Entity framework - increase number by 1 - asp.net

Question

I have one row in database to count total user logins
I have tried to increase number by getting the row and adding +1 to it
And i'm not sure about concurrency after I have tried this, counter was increased by 1 and not by 2 as it "should" (if many users will login at the same time)
using(var db = new Database()) {
db.Settings.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == "Logins").Counter++;
using(var db2 = new Database()) {
db2.Settings.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == "Logins").Counter++;
db2.SaveChanges();
}
db.SaveChanges();
}

Answer 1

Why not make a single table for storing the number of people who have logged in increment the field when someone logs in successfully and decrease when the user logs out. For example for login:
_Users = context.Users.First(aa => aa.UserName.ToUpper() == _UserName.ToUpper() && aa.MDesktop == true);
if (_Users != null)
{
context.LogEntry.FirstOrDefault().Counter++;
context.SaveChanges();
}

Answer 2

This is old but it is still a relevant discussion for new EF developers and it deserves an explanation.
OP's example uses two different DBContext's, effectively OP has defined two different units of work, and importantly, neither of these is aware that the other exists at all.
Lets assume that the current value of the "Logins" setting is 5
For the purposes of this walkthrough lets save the two instances that are requested from Settings into variables outside of the scope of the DB contexts in question:
Setting setting1 = null;
Setting setting2 = null;
using(var db = new Database()) {
// DB: 5, Setting1: null, Setting2: null
// Load the value of setting1 from the database
setting1 = db.Settings.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == "Logins");
// DB: 5, Setting1: 5, Setting2: null
// Increment the value of setting1
setting1.Counter++;
// at this point, no changes have been saved yet, the DB still holds the original value for "Logins"
// DB: 5, Setting1: 6, Setting2: null
// Create a new context called DB2
using(var db2 = new Database()) {
// load setting2 from the DB
setting2 = db2.Settings.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == "Logins");
// right now setting2 still has a value of 5, the previous change was not yet committed
// DB: 5, Setting1: 6, Setting2: 5
setting2.Counter++;
// DB: 5, Setting1: 6, Setting2: 6
// Save the value of Setting2 back to the database
db2.SaveChanges();
// DB: 6, Setting1: 6, Setting2: 6
// At this point setting1, setting2, and the DB all agree the value is 6.
}
// The context is only aware that we previously set the value of setting1 to 6
// so it issues an update to the DB
db.SaveChanges();
// ultimately this update would not actually change anything.
}
Entity Framework, Unit of Work and Repository data access patterns all exhibit this behaviour, when you create a new DbContext IRepository or IUnitOfWork it is done so in isolation of any others that might exist at the same point in time, there is no difference between instantiating a new context in the same method, or a different thread or even executing on entirely different servers. If you need to implement counters or incremental values there is always a degree of uncertainty when we first cache the value of the field, then increment the value and later write that value back to the database.
To minimise the potential conflict, read the record and save it immediately after, then as a rule always re-query the value of this setting before you use it.
You can call .SaveChanges() multiple times in your logic, in this example simply saving before instantiating the second context, or at least before the second context loaded the record from the DB would have been enough to see the value incremented twice:
using(var db = new Database()) {
db.Settings.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == "Logins").Counter++;
db.SaveChanges(); // save it back as soon as we've made the change
using(var db2 = new Database()) {
db2.Settings.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == "Logins").Counter++;
db2.SaveChanges();
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
Where possible, you will find the code simpler if you can avoid a schema where an incrementing or counter fields is required, instead you could turn the count logic into a query based solution.
Counters are of course a special case, you could always make direct SQL calls to the database, both for read or increment to ensure that that we bypass any potential caching that might occur with the records through EF.
You could do this as a one liner to increment the value:
dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("UPDATE Setting SET[Counter] = IsNull([Counter],0) + 1 WHERE[Name] = 'Logins'");
Or if you want to inspect the new value:
int newCount = dbContext.Database.SqlQuery<int>(#"
UPDATE Setting SET[Counter] = IsNull([Counter],0) + 1
OUTPUT inserted.[Counter]
WHERE [Name] = 'Logins'").First();
If you need to ge tthe current value, and know that it is the most up-to-date then you can simply query it from any context in the same way:
int logins = dbContext.Database.SqlQuery<int>(#"
SELECT [Counter] FROM Setting
WHERE [Name] = 'Logins'").First();
I hope this sheds some light on why your code only incremented the value once, its not a fault in EF, just something that we need to be aware of, once EF has read values form the DB, they are potentially already stale or out of date. If optimistic concurrency is not appropriate for your use case, then you will need to think outside of the box a little bit ;)

Answer 3

the easy approach?
then I'd suggest using a manual transaction in EF Core
ef core transaction docs
Be sure to add an unique constraint of some sort eb. (settings id + logins counter)
using(var transaction = _context.Database.BeginTransaction())
{
try
{
var totalLoginsCounter = _context.Settings.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == "Logins").Counter;
totalLoginsCounter += 1;
await _context.SaveChanges();
transaction.Commit();
}
catch
{
commit.RollBack();
}
}
should concurrency happen the request will fail. Because it would try to put duplicate keys which is not possible. then HIGHLY recommend you'd then implement a retry pattern to avoid people not being able to actually login because a number in your database didn't get updated.