LINQ Conflict Detection: Setting UpdateCheck attribute

Question

I've been reading up on LINQ lately to start implementing it, and there's a particular thing as to how it generates UPDATE queries that bothers me.

Creating the entities code automatically using SQLMetal or the Object Relational Designer, apparently all fields for all tables will get attribute UpdateCheck.Always, which means that for every UPDATE and DELETE query, i'll get SQL statement like this:

UPDATE table SET a = 'a' WHERE a='x' AND b='x' ... AND z='x', ad infinitum

Now, call me a purist, but this seems EXTREMELY inefficient to me, and it feels like a bad idea anyway, even if it weren't inefficient. I know the fetch will be done by the clustered primary key, so that's not slow, but SQL still needs to check every field after that to make sure it matches.

Granted, in some very sensitive applications something like this can be useful, but for the typical web app (think Stack Overflow), it seems like UpdateCheck.WhenChanged would be a more appropriate default, and I'd personally prefer UpdateCheck.Never, since LINQ will only update the actual fields that changed, not all fields, and in most real cases, the second person editing something wins anyway.

It does mean that if two people manage to edit the same field of the same row in the small time between reading that row and firing the UPDATE, then the conflict that would be found won't be fired. But in reality that's a very rare case. The one thing we may want to guard against when two people change the same thing won't be caught by this, because they won't click Submit at the exact same time anyway, so there will be no conflict at the time the second DataContext reads and updates the record (unless the DataContext is left open and stored in Session when the page is shown, or some other seriously bad idea like that).

However, as rare as the case is, i'd really like to not be getting exceptions in my code every now and then if this happens.

So my first question is, am I wrong in believing this? (again, for "typical" web apps, not for banking applications) Am I missing some reason why having UpdateCheck.Always as default is a sane idea?

My second question is, can I change this civilizedly? Is there a way to tell SQLMetal or the ORD which UpdateCheck attribute to set?
I'm trying to avoid the situation where I have to remember to run a tool I'll have to make that'll take some regexes and edit all the attributes in the file directly, because it's evident that at some point we'll run SQLMetal after an update to the DB, we won't run this tool, and all our code will break in very subtle ways that we probably won't find while testing in dev.

Any suggestions?
War stories are more than welcome, i'd love to learn from other people's experiences on this.

Thank you very much!

Answer 1

Well, to answer the first question - I agree with you. I'm not a big fan of this "built in" optimistic concurrency, especially if you have timestamp columns or any fields which are not guaranteed to be the same after an update occurs.

To address the second question - I don't know of any way to override SqlMetal's default approach (UpdateCheck = Always), we ended up writing a tool which sets UpdateCheck = Never for appropriate columns. We're using a batch file to call SqlMetal and afterwards running the tool).

Oh, while I think of it - it was also a treat to find that SqlMetal also models relationships to set a foreign key to null instead of "Delete On Null" (for join tables in particular). We had to use the same post-generation tool to set these appropriately too.