Develop Reference

using AsQueryable after ToList [duplicate]

I know some differences of LINQ to Entities and LINQ to Objects which the first implements IQueryable and the second implements IEnumerable and my question scope is within EF 5.
My question is what's the technical difference(s) of those 3 methods? I see that in many situations all of them work. I also see using combinations of them like .ToList().AsQueryable().
What do those methods mean, exactly?
Is there any performance issue or something that would lead to the use of one over the other?
Why would one use, for example, .ToList().AsQueryable() instead of .AsQueryable()?

There is a lot to say about this. Let me focus on AsEnumerable and AsQueryable and mention ToList() along the way.
What do these methods do?
AsEnumerable and AsQueryable cast or convert to IEnumerable or IQueryable, respectively. I say cast or convert with a reason:
When the source object already implements the target interface, the source object itself is returned but cast to the target interface. In other words: the type is not changed, but the compile-time type is.
When the source object does not implement the target interface, the source object is converted into an object that implements the target interface. So both the type and the compile-time type are changed.
Let me show this with some examples. I've got this little method that reports the compile-time type and the actual type of an object (courtesy Jon Skeet):
void ReportTypeProperties<T>(T obj)
{
Console.WriteLine("Compile-time type: {0}", typeof(T).Name);
Console.WriteLine("Actual type: {0}", obj.GetType().Name);
}
Let's try an arbitrary linq-to-sql Table<T>, which implements IQueryable:
ReportTypeProperties(context.Observations);
ReportTypeProperties(context.Observations.AsEnumerable());
ReportTypeProperties(context.Observations.AsQueryable());
The result:
Compile-time type: Table`1
Actual type: Table`1
Compile-time type: IEnumerable`1
Actual type: Table`1
Compile-time type: IQueryable`1
Actual type: Table`1
You see that the table class itself is always returned, but its representation changes.
Now an object that implements IEnumerable, not IQueryable:
var ints = new[] { 1, 2 };
ReportTypeProperties(ints);
ReportTypeProperties(ints.AsEnumerable());
ReportTypeProperties(ints.AsQueryable());
The results:
Compile-time type: Int32[]
Actual type: Int32[]
Compile-time type: IEnumerable`1
Actual type: Int32[]
Compile-time type: IQueryable`1
Actual type: EnumerableQuery`1
There it is. AsQueryable() has converted the array into an EnumerableQuery, which "represents an IEnumerable<T> collection as an IQueryable<T> data source." (MSDN).
What's the use?
AsEnumerable is frequently used to switch from any IQueryable implementation to LINQ to objects (L2O), mostly because the former does not support functions that L2O has. For more details see What is the effect of AsEnumerable() on a LINQ Entity?.
For example, in an Entity Framework query we can only use a restricted number of methods. So if, for example, we need to use one of our own methods in a query we would typically write something like
var query = context.Observations.Select(o => o.Id)
.AsEnumerable().Select(x => MySuperSmartMethod(x))
ToList – which converts an IEnumerable<T> to a List<T> – is often used for this purpose as well. The advantage of using AsEnumerable vs. ToList is that AsEnumerable does not execute the query. AsEnumerable preserves deferred execution and does not build an often useless intermediate list.
On the other hand, when forced execution of a LINQ query is desired, ToList can be a way to do that.
AsQueryable can be used to make an enumerable collection accept expressions in LINQ statements. See here for more details: Do i really need use AsQueryable() on collection?.
Note on substance abuse!
AsEnumerable works like a drug. It's a quick fix, but at a cost and it doesn't address the underlying problem.
In many Stack Overflow answers, I see people applying AsEnumerable to fix just about any problem with unsupported methods in LINQ expressions. But the price isn't always clear. For instance, if you do this:
context.MyLongWideTable // A table with many records and columns
.Where(x => x.Type == "type")
.Select(x => new { x.Name, x.CreateDate })
...everything is neatly translated into a SQL statement that filters (Where) and projects (Select). That is, both the length and the width, respectively, of the SQL result set are reduced.
Now suppose users only want to see the date part of CreateDate. In Entity Framework you'll quickly discover that...
.Select(x => new { x.Name, x.CreateDate.Date })
...is not supported (at the time of writing). Ah, fortunately there's the AsEnumerable fix:
context.MyLongWideTable.AsEnumerable()
.Where(x => x.Type == "type")
.Select(x => new { x.Name, x.CreateDate.Date })
Sure, it runs, probably. But it pulls the entire table into memory and then applies the filter and the projections. Well, most people are smart enough to do the Where first:
context.MyLongWideTable
.Where(x => x.Type == "type").AsEnumerable()
.Select(x => new { x.Name, x.CreateDate.Date })
But still all columns are fetched first and the projection is done in memory.
The real fix is:
context.MyLongWideTable
.Where(x => x.Type == "type")
.Select(x => new { x.Name, DbFunctions.TruncateTime(x.CreateDate) })
(But that requires just a little bit more knowledge...)
What do these methods NOT do?
Restore IQueryable capabilities
Now an important caveat. When you do
context.Observations.AsEnumerable()
.AsQueryable()
you will end up with the source object represented as IQueryable. (Because both methods only cast and don't convert).
But when you do
context.Observations.AsEnumerable().Select(x => x)
.AsQueryable()
what will the result be?
The Select produces a WhereSelectEnumerableIterator. This is an internal .Net class that implements IEnumerable, not IQueryable. So a conversion to another type has taken place and the subsequent AsQueryable can never return the original source anymore.
The implication of this is that using AsQueryable is not a way to magically inject a query provider with its specific features into an enumerable. Suppose you do
var query = context.Observations.Select(o => o.Id)
.AsEnumerable().Select(x => x.ToString())
.AsQueryable()
.Where(...)
The where condition will never be translated into SQL. AsEnumerable() followed by LINQ statements definitively cuts the connection with entity framework query provider.
I deliberately show this example because I've seen questions here where people for instance try to 'inject' Include capabilities into a collection by calling AsQueryable. It compiles and runs, but it does nothing because the underlying object does not have an Include implementation anymore.
Execute
Both AsQueryable and AsEnumerable don't execute (or enumerate) the source object. They only change their type or representation. Both involved interfaces, IQueryable and IEnumerable, are nothing but "an enumeration waiting to happen". They are not executed before they're forced to do so, for example, as mentioned above, by calling ToList().
That means that executing an IEnumerable obtained by calling AsEnumerable on an IQueryable object, will execute the underlying IQueryable. A subsequent execution of the IEnumerable will again execute the IQueryable. Which may be very expensive.
Specific Implementations
So far, this was only about the Queryable.AsQueryable and Enumerable.AsEnumerable extension methods. But of course anybody can write instance methods or extension methods with the same names (and functions).
In fact, a common example of a specific AsEnumerable extension method is DataTableExtensions.AsEnumerable. DataTable does not implement IQueryable or IEnumerable, so the regular extension methods don't apply.

