Understanding the N+1 Database Problem using Entity Framework Core

Understanding the N+1 Database Problem using Entity Framework Core

What is the N+1 Problem?

Imagine you’re running a blog website and want to display a list of all blogs along with how many posts each one has. The N+1 problem is a common database performance issue that happens when your application makes way too many database trips to get this simple information.

Our Test Database Setup

Our test suite creates a realistic blog scenario with:

  • 3 different blogs
  • Multiple posts for each blog
  • Comments on posts
  • Tags associated with blogs

This mirrors real-world applications where data is interconnected and needs to be loaded efficiently.

Test Case 1: The Classic N+1 Problem (Lazy Loading)

What it does: This test demonstrates how “lazy loading” can accidentally create the N+1 problem. Lazy loading sounds helpful – it automatically fetches related data when you need it. But this convenience comes with a hidden cost.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_N_Plus_One_Problem_With_Lazy_Loading()
{
    var blogs = _context.Blogs.ToList(); // Query 1: Load blogs
    
    foreach (var blog in blogs)
    {
        var postCount = blog.Posts.Count; // Each access triggers a query!
        TestLogger.WriteLine($"Blog: {blog.Title} - Posts: {postCount}");
    }
}

The SQL Queries Generated:

-- Query 1: Load all blogs
SELECT "b"."Id", "b"."CreatedDate", "b"."Description", "b"."Title"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"

-- Query 2: Load posts for Blog 1 (triggered by lazy loading)
SELECT "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Posts" AS "p"
WHERE "p"."BlogId" = 1

-- Query 3: Load posts for Blog 2 (triggered by lazy loading)
SELECT "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Posts" AS "p"
WHERE "p"."BlogId" = 2

-- Query 4: Load posts for Blog 3 (triggered by lazy loading)
SELECT "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Posts" AS "p"
WHERE "p"."BlogId" = 3

The Problem: 4 total queries (1 + 3) – Each time you access blog.Posts.Count, lazy loading triggers a separate database trip.

Test Case 2: Alternative N+1 Demonstration

What it does: This test manually recreates the N+1 pattern to show exactly what’s happening, even if lazy loading isn’t working properly.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_N_Plus_One_Problem_Alternative_Approach()
{
    var blogs = _context.Blogs.ToList(); // Query 1
    
    foreach (var blog in blogs)
    {
        // This explicitly loads posts for THIS blog only (simulates lazy loading)
        var posts = _context.Posts.Where(p => p.BlogId == blog.Id).ToList();
        TestLogger.WriteLine($"Loaded {posts.Count} posts for blog {blog.Id}");
    }
}

The Lesson: This explicitly demonstrates the N+1 pattern with manual queries. The result is identical to lazy loading – one query per blog plus the initial blogs query.

Test Case 3: N+1 vs Include() – Side by Side Comparison

What it does: This is the money shot – a direct comparison showing the dramatic difference between the problematic approach and the solution.

The Bad Code (N+1):

// BAD: N+1 Problem
var blogsN1 = _context.Blogs.ToList(); // Query 1
foreach (var blog in blogsN1)
{
    var posts = _context.Posts.Where(p => p.BlogId == blog.Id).ToList(); // Queries 2,3,4...
}

The Good Code (Include):

// GOOD: Include() Solution  
var blogsInclude = _context.Blogs
    .Include(b => b.Posts)
    .ToList(); // Single query with JOIN

foreach (var blog in blogsInclude)
{
    // No additional queries needed - data is already loaded!
    var postCount = blog.Posts.Count;
}

The SQL Queries:

Bad Approach (Multiple Queries):

-- Same 4 separate queries as shown in Test Case 1

Good Approach (Single Query):

SELECT "b"."Id", "b"."CreatedDate", "b"."Description", "b"."Title", 
       "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"
LEFT JOIN "Posts" AS "p" ON "b"."Id" = "p"."BlogId"
ORDER BY "b"."Id"

Results from our test:

  • Bad approach: 4 total queries (1 + 3)
  • Good approach: 1 total query
  • Performance improvement: 75% fewer database round trips!

Test Case 4: Guaranteed N+1 Problem

What it does: This test removes any doubt by explicitly demonstrating the N+1 pattern with clear step-by-step output.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Guaranteed_N_Plus_One_Problem()
{
    var blogs = _context.Blogs.ToList(); // Query 1
    int queryCount = 1;

    foreach (var blog in blogs)
    {
        queryCount++;
        // This explicitly demonstrates the N+1 pattern
        var posts = _context.Posts.Where(p => p.BlogId == blog.Id).ToList();
        TestLogger.WriteLine($"Loading posts for blog '{blog.Title}' (Query #{queryCount})");
    }
}

Why it’s useful: This ensures we can always see the problem clearly by manually executing the problematic pattern, making it impossible to miss.

