The example given in the blog has the following
from e in s.StudentCourseEnrollments where courseIDs.Contains(e.Course.CourseID) select e
The contains logic will not work when we are looking for an exact match. If a student has enrolled for 6 courses (ex : 1,2,3,4,5,6) and the requested list contains 5 (ex: 1,2,3,4,5) the query will return a match when it should not. The other way works well when the student has enrolled in a subset of the requested list.
Below solution works but need help to convert the below sql to LINQ (EF Core 3.0) ?
Create TABLE dbo.Enrollments (StudentId INT NOT NULL, CourseId INT NOT NULL)
insert into dbo.Enrollments values (1,1)
insert into dbo.Enrollments values (1,2)
insert into dbo.Enrollments values (1,3)
insert into dbo.Enrollments values (1,4)
insert into dbo.Enrollments values (1,5)
insert into dbo.Enrollments values (1,6)
DECLARE #TempCourses TABLE
(
CourseId INT
);
INSERT INTO #TempCourses (CourseId) VALUES (1), (2), (3),(4),(5);
SELECT t.StudentId
FROM
(
SELECT StudentId, cnt=COUNT(*)
FROM dbo.Enrollments
GROUP BY StudentId
) kc
INNER JOIN
(
SELECT cnt=COUNT(*)
FROM #TempCourses
) nc ON nc.cnt = kc.cnt
JOIN dbo.Enrollments t ON t.StudentId = kc.StudentId
JOIN #TempCourses n ON n.CourseId = t.CourseId
GROUP BY t.StudentId
HAVING COUNT(*) = MIN(nc.cnt);
drop table dbo.Enrollments
db<>Fiddle
I don't know about the SQL query, but the EF Core 3.0 LINQ query for the same task is something like this:
var matchIds = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }.AsEnumerable();
var query = dbContext.Students
.Where(s => s.Enrollments.All(e => matchIds.Contains(e.CourseId))
&& s.Enrollments.Count() == matchIds.Count());
The main matching job is done with All subquery. Unfortunately that's not enough for the case when related link records are more than the matching ids, so additional counts comparison solves that.
You can achieve it with a simple way like this, live demo here
Let's say that you've got the list of enrollments by this way
var enrollments = from s in dc.Students
from c in s.Courses
select new { StudentID = s.StudentID, CourseID = c.CourseID };
Then get the result by this way
var groupedEnrollment = enrollments.GroupBy(p => p.StudentId)
.Select(g => new
{
StudentId = g.Key,
Courses = g.Select(p => p.CourseId).ToArray()
});
var result = groupedEnrollment.Where(g =>
g.Courses.Length == courses.Length &&
g.Courses.Intersect(courses).Count() == courses.Length);
Related
How can I delete all but the latest stock records, that were created before a specific date, in Entity Framework Core. I am unable to figure out the required LINQ query but have managed to put together SQL that should do the job:
--
-- Parameters.
--
DECLARE #PurgeDate DATETIME = DATEADD(day, -7, GETDATE());
DECLARE #RegionId INT = 28;
DECLARE #StockCodes TABLE(
StockCode NVARCHAR(10)
);
-- Could be a significant number
INSERT INTO #StockCodes VALUES ('ABC123'), ('DEF123') /* etc... */;
--
-- Get stock records that are newer than the purge date or the latest record if not.
-- This ensures there is always at least one stock record for a stock code.
--
WITH LatestStockRecords
AS
(
SELECT s.*, [RowNumber] = ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY s.[StockCode] ORDER BY s.[CreatedAt] DESC)
FROM StockRecords AS s
INNER JOIN Locations AS l
ON s.[LocationId] = l.[Id]
WHERE l.[RegionId] = #RegionId
AND s.[StockCode] IN (SELECT * FROM #StockCodes)
)
SELECT *.[Id]
INTO #_STOCK_RECORD_IDS
FROM LatestStockRecords
WHERE [CreatedAt] >= #PurgeDate
OR [RowNumber] = 1;
--
-- Delete the stock records that do not appear in the latest stock records temporary table.
--
DELETE s
FROM StockRecords AS s
INNER JOIN Locations AS l
ON s.[LocationId] = l.[Id]
WHERE l.[RegionId] = #RegionId
AND s.[StockCode] IN (SELECT * FROM #StockCodes)
AND s.[Id] NOT IN (SELECT * FROM #_STOCK_RECORD_IDS);
There could be a significant number of records to delete so performance needs to be a consideration.
EDIT: Removed DbContext and entities as I don't think they're relevant to the question.