ToList()
Execute the query immediately
AsEnumerable()
lazy (execute the query later)
Parameter: Func<TSource, bool>
Load EVERY record into application memory, and then handle/filter them. (e.g. Where/Take/Skip, it will select * from table1, into the memory, then select the first X elements) (In this case, what it did: Linq-to-SQL + Linq-to-Object)
AsQueryable()
lazy (execute the query later)
Parameter: Expression<Func<TSource, bool>>
Convert Expression into T-SQL (with the specific provider), query remotely and load result to your application memory.
That’s why DbSet (in Entity Framework) also inherits IQueryable to get the efficient query.
Do not load every record, e.g. if Take(5), it will generate select top 5 * SQL in the background. This means this type is more friendly to SQL Database, and that is why this type usually has higher performance and is recommended when dealing with a database.
So AsQueryable() usually works much faster than AsEnumerable() as it generate T-SQL at first, which includes all your where conditions in your Linq.

ToList() will being everything in memory and then you will be working on it.
so, ToList().where ( apply some filter ) is executed locally.
AsQueryable() will execute everything remotely i.e. a filter on it is sent to the database for applying.
Queryable doesn't do anything til you execute it. ToList, however executes immediately.
Also, look at this answer Why use AsQueryable() instead of List()?.
EDIT :
Also, in your case once you do ToList() then every subsequent operation is local including AsQueryable(). You can't switch to remote once you start executing locally.
Hope this makes it a little bit more clearer.

