segregate your specific state management implementation into it's own class so that you don't have to replicate it throughout your systems.
Second, you may want to consider a hybrid approach - use session state (or cache) for a short time to avoid unnecessary trips to a DB or other external store. After some amount of inactivity, write the cached state out to disk or DB. The simplest way to do this, is to serialize your objects to text (using either serialization or a library like proto-buffers). This helps allow you to avoid creating redundant or duplicate data structure to capture the in-progress data relationally. If you don't need to query the content of this data - it's a reasonable approach.
As an aside, in the database world, the problem you describe is called a long running transaction. You essentially want to avoid making changes to the data until you reach a user-defined commit point. There are techniques you can use in the database layer, like hypothetical views and instead-of triggers to encapsulate the behavior that you aren't actually committing the change. The data is in the DB (in the real tables), but is only visible to the user operating on it. This is probably a more complicated implementation than you may be willing to undertake, and requires intrusive changes to your persistence layer and data model - but allows the application to be ignorant of the issue.
Have you considered storing the information in a JavaScript object and then sending that information to your server once the user hits save?
Use domain events to capture the users actions and then replay those actions over the snapshot of the order model ( effectively the current state of the order before the user started changing it).
Store each change as a series of events e.g. UserChangedShippingAddress, UserAlteredLineItem, UserDeletedLineItem, UserAddedLineItem.
These events can be saved after each postback and only need a link to the related order. Rebuilding the current state of the order is then as simple as replaying the events over the currently stored order objects.
When the user clicks save, you can replay the events and persist the updated order model to the database.
You are using the database - no session or viewstate is required therefore you can significantly reduce page-weight and server memory load at the expense of some page performance ( if you choose to rebuild the model on each postback ).
Maintenance is incredibly simple as due to the ease with which you can implement domain object, automated testing is easily used to ensure the system behaves as you expect it to (while also documenting your intentions for other developers).
Because you are leveraging the database, the solution scales well across multiple web servers.
Using this approach does not require any alterations to your existing domain model, therefore the impact on existing code is minimal. Biggest downside is getting your head around the concept of domain events and how they are used and abused =)
This is effectively the same approach as described by Freddy Rios, with a little more detail about how and some nice keyword for you to search with =)
http://jasondentler.com/blog/2009/11/simple-domain-events/ and http://www.udidahan.com/2009/06/14/domain-events-salvation/ are some good background reading about domain events. You may also want to read up on event sourcing as this is essentially what you would be doing ( snapshot object, record events, replay events, snapshot object again).
how about serializing your Domain object (contents of your grid/shopping cart) to JSON and storing it in a hidden variable ? Scottgu has a nice article on how to serialize objects to JSON. Scalable across a server farm and guess it would not add much payload to your page. May be you can write your own JSON serializer to do a "compact serialization" (you would not need product name,product ID, SKU id, etc, may be you can just "serialize" productID and quantity)
Have you considered using a User Profile? .Net comes with SqlProfileProvider right out of the box. This would allow you to, for each user, grab their profile and save the temporary data as a variable off in the profile. Unfortunately, I think this does require your "Order" to be serializable, but I believe all of the options except Session thus far would require the same.
The advantage of this is it would persist through crashes, sessions, server down time, etc and it's fairly easy to set up. Here's a site that runs through an example. Once you set it up, you may also find it useful for storing other user information such as preferences, favorites, watched items, etc.
You should be able to create a temp file and serialize the object to that, then save only the temp file name to the viewstate. Once they successfully save the record back to the database then you could remove the temp file.
Single server: serialize to the filesystem. This also allows you to let the user resume later.
Multiple server: serialize it but store the serialized value in the db.
This is something that's for that specific user, so when you persist it to the db you don't really need all the relational stuff for it.
Alternatively, if the set of data is v. large and the amount of changes is usually small, you can store the history of changes done by the user instead. With this you can also show the change history + support undo.
2 approaches - create a complex AJAX application that stores everything on the client and only submits the entire package of changes to the server. I did this once a few years ago with moderate success. The applicaiton is not something I would want to maintain though. You have a hard time syncing your client code with your server code and passing fields that are added/deleted/changed is nightmarish.
2nd approach is to store changes in the data base in a temp table or "pending" mode. Advantage is your code is more maintainable. Disadvantage is you have to have a way to clean up abandonded changes due to session timeout, power failures, other crashes. I would take this approach for any new development. You can have separate tables for "pending" and "committed" changes that opens up a whole new level of features you can add. What if? What changed? etc.
I would go for viewstate, regardless of what you've said before. If you only store the stuff you need, like { id: XX, numberOfProducts: 3 }, and ditch every item that is not selected by the user at this point; the viewstate size will hardly be an issue as long as you aren't storing the whole object tree.
When storing attachments, put them in a temporary storing location, and reference the filename in your viewstate. You can have a scheduled task that cleans the temp folder for every file that was last saved over 1 day ago or something.
This is basically the approach we use for storing information when users are adding floorplan information and attachments in our backend.
Are the end-users internal or external clients? If your clients are internal users, it may be worthwhile to look at an alternate set of technologies. Instead of webforms, consider using a platform like Silverlight and implementing a rich GUI there.
You could then store complex business objects within the applet, provide persistant "in progress" edit tracking across multiple sessions via offline storage and easily integrate with back-end services that providing saving / processing of the finalised order. All whilst maintaining access via the web (albeit closing out most *nix clients).
Alternatives include Adobe Flex or AJAX, depending on resources and needs.
How large do you consider large? If you are talking sessions-state (so it doesn't go back/fore to the actual user, like view-state) then state is often a pretty good option. Everything except the in-process state provider uses serialization, but you can influence how it is serialized. For example, I would tend to create a local model that represents just the state I care about (plus any id/rowversion information) for that operation (rather than the full domain entities, which may have extra overhead).
To reduce the serialization overhead further, I would consider using something like protobuf-net; this can be used as the implementation for ISerializable, allowing very light-weight serialized objects (generally much smaller than BinaryFormatter, XmlSerializer, etc), that are cheap to reconstruct at page requests.
When the page is finally saved, I would update my domain entities from the local model and submit the changes.
For info, to use a protobuf-net attributed object with the state serializers (typically BinaryFormatter), you can use:
// a simple, sessions-state friendly light-weight UI model object
[ProtoContract]
public class MyType {
[ProtoMember(1)]
public int Id {get;set;}
[ProtoMember(2)]
public string Name {get;set;}
[ProtoMember(3)]
public double Value {get;set;}
// etc
void ISerializable.GetObjectData(
SerializationInfo info,StreamingContext context)
{
Serializer.Serialize(info, this);
}
public MyType() {} // default constructor
protected MyType(SerializationInfo info, StreamingContext context)
{
Serializer.Merge(info, this);
}
}