395

I am getting timeouts using the Entity Framework (EF) when using a function import that takes over 30 seconds to complete. I tried the following and have not been able to resolve this issue:

I added Default Command Timeout=300000 to the connection string in the App.Config file in the project that has the EDMX file as suggested here.

This is what my connection string looks like:

<add 
    name="MyEntityConnectionString" 
    connectionString="metadata=res://*/MyEntities.csdl|res://*/MyEntities.ssdl|
       res://*/MyEntities.msl;
       provider=System.Data.SqlClient;provider connection string=&quot;
       Data Source=trekdevbox;Initial Catalog=StarTrekDatabase;
       Persist Security Info=True;User ID=JamesTKirk;Password=IsFriendsWithSpock;
       MultipleActiveResultSets=True;Default Command Timeout=300000;&quot;"
    providerName="System.Data.EntityClient" />

I tried setting the CommandTimeout in my repository directly like so:

private TrekEntities context = new TrekEntities();

public IEnumerable<TrekMatches> GetKirksFriends()
{
    this.context.CommandTimeout = 180;
    return this.context.GetKirksFriends();
}

What else can I do to get the EF from timing out? This only happens for very large datasets. Everything works fine with small datasets.

Here is one of the errors I'm getting:

System.Data.EntityCommandExecutionException: An error occurred while executing the command definition. See the inner exception for details. ---> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.


OK - I got this working and it's silly what happened. I had both the connection string with Default Command Timeout=300000 and the CommandTimeout set to 180. When I removed the Default Command Timeout from the connection string, it worked. So the answer is to manually set the CommandTimeout in your repository on your context object like so:

this.context.CommandTimeout = 180;

Apparently setting the timeout settings in the connection string has no effect on it.

5
  • Remove &quot; from connection string Commented Jun 3, 2011 at 21:00
  • refer to this as well stackoverflow.com/questions/4396833/sql-exception-with-net-4-ef
    – Saif Khan
    Commented Jun 3, 2011 at 21:13
  • 5
    @hamlin11 In an EF connection string, that is required to define what part is connection string and what part is EF metadata. Leave &quot; in the string.
    – CatDadCode
    Commented Jun 3, 2011 at 21:30
  • 2
    my suggestion is before you increase the timeout would to investigate first to see why EF is timing out. In Our case we realised that we needed to add NONCLUSTERED indexes to some of the tables, this resolved the timeout issue for us.
    – zulucoda
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 12:38
  • I am working with MS support on a SQL time out issue - this is when the DB is hosted in SQL Azure. I was told all Azure PaaS services (PaaS websites and SQL Azure etc) there is a universal timeout of 230 seconds, and this always takes precedence, even if you set a timeout manually. This is to protect resources of multi-tenanted PaaS infrastructure. Commented Aug 22, 2017 at 14:10

10 Answers 10

661

There is a known bug with specifying default command timeout within the EF connection string.

http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=56806

Remove the value from the connection string and set it on the data context object itself. This will work if you remove the conflicting value from the connection string.

Entity Framework Core 1.0:

this.context.Database.SetCommandTimeout(180);

Entity Framework 6:

this.context.Database.CommandTimeout = 180;

Entity Framework 5:

((IObjectContextAdapter)this.context).ObjectContext.CommandTimeout = 180;

Entity Framework 4 and below:

this.context.CommandTimeout = 180;
16
  • 5
    How can I achieve this using edmx?
    – iroel
    Commented Jun 16, 2014 at 2:50
  • 7
    I don't believe this is a bug, but rather by design, see Remarks section here link
    – Mick P
    Commented May 19, 2015 at 8:45
  • 5
    Because some settings are in ms and some in s, I looked it up here, CommandTimeout is in seconds. Commented Oct 1, 2015 at 14:24
  • 6
    In Entity Framework 7 you can set this in DbContext / IdentityDbContext's constructor: this.Database.SetCommandTimeout(180); Commented May 18, 2016 at 8:00
  • 5
    Wow... 5 versions of EF and 5 ways of setting CommandTimeout. None of the version fixed it in ConnectionString? Commented Feb 21, 2020 at 2:59
106