Encountered a bad performance on below code.
void DoSomething<T>(IEnumerable<T> objects){
var single = objects.First(); //load everything into memory before .First()
...
}
Fixed with
void DoSomething<T>(IEnumerable<T> objects){
T single;
if (objects is IQueryable<T>)
single = objects.AsQueryable().First(); // SELECT TOP (1) ... is used
else
single = objects.First();
}
For an IQueryable, stay in IQueryable when possible, try not be used like IEnumerable.
Update. It can be further simplified in one expression, thanks Gert Arnold.
T single = objects is IQueryable<T> q?
q.First():
objects.First();

Force Entity Framework 6.1 to use exists instead of populating entire child object graph [duplicate]

What is the difference between returning IQueryable<T> vs. IEnumerable<T>, when should one be preferred over the other?
IQueryable<Customer> custs = from c in db.Customers
where c.City == "<City>"
select c;
IEnumerable<Customer> custs = from c in db.Customers
where c.City == "<City>"
select c;
Will both be deferred execution and when should one be preferred over the other?

Yes, both will give you deferred execution.
The difference is that IQueryable<T> is the interface that allows LINQ-to-SQL (LINQ.-to-anything really) to work. So if you further refine your query on an IQueryable<T>, that query will be executed in the database, if possible.
For the IEnumerable<T> case, it will be LINQ-to-object, meaning that all objects matching the original query will have to be loaded into memory from the database.
In code:
IQueryable<Customer> custs = ...;
// Later on...
var goldCustomers = custs.Where(c => c.IsGold);
That code will execute SQL to only select gold customers. The following code, on the other hand, will execute the original query in the database, then filtering out the non-gold customers in the memory:
IEnumerable<Customer> custs = ...;
// Later on...
var goldCustomers = custs.Where(c => c.IsGold);
This is quite an important difference, and working on IQueryable<T> can in many cases save you from returning too many rows from the database. Another prime example is doing paging: If you use Take and Skip on IQueryable, you will only get the number of rows requested; doing that on an IEnumerable<T> will cause all of your rows to be loaded in memory.

The top answer is good but it doesn't mention expression trees which explain "how" the two interfaces differ. Basically, there are two identical sets of LINQ extensions. Where(), Sum(), Count(), FirstOrDefault(), etc all have two versions: one that accepts functions and one that accepts expressions.
The IEnumerable version signature is: Where(Func<Customer, bool> predicate)
The IQueryable version signature is: Where(Expression<Func<Customer, bool>> predicate)
You've probably been using both of those without realizing it because both are called using identical syntax:
e.g. Where(x => x.City == "<City>") works on both IEnumerable and IQueryable
When using Where() on an IEnumerable collection, the compiler passes a compiled function to Where()
When using Where() on an IQueryable collection, the compiler passes an expression tree to Where(). An expression tree is like the reflection system but for code. The compiler converts your code into a data structure that describes what your code does in a format that's easily digestible.
Why bother with this expression tree thing? I just want Where() to filter my data.
The main reason is that both the EF and Linq2SQL ORMs can convert expression trees directly into SQL where your code will execute much faster.
Oh, that sounds like a free performance boost, should I use AsQueryable() all over the place in that case?
No, IQueryable is only useful if the underlying data provider can do something with it. Converting something like a regular List to IQueryable will not give you any benefit.

Yes, both use deferred execution. Let's illustrate the difference using the SQL Server profiler....
When we run the following code:
MarketDevEntities db = new MarketDevEntities();
IEnumerable<WebLog> first = db.WebLogs;
var second = first.Where(c => c.DurationSeconds > 10);
var third = second.Where(c => c.WebLogID > 100);
var result = third.Where(c => c.EmailAddress.Length > 11);
Console.Write(result.First().UserName);
In SQL Server profiler we find a command equal to:
"SELECT * FROM [dbo].[WebLog]"
It approximately takes 90 seconds to run that block of code against a WebLog table which has 1 million records.
So, all table records are loaded into memory as objects, and then with each .Where() it will be another filter in memory against these objects.
When we use IQueryable instead of IEnumerable in the above example (second line):
In SQL Server profiler we find a command equal to:
"SELECT TOP 1 * FROM [dbo].[WebLog] WHERE [DurationSeconds] > 10 AND [WebLogID] > 100 AND LEN([EmailAddress]) > 11"
It approximately takes four seconds to run this block of code using IQueryable.
IQueryable has a property called Expression which stores a tree expression which starts being created when we used the result in our example (which is called deferred execution), and at the end this expression will be converted to an SQL query to run on the database engine.

