Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 110779
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T02:16:51+00:00 2026-05-11T02:16:51+00:00

I am trying out Linq to SQL in an ASP.NET application that uses a

  • 0

I am trying out Linq to SQL in an ASP.NET application that uses a large database with lots of foreign keys (100+ tables). I am impressed with how Linq permits you to create a datacontext with all of your relationships intact and to then create Linq statements that automatically join tables. However, this leads to a question: if I am submitting a Linq statement that just works with one or two tables, is it better to have a datacontext that just has the necessary table/tables? It seems to me that if I build a datacontext with all of the tables in the database, it would be quite massive and loading it for every use of Linq would have a negative impact on performance. Am I right?

Comment: I know to create the datacontext only as needed (but thank you nonetheless for mentioning it). The question is really about whether I should have lots of little datacontexts or whether it would be Ok to build one big one.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-11T02:16:51+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 2:16 am

    You should have one DataContext per one group of connected tables. In most applications, this means one DataContext for everything. If you happen to have several sets of tables that you do not need to modify together, you might consider several DataContexts. If you even might need to query across DataContexts, do not separate them.

    A DataContext is not just a set of tables – it is meant to be an implementation of the Data Gateway pattern – you can fill it with methods that return the data you need, so you don’t have to hardcode queries into every corner of your application. Now, if you had multiple DataContexts, one per page, you would very likely end up having to stick your common functionality (think MyDataContext.GetActiveCustomers()) in every one of them. This would be horrible duplication.

    So the answer is that it is usually not OK to build many small DataContexts. This is only feasible if your data is completely separate (different logical or physical databases) or if you are using DataContext as simply a Connection object, which it is not meant to be.

    Do note however, that DataContexts should be short-lived – they are an implementation of the Unit of Work pattern and thus their lifetime should be equal to one logical operation (e.g. loading a set of products or inserting a new order). DataContexts are cheap to create and destroy, so do not waste time caching them just because.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I'm trying to do a nested repeater as described here but it's erroring out.
I am new to linq and want to perform joins across three tables. The
I finally decided to post a question here after some time spent trying to
How would you go about using LINQ aggregate functions (ex. Sum, Average) on collections
I am trying to imitate a scenario where 300,000 consumers are accessing a server.
I've been trying to get the Count for my Value field in my query
I am trying to read 2 values in a binary file and put the
Hello I’m a trying to create a feature where an user an add an
Given an EntityFramework POCO object model such as: public class Group { public int
im getting the Object reference not set to an instance of an object for

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.