Test Case 5: Eager Loading with Include()

What it does: Shows the correct way to load related data upfront using Include().

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Eager_Loading_With_Include()
{
    var blogsWithPosts = _context.Blogs
        .Include(b => b.Posts)
        .ToList();

    foreach (var blog in blogsWithPosts)
    {
        // No additional queries - data already loaded!
        TestLogger.WriteLine($"Blog: {blog.Title} - Posts: {blog.Posts.Count}");
    }
}

The SQL Query:

SELECT "b"."Id", "b"."CreatedDate", "b"."Description", "b"."Title", 
       "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"
LEFT JOIN "Posts" AS "p" ON "b"."Id" = "p"."BlogId"
ORDER BY "b"."Id"

The Benefit: One database trip loads everything. When you access blog.Posts.Count, the data is already there.

Test Case 6: Multiple Includes with ThenInclude()

What it does: Demonstrates loading deeply nested data – blogs → posts → comments – all in one query.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Multiple_Includes_With_ThenInclude()
{
    var blogsWithPostsAndComments = _context.Blogs
        .Include(b => b.Posts)
            .ThenInclude(p => p.Comments)
        .ToList();

    foreach (var blog in blogsWithPostsAndComments)
    {
        foreach (var post in blog.Posts)
        {
            // All data loaded in one query!
            TestLogger.WriteLine($"Post: {post.Title} - Comments: {post.Comments.Count}");
        }
    }
}

The SQL Query:

SELECT "b"."Id", "b"."CreatedDate", "b"."Description", "b"."Title",
       "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title",
       "c"."Id", "c"."Author", "c"."Content", "c"."CreatedDate", "c"."PostId"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"
LEFT JOIN "Posts" AS "p" ON "b"."Id" = "p"."BlogId"
LEFT JOIN "Comments" AS "c" ON "p"."Id" = "c"."PostId"
ORDER BY "b"."Id", "p"."Id"

The Challenge: Loading three levels of data in one optimized query instead of potentially hundreds of separate queries.

Test Case 7: Projection with Select()

What it does: Shows how to load only the specific data you actually need instead of entire objects.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Projection_With_Select()
{
    var blogData = _context.Blogs
        .Select(b => new
        {
            BlogTitle = b.Title,
            PostCount = b.Posts.Count(),
            RecentPosts = b.Posts
                .OrderByDescending(p => p.PublishedDate)
                .Take(2)
                .Select(p => new { p.Title, p.PublishedDate })
        })
        .ToList();
}

The SQL Query (from our test output):

SELECT "b"."Title", (
    SELECT COUNT(*)
    FROM "Posts" AS "p"
    WHERE "b"."Id" = "p"."BlogId"), "b"."Id", "t0"."Title", "t0"."PublishedDate", "t0"."Id"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"
LEFT JOIN (
    SELECT "t"."Title", "t"."PublishedDate", "t"."Id", "t"."BlogId"
    FROM (
        SELECT "p0"."Title", "p0"."PublishedDate", "p0"."Id", "p0"."BlogId", 
               ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY "p0"."BlogId" ORDER BY "p0"."PublishedDate" DESC) AS "row"
        FROM "Posts" AS "p0"
    ) AS "t"
    WHERE "t"."row" <= 2
) AS "t0" ON "b"."Id" = "t0"."BlogId"
ORDER BY "b"."Id", "t0"."BlogId", "t0"."PublishedDate" DESC

Why it matters: This query only loads the specific fields needed, uses window functions for efficiency, and calculates counts in the database rather than loading full objects.