Both will give you deferred execution, yes.
As for which is preferred over the other, it depends on what your underlying datasource is.
Returning an IEnumerable will automatically force the runtime to use LINQ to Objects to query your collection.
Returning an IQueryable (which implements IEnumerable, by the way) provides the extra functionality to translate your query into something that might perform better on the underlying source (LINQ to SQL, LINQ to XML, etc.).

A lot has been said previously, but back to the roots, in a more technical way:
IEnumerable is a collection of objects in memory that you can enumerate - an in-memory sequence that makes it possible to iterate through (makes it way easy for within foreach loop, though you can go with IEnumerator only). They reside in the memory as is.
IQueryable is an expression tree that will get translated into something else at some point with ability to enumerate over the final outcome. I guess this is what confuses most people.
They obviously have different connotations.
IQueryable represents an expression tree (a query, simply) that will be translated to something else by the underlying query provider as soon as release APIs are called, like LINQ aggregate functions (Sum, Count, etc.) or ToList[Array, Dictionary,...]. And IQueryable objects also implement IEnumerable, IEnumerable<T> so that if they represent a query the result of that query could be iterated. It means IQueryable don't have to be queries only. The right term is they are expression trees.
Now how those expressions are executed and what they turn to is all up to so called query providers (expression executors we can think them of).
In the Entity Framework world (which is that mystical underlying data source provider, or the query provider) IQueryable expressions are translated into native T-SQL queries. Nhibernate does similar things with them. You can write your own one following the concepts pretty well described in LINQ: Building an IQueryable Provider link, for example, and you might want to have a custom querying API for your product store provider service.
So basically, IQueryable objects are getting constructed all the way long until we explicitly release them and tell the system to rewrite them into SQL or whatever and send down the execution chain for onward processing.
As if to deferred execution it's a LINQ feature to hold up the expression tree scheme in the memory and send it into the execution only on demand, whenever certain APIs are called against the sequence (the same Count, ToList, etc.).
The proper usage of both heavily depends on the tasks you're facing for the specific case. For the well-known repository pattern I personally opt for returning IList, that is IEnumerable over Lists (indexers and the like). So it is my advice to use IQueryable only within repositories and IEnumerable anywhere else in the code. Not saying about the testability concerns that IQueryable breaks down and ruins the separation of concerns principle. If you return an expression from within repositories consumers may play with the persistence layer as they would wish.
A little addition to the mess :) (from a discussion in the comments))
None of them are objects in memory since they're not real types per se, they're markers of a type - if you want to go that deep. But it makes sense (and that's why even MSDN put it this way) to think of IEnumerables as in-memory collections whereas IQueryables as expression trees. The point is that the IQueryable interface inherits the IEnumerable interface so that if it represents a query, the results of that query can be enumerated. Enumeration causes the expression tree associated with an IQueryable object to be executed.
So, in fact, you can't really call any IEnumerable member without having the object in the memory. It will get in there if you do, anyways, if it's not empty. IQueryables are just queries, not the data.

In general terms I would recommend the following:
Return IQueryable<T> if you want to enable the developer using your method to refine the query you return before executing.
Return IEnumerable if you want to transport a set of Objects to enumerate over.
Imagine an IQueryable as that what it is - a "query" for data (which you can refine if you want to). An IEnumerable is a set of objects (which has already been received or was created) over which you can enumerate.

In general you want to preserve the original static type of the query until it matters.
For this reason, you can define your variable as 'var' instead of either IQueryable<> or IEnumerable<> and you will know that you are not changing the type.
If you start out with an IQueryable<>, you typically want to keep it as an IQueryable<> until there is some compelling reason to change it. The reason for this is that you want to give the query processor as much information as possible. For example, if you're only going to use 10 results (you've called Take(10)) then you want SQL Server to know about that so that it can optimize its query plans and send you only the data you'll use.
A compelling reason to change the type from IQueryable<> to IEnumerable<> might be that you are calling some extension function that the implementation of IQueryable<> in your particular object either cannot handle or handles inefficiently. In that case, you might wish to convert the type to IEnumerable<> (by assigning to a variable of type IEnumerable<> or by using the AsEnumerable extension method for example) so that the extension functions you call end up being the ones in the Enumerable class instead of the Queryable class.

