Skip to main content

A strange way to make an update to items from database

Last week I heard an interesting discussions between a tester and a developer.
The tester was upset that he discovered the following flow on an update action of an item from database:
  • Client: request and get an item from server
  • Client: change some data from the item
  • Client: send an update command to the server
  • Server: get the update command request
  • Server: delete from database the given item
  • Server: recreate the item as a new item with the updated data
What do you see wrong in this flow? (I hope that you spotted the problem already)
For each update, the server deletes the item from database and recreates the item. Each deleted item is marked only as deleted in database but is not physical removed, because we need a tracking mechanism. This is a very bad practice. We are talking about a small web-application that recreates each item when the user changes some fields on it.
Imagine the following scenario: The web application is an e-commerce solution and has around 10.000 items listed. Each week, we receive from each producer updates related to each product that we import from Excel files. Because of this in only 3 months, our database will have around 120.000 items, even if only 10.000 are active.
The developer said to the testers that was the most convenient way for him. But this solutions is farthest the best one.
So what we can do to solve these problems? First of all we should look what we should do when an item is updated. If we need some tracking capabilities, that we should create a separate table/tables that track the changes.
If you are a tester, you should never accept a response like “It was the most convenient”. The “tracking” should never be made in the same table. Also if this was the most easier way to update an item from the database that say no again.


  1. I keep hearing this a lot and I don't agree. It really depends on how the DB is handling it. Using, for example, a table partition upon the table in question, splitting it on two or more HDDs will allow 100 million+ records and still perform well.

    1. But why whould you like an update action to contain a delete and an add action - for general cases.
      There can be some custom cases when you have more versions of a product, but in this case you will not marker a product as deleted. You will add a new version of a product.
      Depends very much on what you want to do when you want to update an item. But if you don’t have any tracking or versioning on the given item I don’t see way you delete the existing item and add a new one. Only because for the developer is more easily to implement in this way I don’t think is it enough.

    2. Indeed, if we are not talking about some 'temporal database' or other case when reverting to some previous point in time is a common requirement, it doesn't make sense to replace all updates with a 'mark as deleted'+insert operations, even if from a performance point of view the performance won't be affected so much.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to check in AngularJS if a service was register or not

There are cases when you need to check in a service or a controller was register in AngularJS.
For example a valid use case is when you have the same implementation running on multiple application. In this case, you may want to intercept the HTTP provider and add a custom step there. This step don’t needs to run on all the application, only in the one where the service exist and register.
A solution for this case would be to have a flag in the configuration that specify this. In the core you would have an IF that would check the value of this flag.
Another solution is to check if a specific service was register in AngularJS or not. If the service was register that you would execute your own logic.
To check if a service was register or not in AngularJS container you need to call the ‘has’ method of ‘inhector’. It will return TRUE if the service was register.
if ($injector.has('httpInterceptorService')) { $httpProvider.interceptors.push('httpInterceptorService&#…

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine:
threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration:

TeamCity.NET 4.51EF 6.0.2VS2013
It seems that there …

Entity Framework (EF) TransactionScope vs Database.BeginTransaction

In today blog post we will talk a little about a new feature that is available on EF6+ related to Transactions.
Until now, when we had to use transaction we used ‘TransactionScope’. It works great and I would say that is something that is now in our blood.
using (var scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required)) { using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection("...")) { conn.Open(); SqlCommand sqlCommand = new SqlCommand(); sqlCommand.Connection = conn; sqlCommand.CommandText = ... sqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); ... } scope.Complete(); } Starting with EF6.0 we have a new way to work with transactions. The new approach is based on Database.BeginTransaction(), Database.Rollback(), Database.Commit(). Yes, no more TransactionScope.
In the followi…