Test Case 8: Split Query Strategy

What it does: Demonstrates an alternative approach where one large JOIN is split into multiple optimized queries.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Split_Query()
{
    var blogs = _context.Blogs
        .AsSplitQuery()
        .Include(b => b.Posts)
        .Include(b => b.Tags)
        .ToList();
}

The SQL Queries (from our test output):

-- Query 1: Load blogs
SELECT "b"."Id", "b"."CreatedDate", "b"."Description", "b"."Title"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"
ORDER BY "b"."Id"

-- Query 2: Load posts (automatically generated)
SELECT "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title", "b"."Id"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"
INNER JOIN "Posts" AS "p" ON "b"."Id" = "p"."BlogId"
ORDER BY "b"."Id"

-- Query 3: Load tags (automatically generated)
SELECT "t"."Id", "t"."Name", "b"."Id"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"
INNER JOIN "BlogTag" AS "bt" ON "b"."Id" = "bt"."BlogsId"
INNER JOIN "Tags" AS "t" ON "bt"."TagsId" = "t"."Id"
ORDER BY "b"."Id"

When to use it: When JOINing lots of related data creates one massive, slow query. Split queries break this into several smaller, faster queries.

Test Case 9: Filtered Include()

What it does: Shows how to load only specific related data – in this case, only recent posts from the last 15 days.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Filtered_Include()
{
    var cutoffDate = DateTime.Now.AddDays(-15);
    var blogsWithRecentPosts = _context.Blogs
        .Include(b => b.Posts.Where(p => p.PublishedDate > cutoffDate))
        .ToList();
}

The SQL Query:

SELECT "b"."Id", "b"."CreatedDate", "b"."Description", "b"."Title",
       "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"
LEFT JOIN "Posts" AS "p" ON "b"."Id" = "p"."BlogId" AND "p"."PublishedDate" > @cutoffDate
ORDER BY "b"."Id"

The Efficiency: Only loads posts that meet the criteria, reducing data transfer and memory usage.

Test Case 10: Explicit Loading

What it does: Demonstrates manually controlling when related data gets loaded.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Explicit_Loading()
{
    var blogs = _context.Blogs.ToList(); // Load blogs only
    
    // Now explicitly load posts for all blogs
    foreach (var blog in blogs)
    {
        _context.Entry(blog)
            .Collection(b => b.Posts)
            .Load();
    }
}

The SQL Queries:

-- Query 1: Load blogs
SELECT "b"."Id", "b"."CreatedDate", "b"."Description", "b"."Title"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"

-- Query 2: Explicitly load posts for blog 1
SELECT "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Posts" AS "p"
WHERE "p"."BlogId" = 1

-- Query 3: Explicitly load posts for blog 2
SELECT "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Posts" AS "p"
WHERE "p"."BlogId" = 2

-- ... and so on

When useful: When you sometimes need related data and sometimes don’t. You control exactly when the additional database trip happens.

Test Case 11: Batch Loading Pattern

What it does: Shows a clever technique to avoid N+1 by loading all related data in one query, then organizing it in memory.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Batch_Loading_Pattern()
{
    var blogs = _context.Blogs.ToList(); // Query 1
    var blogIds = blogs.Select(b => b.Id).ToList();

    // Single query to get all posts for all blogs
    var posts = _context.Posts
        .Where(p => blogIds.Contains(p.BlogId))
        .ToList(); // Query 2

    // Group posts by blog in memory
    var postsByBlog = posts.GroupBy(p => p.BlogId).ToDictionary(g => g.Key, g => g.ToList());
}

The SQL Queries:

-- Query 1: Load all blogs
SELECT "b"."Id", "b"."CreatedDate", "b"."Description", "b"."Title"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"

-- Query 2: Load ALL posts for ALL blogs in one query
SELECT "p"."Id", "p"."BlogId", "p"."Content", "p"."PublishedDate", "p"."Title"
FROM "Posts" AS "p"
WHERE "p"."BlogId" IN (1, 2, 3)

The Result: Just 2 queries total, regardless of how many blogs you have. Data organization happens in memory.

Test Case 12: Performance Comparison

What it does: Puts all the approaches head-to-head to show their relative performance.

The Code:

[Test]
public void Test_Performance_Comparison()
{
    // N+1 Problem (Multiple Queries)
    var blogs1 = _context.Blogs.ToList();
    foreach (var blog in blogs1)
    {
        var count = blog.Posts.Count(); // Triggers separate query
    }

    // Eager Loading (Single Query)
    var blogs2 = _context.Blogs
        .Include(b => b.Posts)
        .ToList();

    // Projection (Minimal Data)
    var blogSummaries = _context.Blogs
        .Select(b => new { b.Title, PostCount = b.Posts.Count() })
        .ToList();
}

The SQL Queries Generated:

N+1 Problem: 4 separate queries (as shown in previous examples)

Eager Loading: 1 JOIN query (as shown in Test Case 5)

Projection: 1 optimized query with subquery:

SELECT "b"."Title", (
    SELECT COUNT(*)
    FROM "Posts" AS "p"
    WHERE "b"."Id" = "p"."BlogId") AS "PostCount"
FROM "Blogs" AS "b"

Real-World Performance Impact

Let’s scale this up to see why it matters:

Small Application (10 blogs):

  • N+1 approach: 11 queries (≈110ms)
  • Optimized approach: 1 query (≈10ms)
  • Time saved: 100ms

Medium Application (100 blogs):

  • N+1 approach: 101 queries (≈1,010ms)
  • Optimized approach: 1 query (≈10ms)
  • Time saved: 1 second

Large Application (1000 blogs):

  • N+1 approach: 1001 queries (≈10,010ms)
  • Optimized approach: 1 query (≈10ms)
  • Time saved: 10 seconds

Key Takeaways

  1. The N+1 problem gets exponentially worse as your data grows
  2. Lazy loading is convenient but dangerous – it can hide performance problems
  3. Include() is your friend for loading related data efficiently
  4. Projection is powerful when you only need specific fields
  5. Different problems need different solutions – there’s no one-size-fits-all approach
  6. SQL query inspection is crucial – always check what queries your ORM generates

The Bottom Line

This test suite shows that small changes in how you write database queries can transform a slow, database-heavy operation into a fast, efficient one. The difference between a frustrated user waiting 10 seconds for a page to load and a happy user getting instant results often comes down to understanding and avoiding the N+1 problem.

The beauty of these tests is that they use real database queries with actual SQL output, so you can see exactly what’s happening under the hood. Understanding these patterns will make you a more effective developer and help you build applications that stay fast as they grow.

You can find the source for this article in my here 

Hard to Kill: Why Auto-Increment Primary Keys Can Make Data Sync Die Harder

Hard to Kill: Why Auto-Increment Primary Keys Can Make Data Sync Die Harder

Working with the SyncFramework, I’ve noticed a recurring pattern when discussing schema design with customers. One crucial question that often surprises them is about their choice of primary keys: “Are you using auto-incremental integers or unique identifiers (like GUIDs)?”

Approximately 90% of users rely on auto-incremental integer primary keys. While this seems like a straightforward choice, it can create significant challenges for data synchronization. Let’s dive deep into how different database engines handle auto-increment values and why this matters for synchronization scenarios.

Database Implementation Deep Dive

SQL Server

SQL Server uses the IDENTITY property, storing current values in system tables (sys.identity_columns) and caching them in memory for performance. During restarts, it reads the last used value from these system tables. The values are managed as 8-byte numbers internally, with new ranges allocated when the cache is exhausted.

MySQL

MySQL’s InnoDB engine maintains auto-increment counters in memory and persists them to the system tablespace or table’s .frm file. After a restart, it scans the table to find the maximum used value. Each table has its own counter stored in the metadata.

PostgreSQL

PostgreSQL takes a different approach, using separate sequence objects stored in the pg_class catalog. These sequences maintain their own relation files containing crucial metadata like last value, increment, and min/max values. The sequence data is periodically checkpointed to disk for durability.

Oracle

Oracle traditionally uses sequences and triggers, with modern versions (12c+) supporting identity columns. The sequence information is stored in the SEQ$ system table, tracking the last number used, cache size, and increment values.

The Synchronization Challenge

This diversity in implementation creates several challenges for data synchronization:

  1. Unpredictable Sequence Generation: Even within the same database engine, gaps can occur due to rolled-back transactions or server restarts.
  2. Infrastructure Dependencies: The mechanisms for generating next values are deeply embedded within each database engine and aren’t easily accessible to frameworks like Entity Framework or XPO.
  3. Cross-Database Complexity: When synchronizing across different database instances, coordinating auto-increment values becomes even more complex.

The GUID Alternative

Using GUIDs (Globally Unique Identifiers) as primary keys offers a solution to these synchronization challenges. While GUIDs come with their own set of considerations, they provide guaranteed uniqueness across distributed systems without requiring centralized coordination.

Traditional GUID Concerns

  • Index fragmentation
  • Storage size
  • Performance impact

Modern Solutions

These concerns have been addressed through:

  • Sequential GUID generation techniques
  • Improved indexing in modern databases
  • Optimizations in .NET 9

Recommendations

When designing systems that require data synchronization:

  1. Consider using GUIDs instead of auto-increment integers for primary keys
  2. Evaluate sequential GUID generation for better performance
  3. Understand that auto-increment values, while simple, can complicate synchronization scenarios
  4. Plan for the infrastructure needed to maintain consistent primary key generation across your distributed system

Conclusion

The choice of primary key strategy significantly impacts your system’s ability to handle data synchronization effectively. While auto-increment integers might seem simpler at first, understanding their implementation details across different databases reveals why GUIDs often provide a more robust solution for distributed systems.