There is a blog post with brief source code sample about how misuse of IEnumerable<T> can dramatically impact LINQ query performance: Entity Framework: IQueryable vs. IEnumerable.
If we dig deeper and look into the sources, we can see that there are obviously different extension methods are perfomed for IEnumerable<T>:
// Type: System.Linq.Enumerable
// Assembly: System.Core, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089
// Assembly location: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\System.Core.dll
public static class Enumerable
{
public static IEnumerable<TSource> Where<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource, bool> predicate)
{
return (IEnumerable<TSource>)
new Enumerable.WhereEnumerableIterator<TSource>(source, predicate);
}
}
and IQueryable<T>:
// Type: System.Linq.Queryable
// Assembly: System.Core, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089
// Assembly location: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\System.Core.dll
public static class Queryable
{
public static IQueryable<TSource> Where<TSource>(
this IQueryable<TSource> source,
Expression<Func<TSource, bool>> predicate)
{
return source.Provider.CreateQuery<TSource>(
Expression.Call(
null,
((MethodInfo) MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod()).MakeGenericMethod(
new Type[] { typeof(TSource) }),
new Expression[]
{ source.Expression, Expression.Quote(predicate) }));
}
}
The first one returns enumerable iterator, and the second one creates query through the query provider, specified in IQueryable source.

The main difference between “IEnumerable” and “IQueryable” is about where the filter logic is executed. One executes on the client side (in memory) and the other executes on the database.
For example, we can consider an example where we have 10,000 records for a user in our database and let's say only 900 out which are active users, so in this case if we use “IEnumerable” then first it loads all 10,000 records in memory and then applies the IsActive filter on it which eventually returns the 900 active users.
While on the other hand on the same case if we use “IQueryable” it will directly apply the IsActive filter on the database which directly from there will return the 900 active users.

I would like to clarify a few things due to seemingly conflicting responses (mostly surrounding IEnumerable).
(1) IQueryable extends the IEnumerable interface. (You can send an IQueryable to something which expects IEnumerable without error.)
(2) Both IQueryable and IEnumerable LINQ attempt lazy loading when iterating over the result set. (Note that implementation can be seen in interface extension methods for each type.)
In other words, IEnumerables are not exclusively "in-memory". IQueryables are not always executed on the database. IEnumerable must load things into memory (once retrieved, possibly lazily) because it has no abstract data provider. IQueryables rely on an abstract provider (like LINQ-to-SQL), although this could also be the .NET in-memory provider.
Sample use case
(a) Retrieve list of records as IQueryable from EF context. (No records are in-memory.)
(b) Pass the IQueryable to a view whose model is IEnumerable. (Valid. IQueryable extends IEnumerable.)
(c) Iterate over and access the data set's records, child entities and properties from the view. (May cause exceptions!)
Possible Issues
(1) The IEnumerable attempts lazy loading and your data context is expired. Exception thrown because provider is no longer available.
(2) Entity Framework entity proxies are enabled (the default), and you attempt to access a related (virtual) object with an expired data context. Same as (1).
(3) Multiple Active Result Sets (MARS). If you are iterating over the IEnumerable in a foreach( var record in resultSet ) block and simultaneously attempt to access record.childEntity.childProperty, you may end up with MARS due to lazy loading of both the data set and the relational entity. This will cause an exception if it is not enabled in your connection string.
Solution
I have found that enabling MARS in the connection string works unreliably. I suggest you avoid MARS unless it is well-understood and explicitly desired.
Execute the query and store results by invoking resultList = resultSet.ToList() This seems to be the most straightforward way of ensuring your entities are in-memory.
In cases where the you are accessing related entities, you may still require a data context. Either that, or you can disable entity proxies and explicitly Include related entities from your DbSet.

I recently ran into an issue with IEnumerable v. IQueryable. The algorithm being used first performed an IQueryable query to obtain a set of results. These were then passed to a foreach loop, with the items instantiated as an Entity Framework (EF) class. This EF class was then used in the from clause of a Linq to Entity query, causing the result to be IEnumerable.
I'm fairly new to EF and Linq for Entities, so it took a while to figure out what the bottleneck was. Using MiniProfiling, I found the query and then converted all of the individual operations to a single IQueryable Linq for Entities query. The IEnumerable took 15 seconds and the IQueryable took 0.5 seconds to execute. There were three tables involved and, after reading this, I believe that the IEnumerable query was actually forming a three table cross-product and filtering the results.
Try to use IQueryables as a rule-of-thumb and profile your work to make your changes measurable.