This is how I eventually solved the problem. I had to force the evaluation of the grouping query as Entity Framework Core doesn't seem to support the neccessary query at this point.
var regionId = 28;
var stockCodes = new string[] { "ABC123", "DEF123" /* etc... */ };
var purgeDate = DateTime.UtcNow.AddDays(-NumberOfDaysToPurge);
bool IsPurgeable(StockRecord stockRecord)
{
return stockRecord.CreatedAt >= purgeDate;
}
var latestStockRecordIds = context.StockRecords
.Where(stockRecord =>
stockRecord.Location.RegionId == regionId
&& stockCodes.Contains(stockRecord.StockCode))
.AsEnumerable() // <-- force execution
.GroupBy(stockRecord => stockRecord.StockCode)
.SelectMany(group =>
{
var orderedStockRecords = group.OrderByDescending(stockRecord => stockRecord.CreatedAt);
var stockRecords = orderedStockRecords.Count(IsPurgeable) > 0
? orderedStockRecords.Where(IsPurgeable)
: orderedStockRecords.Take(1);
return stockRecords.Select(stockRecord => stockRecord.Id);
});
var stockRecordsToRemove = await context.StockRecords
.Where(stockRecord =>
stockRecord.Location.RegionId == regionId
&& StockCodeCodes.Contains(stockRecord.StockCode)
&& stockRecord.CreatedAt <= purgeDate
&& !latestStockRecordIds.Contains(stockRecord.Id))
.ToListAsync();
context.ChangeTracker.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false;
context.StockRecords.RemoveRange(stockRecordsToRemove);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
I have a table function which returns table names and number of entries within that table :
CREATE FUNCTION [dbo].[ufnGetLookups] ()
RETURNS
#lookupsWithItemCounts TABLE
(
[Name] VARCHAR(100),
[EntryCount] INT
)
AS
BEGIN
INSERT INTO #lookupsWithItemCounts([Name],[EntryCount])
VALUES
('Table1', (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Table1)),
('Table2', (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Table2)),
('Table3', (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Table))
RETURN;
END
What would be the Linq equivalent of above simple function? Notice that I want to get the result in one single shot and the speed of the operation is quite important for me. If I realise that the converted linq to sql results in a massive bulky sql with performance hit, I would rather stick to my existing user defined function and forget about the linq equivilant.
You can do that with a UNION query. EG
var q = db.Books.GroupBy(g => "Books").Select(g => new { Name = g.Key, EntryCount = g.Count() })
.Union(db.Authors.GroupBy(g => "Authors").Select(g => new { Name = g.Key, EntryCount = g.Count() }));
var r = q.ToList();
Not an EF guy, and not sure if this would be more performant.
Select TableName = o.name
,RowCnt = sum(p.Rows)
From sys.objects as o
Join sys.partitions as p on o.object_id = p.object_id
Where o.type = 'U'
and o.is_ms_shipped = 0x0
and index_id < 2 -- 0:Heap, 1:Clustered
--and o.name in ('Table1','Table2','Table3' ) -- Include (or not) your own filter
Group By o.schema_id,o.name
Note: Wish I could recall the source of this, but I've used it in my discovery process.
I have some Ids store in below variable:
List<int> Ids;
Now I want to get records based on above Ids but with same order as it is in above Ids.
For eg: Records are like this in database:
Employee:
Id
1
2
3
4
5
Now if Ids array holds Ids like this : 4,2,5,3,1 then I am trying to get records in this order order only:
Query:
var data = context.Employee.Where(t => Ids.Contains(t.Id)).ToList();
But above query is giving me output like it is in table:
Id
1
2
3
4
5
Expected output :
Id
4
2
5
3
1
Update:I have already tried this below solution but as this is entity framework it didn't work out:
var data = context.Employee.Where(t => Ids.Contains(t.Id))
.OrderBy(d => Ids.IndexOf(d.Id)).ToList();
For above solution to make it working I have to add to list :
var data = context.Employee.Where(t => Ids.Contains(t.Id)).ToList()
.OrderBy(d => Ids.IndexOf(d.Id)).ToList();
But I don't want to load data in memory and then filter out my record.
Since the order in which the data is returned when you do not specify an ORDER BY is not determined, you have to add an ORDER BY to indicate how you want it sorted. Unfortunately you have to order based on objects/values in-memory, and cannot use that to order in your SQL query.
Therefore, the best you can do is to order in-memory once the data is retrieved from the database.
var data = context.Employee
// Add a criteria that we only want the known ids
.Where(t => Ids.Contains(t.Id))
// Anything after this is done in-memory instead of by the database
.AsEnumerable()
// Sort the results, in-memory
.OrderBy(d => Ids.IndexOf(d.Id))
// Materialize into a list
.ToList();
Without stored procedures you can use Union and ?: that are both canonical functions.
I can't immagine other ways.
?:
You can use it to assign a weigth to each id value then order by the weigth. Also, you have to generate ?: using dynamic linq.
What is the equivalent of "CASE WHEN THEN" (T-SQL) with Entity Framework?
Dynamically generate LINQ queries
Union
I think this is the more simple way to obtain it. In this case you can add a Where/Union for each Id.
