How to store double[] array to database with Entity Framework Code-First approach

Question

How can I store an array of doubles to database using Entity Framework Code-First with no impact on the existing code and architecture design?

I've looked at Data Annotation and Fluent API, I've also considered converting the double array to a string of bytes and store that byte to the database in it own column.

I cannot access the public double[] Data { get; set; } property with Fluent API, the error message I then get is:

The type double[] must be a non-nullable value type in order to use it as parameter 'T'.

The class where Data is stored is successfully stored in the database, and the relationships to this class. I'm only missing the Data column.

Answer 1

You can do a thing like this :

    [NotMapped]
    public double[] Data
    {
        get
        {
            string[] tab = this.InternalData.Split(',');
            return new double[] { double.Parse(tab[0]), double.Parse(tab[1]) };
        }
        set
        {
            this.InternalData = string.Format("{0},{1}", value[0], value[1]);
        }
    }

    [EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
    public string InternalData { get; set; }

Answer 2

Thank you all for your inputs, due to your help I was able to track down the best way to solve this. Which is:

 public string InternalData { get; set; }
 public double[] Data
 {
    get
    {
        return Array.ConvertAll(InternalData.Split(';'), Double.Parse);                
    }
    set
    {
        _data = value;
        InternalData = String.Join(";", _data.Select(p => p.ToString()).ToArray());
    }
 }

Thanks to these stackoverflow posts: String to Doubles array and Array of Doubles to a String

Answer 3

I know it is a bit expensive, but you could do this

class Primitive
{
    public int PrimitiveId { get; set; }
    public double Data { get; set; }

    [Required]
    public Reference ReferenceClass { get; set; }
}

// This is the class that requires an array of doubles
class Reference
{
    // Other EF stuff

    // EF-acceptable reference to an 'array' of doubles
    public virtual List<Primitive> Data { get; set; }
}

This will now map a single entity (here 'Reference') to a 'list' of your Primitive class. This is basically to allow the SQL database to be happy, and allow you to use your list of data appropriately.

This may not suit your needs, but will be a way to make EF happy.

Answer 4

It would be far easier if you use List<double> rather then double[]. You already have a table that stores your Data values. You probably have foreign key from some table to the table where your double values are stored. Create another model that reflects the table where doubles are stored and add foreign key mappings in the mappings class. That way you will not need to add some complex background logic which retrieves or stores values in a class property.

Answer 5

Nathan White has the best answer (got my vote).

Here is a small improvement over Joffrey Kern's answer to allow lists of any length (untested):

    [NotMapped]
    public IEnumerable<double> Data
    {
        get
        {
            var tab = InternalData.Split(',');
            return tab.Select(double.Parse).AsEnumerable();
        }
        set { InternalData = string.Join(",", value); }
    }

    [EditorBrowsable(EditorBrowsableState.Never)]
    public string InternalData { get; set; }

Answer 6

Don't use double[] use List insted.

Like this.

public class MyModel{
    ...
    public List<MyClass> Data { get; set; }
    ...
}

public class MyClass{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public double Value { get; set; }
}

All that solution that I see there are bad, because:

1. If you create table, you don't want to store data like this: "99.5,89.65,78.5,15.5" that's not valid! Firstly its a string that means if you can type letter into it and at the moment when your ASP.NET server call double.Parse it will result in FormatException and that you really don't want!

2. It's slower, because your server must parse the string. Why parse the string instead getting almost ready data from SQL Server to use?