We can use both for the same way, and they are only different in the performance.
IQueryable only executes against the database in an efficient way. It means that it creates an entire select query and only gets the related records.
For example, we want to take the top 10 customers whose name start with ‘Nimal’. In this case the select query will be generated as select top 10 * from Customer where name like ‘Nimal%’.
But if we used IEnumerable, the query would be like select * from Customer where name like ‘Nimal%’ and the top ten will be filtered at the C# coding level (it gets all the customer records from the database and passes them into C#).

In addition to first 2 really good answers (by driis & by Jacob) :
IEnumerable
interface is in the System.Collections namespace.
The IEnumerable object represents a set of data in memory and can move on this data only forward. The query represented by the IEnumerable object is executed immediately and completely, so the application receives data quickly.
When the query is executed, IEnumerable loads all the data, and if we need to filter it, the filtering itself is done on the client side.
IQueryable interface is located in the System.Linq namespace.
The IQueryable object provides remote access to the database and allows you to navigate through the data either in a direct order from beginning to end, or in the reverse order. In the process of creating a query, the returned object is IQueryable, the query is optimized. As a result, less memory is consumed during its execution, less network bandwidth, but at the same time it can be processed slightly more slowly than a query that returns an IEnumerable object.
What to choose?
If you need the entire set of returned data, then it's better to use IEnumerable, which provides the maximum speed.
If you DO NOT need the entire set of returned data, but only some filtered data, then it's better to use IQueryable.

In addition to the above, it's interesting to note that you can get exceptions if you use IQueryable instead of IEnumerable:
The following works fine if products is an IEnumerable:
products.Skip(-4);
However if products is an IQueryable and it's trying to access records from a DB table, then you'll get this error:
The offset specified in a OFFSET clause may not be negative.
This is because the following query was constructed:
SELECT [p].[ProductId]
FROM [Products] AS [p]
ORDER BY (SELECT 1)
OFFSET #__p_0 ROWS
and OFFSET can't have a negative value.

How to Parameterize Linq Query or Lambda Query in Entity Framework?

I write some Parameterize Lambda Queries
//Method 1:
Func<SalesOrderLineEntity, bool> func01 = (o => o.SOLNumber == "123456");
var q01 = _context.SalesOrderLineEntities.Where(func01).ToList();
//Got the result, but SQLServer Read All Records to memory before "where"
//Method 2:
Expression<Func<SalesOrderLineEntity, bool>> exp02 = (o => o.SOLNumber == "123456");
var q02 = _context.SalesOrderLineEntities.Where(exp02).ToList();
//Got the result,Exec "Where" in SQLServer
//Method 3:
Expression<Func<SalesOrderLineEntity, bool>> exp03 = (o => func01(o));
var q03 = _context.SalesOrderLineEntities.Where(exp03.Compile()).ToList();
//Same to Method 1,because Compile() result is Func<SalesOrderLineEntity, bool>
//Method 4:
var q04 = _context.SalesOrderLineEntities.Where(exp03).ToList();
//Error:The LINQ expression node type 'Invoke' is not supported in LINQ to Entities
Method 1 and 3：Efficiency is very low
Method 4:Error
Method 2:Need I Build a Expression through the Lambda. I feel it is very difficult, because i will use many "if,else".it easier to create a function.
What is the correct way to do that?

Variations
Method 1: EF reads all the records from the DB because you pass a Func into the Where clause, which is not the right candidate: EF cannot extract the needed information from it to build the query, it can only use that function on an in-memory collection.
Method 2: this is the correct way to do EF queries because EF builds up the actual query based on the Expression tree. It may look like the same as Method 1 when you write .Where but this is different.
IQueryable extension methods are using Expression trees, so you can (or EF can) evaluate that information at runtime.
Method 3: this is essentially the same as Method 1, because you compile the expression. This is a key difference while you use them: an expression contains the informations to build the actual operation but that's not the operation itself. You need to compile it before (or for example you can build SQL queries based on them, that's how EF works).
Method 4: EF cannot translate your func01() call to any SQL function. It cannot translate any kind of code because it needs an equivalent SQL operation. You can try to use a general method, you will get the same result, it's not about the Func.
What happens here?
If we simplify the underlying process then the answer above might by more clear.
//Method 2:
Expression<Func<SalesOrderLineEntity, bool>> exp02 = (o => o.SOLNumber == "123456");
var q02 = _context.SalesOrderLineEntities.Where(exp02).ToList();
//Got the result,Exec "Where" in SQLServer
EF can read the following (via the expressions):
the user want to filter with Where
here is an expression for that, let's get some information
well, it needs SalesOrderLineEntity and I have a mapping for that type
the expression tells that the property SOLNumber must be equal to "123456"
ok, I have a mapping for SOLNumber so it's good
and I can translate the equal operator to an equivalent SQL operator
everything okay, so we can build the SQL query
Of course, you cannot do this with a Func for example because that object doesn't contain these informations.