EDIT 1
About using Union you can use code similar to this
IQueryable<Foo> query = context.Foos.AsQueryable();
List<int> Ids = new List<int>();
Ids.AddRange(new[] {3,2,1});
bool first = true;
foreach (int id in Ids)
{
if (first)
{
query = query.Where(_ => _.FooId == id);
first = false;
}
else
{
query = query.Union(context.Foos.Where(_ => _.FooId == id));
}
}
var results = query.ToList();
This generate the followiong query
SELECT
[Distinct2].[C1] AS [C1]
FROM ( SELECT DISTINCT
[UnionAll2].[C1] AS [C1]
FROM (SELECT
[Distinct1].[C1] AS [C1]
FROM ( SELECT DISTINCT
[UnionAll1].[FooId] AS [C1]
FROM (SELECT
[Extent1].[FooId] AS [FooId]
FROM [Foos] AS [Extent1]
WHERE [Extent1].[FooId] = #p__linq__0
UNION ALL
SELECT
[Extent2].[FooId] AS [FooId]
FROM [Foos] AS [Extent2]
WHERE [Extent2].[FooId] = #p__linq__1) AS [UnionAll1]
) AS [Distinct1]
UNION ALL
SELECT
[Extent3].[FooId] AS [FooId]
FROM [Foos] AS [Extent3]
WHERE [Extent3].[FooId] = #p__linq__2) AS [UnionAll2]
) AS [Distinct2]
p__linq__0 = 3
p__linq__1 = 2
p__linq__2 = 1
EDIT 2
I think the best approach is in memory approach because it has the same network load, EF does not generate the ugly query that could not work on databases different from SQL Server and code is more readable. In your particular application could be that union/where is better. So, generally I would suggest you to try memory approach then, if you have [performance] issues, you can check if union/where is better.
I have a Category table with a tree structure (Id,MasterId)
I'd like to select all products that belong to a Category and all Child Categories.
Today I use this SQL Query which works, but I'd like to add pagination and that would be easier with a pure LINQ query. I use Entity Framework 4.
#Count int = 100,
#CategoryId int
with mq as
(
select c.Id as parent, c.Id as child
from dbo.Categories c
where c.Id = #CategoryId
union all
select q.child, c.Id
from mq q
inner join dbo.Categories c on q.child = c.MasterId
)
select top (#Count) P.* from Products P
inner join ProductToCategory PC ON(PC.ProductId = P.Id)
where PC.CategoryId in (
select child from mq
)
and P.PublishStatus = 1
order by P.PublishedDate DESC;
Any ideas how to get a nice LINQ query on this with pagination (current page, number of products per page, total product count)?
This is recursive / hiearchical query with table expression. EF does not provide support for such queries. If you want to receive data by single roundtrip to DB you must wrap it in stored procedure and import that procedure to your entity framework model.
Paging in SQL is also possible when using table expressions and ROW_NUMBER().
there is an idea. i haven't tested it, so dont blame if it doesn't work :P
var ids = context.TreeItems.Where(x => x.Id == parentId).Select(x => (int?)x.Id);
var tmp = ids;
while (true)
{
IQueryable<int?> localIds = tmp;
var subIds = context.TreeItems.Where(x => ids.Contains(x.ParentId)).Select(x => (int?)x.Id);
if (subIds.Any())
{
tmp = subIds;
ids = ids.Union(subIds);
}
else
break;
}
var allSubItems = context.TreeItems.Where(x => ids.Contains(x.Id));
I want to return the depart number that is not found Employee Table by comparing Department table.
Person Table
ID name salary job commision DeptID
--------------------------------------------------------------
P001 Jon 2000 Manager NULL 1
P002 Skeet 1000 Salesman 2000 1
P003 James 2340 Developer NULL 2
P004 greed 4500 Developer NULL 2
P005 Joel 1330 Salesman 1200 1
P006 Deol 5000 Architect NULL 2
Department Table
DeptID DeptName
1 Management
2 Software
3 ERP
SQL
select DeptId from dept
where deptId not in (select deptid from person)
When i try to execute the below code
LINQ
var qry = from n in context.Persons
where n.DeptID !=
(from m in context.Depts select m.DeptId)
select new { DeptID = n.DeptID };
I receive the following error
Operator '!=' cannot be applied to operands of type 'int?' and 'System.Linq.IQueryable'
var qry = from n in context.Persons
where n.DeptID !=
(from m in context.Depts select m.DeptId).FirstOrDefault()
select new { DeptID = n.DeptID };
You are trying to compare DeptID with a collection 1 or more department Ids. Even if there would only logically be one result for a DeptID, syntactically you need to specify that you want the first hit.
Suggested rephrasing:
var q = from m in context.Depts
where
!context.Persons.Select(p => p.DeptID).Contains(m.DeptID)
select new { DeptID = m.DeptID };
It sounds that your DeptID field in SQL is set to allow nulls. In that case you'd probably want something along the lines of this:
var qry = from n in context.Persons
where n.DeptID.Value !=
(from m in context.Depts select m.DeptId)
select new { DeptID = n.DeptID.Value };
I think it should be something like that. I tried to get a list of DeptID's first and then implement a NOT IN with contains :
var deptIDs = context.Persons
.Where( p => !context.Depts
.Select(d => new {DeptID = d.DeptID})
.Contains( p.DeptID )
)
.Select( p => new { DeptID = n.DeptID } );