If you are using a DbContext, use the following constructor to set the command timeout:

public class MyContext : DbContext
{
    public MyContext ()
    {
        var adapter = (IObjectContextAdapter)this;
        var objectContext = adapter.ObjectContext;
        objectContext.CommandTimeout = 1 * 60; // value in seconds
    }
}
11
  • 3
    @ErickPetru, so you can easily change it to a different number of minutes :), also I would not be too surprised if the compiler optimizes out that multiplication! Commented Apr 30, 2013 at 6:14
  • 2
    @JoelVerhagen, do not be surprised. Here is a good explanation of when auto optimization occurs: stackoverflow.com/questions/160848/…. In this case, I suppose that even happen (since they are two literal values​​), but honestly I think the code is kind of strange this way. Commented Apr 30, 2013 at 18:20
  • 51
    meh...children are starving...who cares about 1*60?
    – Timmerz
    Commented Jul 17, 2013 at 18:21
  • 15
    @ErikPetru, this is actually a very common practice and makes the code more readable.
    – Calvin
    Commented Dec 10, 2013 at 18:51
  • What's the best way to handle this given that my DbContext derived class was auto generated from an edmx file? Commented Jul 30, 2014 at 15:21
55

If you are using DbContext and EF v6+, alternatively you can use:

this.context.Database.CommandTimeout = 180;
0
22

If you are using Entity Framework like me, you should define Time out on Startup class as follows:

 services.AddDbContext<ApplicationDbContext>(
   options => options.UseSqlServer(
     Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection"), 
     a => a.CommandTimeout(180)));
15

Usually I handle my operations within a transaction. As I've experienced, it is not enough to set the context command timeout, but the transaction needs a constructor with a timeout parameter. I had to set both time out values for it to work properly.

int? prevto = uow.Context.Database.CommandTimeout;
uow.Context.Database.CommandTimeout = 900;
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(900))) {
...
}

At the end of the function I set back the command timeout to the previous value in prevto.

Using EF6

2
  • Not a good approach at all. I used to add lot of transaction scope and it become a nightmare to me in a project. Eventually replaced all transaction scope with a single SAVEChanges() in EF 6+. Check this coderwall.com/p/jnniww/…
    – Moons
    Commented May 30, 2019 at 16:13
  • This answer should have higher vote. I tried all different ways to increase the timeout but only when I set BOTH context command timeout and Transaction scope then it worked.
    – Gang
    Commented Apr 20, 2020 at 7:28
10

I know this is very old thread running, but still EF has not fixed this. For people using auto-generated DbContext can use the following code to set the timeout manually.

public partial class SampleContext : DbContext
{
    public SampleContext()
        : base("name=SampleContext")
    {
        this.SetCommandTimeOut(180);
    }

    public void SetCommandTimeOut(int Timeout)
    {
        var objectContext = (this as IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext;
        objectContext.CommandTimeout = Timeout;
    }
}
3
  • 1
    Add your missing } at the end for the partial. Commented May 27, 2021 at 14:19
  • Thanks! This worked from my EF 4.4.0 project. Yes, old, but works! Commented Jul 13, 2023 at 0:40
  • This post seems to have a long life. I implemented something similar as a reflex but now I am trying to justify to myself why creating a separate function (your "SetCommandTimeOut") is a good idea. Can you help me out? Commented Sep 11, 2023 at 19:40
10

In .NET Core use the following syntax to change the timeout from the default 30 seconds to 90 seconds:

public class DataContext : DbContext
{
    public DataContext(DbContextOptions<DataContext> options) : base(options)
    {
        this.Database.SetCommandTimeout(90); // <-- 90 seconds
    }
}
3

This is what I've fund out. Maybe it will help to someone:

So here we go:

If You use LINQ with EF looking for some exact elements contained in the list like this:

await context.MyObject1.Include("MyObject2").Where(t => IdList.Contains(t.MyObjectId)).ToListAsync();

everything is going fine until IdList contains more than one Id.

The “timeout” problem comes out if the list contains just one Id. To resolve the issue use if condition to check number of ids in IdList.

Example:

if (IdList.Count == 1)
{
    result = await entities. MyObject1.Include("MyObject2").Where(t => IdList.FirstOrDefault()==t. MyObjectId).ToListAsync();
}
else
{
    result = await entities. MyObject1.Include("MyObject2").Where(t => IdList.Contains(t. MyObjectId)).ToListAsync();
}

Explanation:

Simply try to use Sql Profiler and check the Select statement generated by Entity frameeork. …

2

For Entity framework 6 I use this annotation and works fine.

  public partial class MyDbContext : DbContext
  {
      private const int TimeoutDuration = 300;

      public MyDbContext ()
          : base("name=Model1")
      {
          this.Database.CommandTimeout = TimeoutDuration;
      }
       // Some other codes
    }

The CommandTimeout parameter is a nullable integer that set timeout values as seconds, if you set null or don't set it will use default value of provider you use.

0

Adding the following to my stored procedure, solved the time out error by me:

SET NOCOUNT ON;
SET ARITHABORT ON;

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.