Not sure if this is applicable but have you look at compiled queries: Compiled Queries (LINQ to Entities) which should result in a more efficient SQL statement

remove a condition from ef expression tree

I'm using entity framework to handle the database in a MVC application: I created a search engine for the application using several fields from start form, and setting privileges that comes from the user role, so the routine that create the select statement is growing, so sometimes I have this situation.
before i make a selection:
var orders = db.Orders.Where( ord => ord.Channel == 1 || ord.Channel == 2);
after in the source code, in some cases, type of users, filter combinations, and so on, I have to change this filter or remove this condition
orders = db.Orders.Where( ord => ord.Channel == 1 );
this is just a simple example, because doing this way i loose the other filters I have done in the Linq expression tree, and cause i have request to add features very often, it's very difficult to reorganize all the code to test all the prerequisite before to add conditions to the expression tree so i would like to know if is possible to remove a statement in the linq expression tree after has been added and before the tree is parsed and converted in a sql query
luca

Assuming I understand your question correctly, I believe the simplest possible approach is to defer the creation of the query until you have collected all the data needed to know what the query should look like, i.e. in this case it would mean you build the query only after you already know whether the condition actually needs to be applied.
If it is not possible for you to defer the creation of the query (it seems to me that is what you are saying), but you can still anticipate which conditions may need to be removed at a later point, I would consider introducing a Boolean sentinel in the query, e.g. based on your query snippet:
var orders = db.Orders.Where( ord =>
(isFirstConditionRelevant && ord.Channel == 1)
|| (isSecondConditionRelvant && ord.Channel == 2));
The variables 'isFirstConditionRelevant' and 'isSecondConditionRelevant' would be initially be set to true and would be captured by the query expression, but you could set to false at a later point (e.g. just before executing the query) if you needed the corresponding condition to have no effect. Notice that with this approach the SQL translation of the query will still contain the condition, but it will also contain a parameter for each sentinel that will short circuit the Boolean logic when the query is executed by the server.
Note also that any constants in your conditions (e.g. the '1' in 'ord.Channel == 1') will be translated to constant in the SQL. I would suggest using variables as this will introduce parameters in the SQL query that could increase the chances that the query plan can be reused on the server.
Another approach that could be useful is to take advantage of support for references to expression variables in the query, e.g. you could pass a variable of type Expression> to the Where clause and at a later point replace the value of the variable to the right predicate. If I remember correctly, LINQ to Entities supports using expression variables as predicate conditions over nested collections by applying the AsQueryable operator to the collection in the query. Otherwise you can take advantage of the support for AsExpandable in provided by the LINQ kit. You will find more information about this, as well as examples of using references to expression variables in the LINQ Kit home page: http://www.albahari.com/nutshell/linqkit.aspx.
The fourth and most complicated approach I would consider is to use my own visitor (e.g. derived from System.Linq.Expressions.ExpressionVisitor) to rewrite the LINQ expression tree (in this case to remove the condition from the predicate) before the query is executed. I don't have an expression visitor that does exactly that handy. Instead, I can provide a few pointers to articles that solve different parts of the problem:
This thread in StackOverflow describes how to use an expression visitor to do some query rewriting: Using a LINQ ExpressionVisitor to replace primitive parameters with property references in a lambda expression.
This great blog post by Alex James describes how to write an intercepting query provider that will call your expression rewriting visitor just be fore the query is executed: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alexj/archive/2010/03/01/tip-55-how-to-extend-an-iqueryable-by-wrapping-it.aspx.
The following article describes a library that can be used to rewrite expressions based on rules: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/24454/Modifying-LINQ-Expressions-with-Rewrite-Rules.
Hope this helps!