Remember: Data synchronization is not a trivial problem, and your primary key strategy plays a crucial role in its success. Take the time to evaluate your requirements and choose the appropriate approach for your specific use case.

Till next time, happy delta encoding.

 
The Shift Towards Object Identifiers (OIDs):Why Compound Keys in Database Tables Are No Longer Valid

The Shift Towards Object Identifiers (OIDs):Why Compound Keys in Database Tables Are No Longer Valid

Why Compound Keys in Database Tables Are No Longer Valid

 

Introduction

 

In the realm of database design, compound keys were once a staple, largely driven by the need to adhere to normalization forms. However, the evolving landscape of technology and data management calls into question the continued relevance of these multi-attribute keys. This article explores the reasons why compound keys may no longer be the best choice and suggests a shift towards simpler, more maintainable alternatives like object identifiers (OIDs).

 

The Case Against Compound Keys

 

Complexity in Database Design

 

  • Normalization Overhead: Historically, compound keys were used to satisfy normalization requirements, ensuring minimal redundancy and dependency. While normalization is still important, the rigidity it imposes can lead to overly complex database schemas.
  • Business Logic Encapsulation: When compound keys include business logic, they can create dependencies that complicate data integrity and maintenance. Changes in business rules often necessitate schema alterations, which can be cumbersome.

Maintenance Challenges

 

  • Data Integrity Issues: Compound keys can introduce challenges in maintaining data integrity, especially in large and complex databases. Ensuring the uniqueness and consistency of multi-attribute keys can be error-prone.
  • Performance Concerns: Queries involving compound keys can become less efficient, as indexing and searching across multiple columns can be more resource-intensive compared to single-column keys.

 

The Shift Towards Object Identifiers (OIDs)

 

Simplified Design

 

  • Single Attribute Keys: Using OIDs as primary keys simplifies the schema. Each row can be uniquely identified by a single attribute, making the design more straightforward and easier to understand.
  • Decoupling Business Logic: OIDs help in decoupling the business logic from the database schema. Changes in business rules do not necessitate changes in the primary key structure, enhancing flexibility.

 

Easier Maintenance

 

  • Improved Data Integrity: With a single attribute as the primary key, maintaining data integrity becomes more manageable. The likelihood of key conflicts is reduced, simplifying the validation process.
  • Performance Optimization: OIDs allow for more efficient indexing and query performance. Searching and sorting operations are faster and less resource-intensive, improving overall database performance.

 

Revisiting Normalization

 

Historical Context

 

  • Storage Constraints: Normalization rules were developed when data storage was expensive and limited. Reducing redundancy and optimizing storage was paramount.
  • Modern Storage Solutions: Today, storage is relatively cheap and abundant. The strict adherence to normalization may not be as critical as it once was.

Balancing Act

 

  • De-normalization for Performance: In modern databases, a balance between normalization and de-normalization can be beneficial. De-normalization can improve performance and simplify query design without significantly increasing storage costs.
  • Practical Normalization: Applying normalization principles should be driven by practical needs rather than strict adherence to theoretical models. The goal is to achieve a design that is both efficient and maintainable.

ORM Design Preferences

 

Object-Relational Mappers (ORMs)

 

  • Design with OIDs in Mind: Many ORMs, such as XPO from DevExpress, were originally designed to work with OIDs rather than compound keys. This preference simplifies database interaction and enhances compatibility with object-oriented programming paradigms.
  • Support for Compound Keys: Although these ORMs support compound keys, their architecture and default behavior often favor the use of single-column OIDs, highlighting the practical advantages of simpler key structures in modern application development.

Conclusion

 

The use of compound keys in database tables, driven by the need to fulfill normalization forms, may no longer be the best practice in modern database design. Simplifying schemas with object identifiers can enhance maintainability, improve performance, and decouple business logic from the database structure. As storage becomes less of a constraint, a pragmatic approach to normalization, balancing performance and data integrity, becomes increasingly important. Embracing these changes, along with leveraging ORM tools designed with OIDs in mind, can lead to more robust, flexible, and efficient database systems.