Understanding .AsEnumerable() in LINQ to SQL

Given the following LINQ to SQL query:
var test = from i in Imports
where i.IsActive
select i;
The interpreted SQL statement is:
SELECT [t0].[id] AS [Id] .... FROM [Imports] AS [t0] WHERE [t0].[isActive] = 1
Say I wanted to perform some action in the select that cannot be converted to SQL. Its my understanding that the conventional way to accomplish this is to do AsEnumerable() thus converting it to a workable object.
Given this updated code:
var test = from i in Imports.AsEnumerable()
where i.IsActive
select new
{
// Make some method call
};
And updated SQL:
SELECT [t0].[id] AS [Id] ... FROM [Imports] AS [t0]
Notice the lack of a where clause in the executed SQL statement.
Does this mean the entire "Imports" table is cached into memory?
Would this slow performance at all if the table contained a large amount of records?
Help me to understand what is actually happening behind the scenes here.

The reason for AsEnumerable is to
AsEnumerable(TSource)(IEnumerable(TSource))
can be used to choose between query
implementations when a sequence
implements IEnumerable(T) but also has
a different set of public query
methods available
So when you were calling the Where method before, you were calling a different Where method from the IEnumerable.Where. That Where statement was for LINQ to convert to SQL, the new Where is the IEnumerable one that takes an IEnumerable, enumerates it and yields the matching items. Which explains why you see the different SQL being generated. The table will be taken in full from the database before the Where extension will be applied in your second version of the code. This could create a serious bottle neck, because the entire table has to be in memory, or worse the entire table would have to travel between servers. Allow SQL server to execute the Where and do what it does best.

At the point where the enumeration is enumerated through, the database will then be queried, and the entire resultset retrieved.
A part-and-part solution can be the way. Consider
var res = (
from result in SomeSource
where DatabaseConvertableCriterion(result)
&& NonDatabaseConvertableCriterion(result)
select new {result.A, result.B}
);
Let's say also that NonDatabaseConvertableCriterion requires field C from result. Because NonDatabaseConvertableCriterion does what its name suggests, this has to be performed as an enumeration. However, consider:
var partWay =
(
from result in SomeSource
where DatabaseConvertableCriterion(result)
select new {result.A, result.B, result.C}
);
var res =
(
from result in partWay.AsEnumerable()
where NonDatabaseConvertableCriterion select new {result.A, result.B}
);
In this case, when res is enumerated, queried or otherwise used, as much work as possible will be passed to the database, which will return enough to continue the job. Assuming that it is indeed really impossible to rewrite so that all the work can be sent to the database, this may be a suitable compromise.

There are three implementations of AsEnumerable.
DataTableExtensions.AsEnumerable
Extends a DataTable to give it an IEnumerable interface so you can use Linq against the DataTable.
Enumerable.AsEnumerable<TSource> and ParallelEnumerable.AsEnumerable<TSource>
The AsEnumerable<TSource>(IEnumerable<TSource>) method has no effect
other than to change the compile-time type of source from a type that
implements IEnumerable<T> to IEnumerable<T> itself.
AsEnumerable<TSource>(IEnumerable<TSource>) can be used to choose
between query implementations when a sequence implements
IEnumerable<T> but also has a different set of public query methods
available. For example, given a generic class Table that implements
IEnumerable<T> and has its own methods such as Where, Select, and
SelectMany, a call to Where would invoke the public Where method of
Table. A Table type that represents a database table could have a
Where method that takes the predicate argument as an expression tree
and converts the tree to SQL for remote execution. If remote execution
is not desired, for example because the predicate invokes a local
method, the AsEnumerable<TSource> method can be used to hide the
custom methods and instead make the standard query operators
available.
In other words.
If I have an
IQueryable<X> sequence = ...;
from a LinqProvider, like Entity Framework, and I do,
sequence.Where(x => SomeUnusualPredicate(x));
that query will be composed and run on the server. This will fail at runtime because the EntityFramework doesn't know how to convert SomeUnusualPredicate into SQL.
If I want that to run the statement with Linq to Objects instead, I do,
sequence.AsEnumerable().Where(x => SomeUnusualPredicate(x));
now the server will return all the data and the Enumerable.Where from Linq to Objects will be used instead of the Query Provider's implementation.
It won't matter that Entity Framework doesn't know how to interpret SomeUnusualPredicate, my function will be used directly. (However, this may be an inefficient approach since all rows will be returned from the server.)

I believe the AsEnumerable just tells the compiler which extension methods to use (in this case the ones defined for IEnumerable instead of those for IQueryable).
The execution of the query is still deferred until you call ToArray or enumerate on it.