Develop Reference

Retrieving non-duplicates from 2 Collections using LINQ

Background: I have two Collections of different types of objects with different name properties (both strings). Objects in Collection1 have a field called Name, objects in Collection2 have a field called Field.
I needed to compare these 2 properties, and get items from Collection1 where there is not a match in Collection2 based on that string property (Collection1 will always have a greater or equal number of items. All items should have a matching item by Name/Field in Collection2 when finished).
The question: I've found answers using Lists and they have helped me a little(for what it's worth, I'm using Collections). I did find this answer which appears to be working for me, however I would like to convert what I've done from query syntax (if that's what it's called?) to a LINQ query. See below:
//Query for results. This code is what I'm specifically trying to convert.
var result = (from item in Collection1
where !Collection2.Any(x => x.ColumnName == item.FieldName)
select item).ToList();
//** Remove items in result from Collection1**
//...
I'm really not at all familiar with either syntax (working on it), but I think I generally understand what this is doing. I'm struggling trying to convert this to LINQ syntax though and I'd like to learn both of these options rather than some sort of nested loop.
End goal after I remove the query results from Collection1: Collection1.Count == Collection2 and the following is true for each item in the collection: ItemFromCollection1.Name == SomeItemFromCollection2.Field (if that makes sense...)

You can convert this to LINQ methods like this:
var result = Collection1.Where(item => !Collection2.Any(x => x.ColumnName == item.FieldName))
.ToList();

Your first query is the opposite of what you asked for. It's finding records that don't have an equivalent. The following will return all records in Collection1 where there is an equivalent:
var results=Collection1.Where(c1=>!Collection2.Any(c2=>c2.Field==c1.Name));
Please note that this isn't the fastest approach, especially if there is a large number of records in collection2. You can find ways of speeding it up through HashSets or Lookups.

if you want to get a list of non duplicate values to be retained then do the following.
List<string> listNonDup = new List<String>{"6","1","2","4","6","5","1"};
var singles = listNonDup.GroupBy(n => n)
.Where(g => g.Count() == 1)
.Select(g => g.Key).ToList();
Yields: 2, 4, 5
if you want a list of all the duplicate values then you can do the opposite
var duplicatesxx = listNonDup.GroupBy(s => s)
.SelectMany(g => g.Skip(1)).ToList();

How do I use Linq with a HashSet of Integers to pull multiple items from a list of Objects?

I have a HashSet of ID numbers, stored as integers:
HashSet<int> IDList; // Assume that this is created with a new statement in the constructor.
I have a SortedList of objects, indexed by the integers found in the HashSet:
SortedList<int,myClass> masterListOfMyClass;
I want to use the HashSet to create a List as a subset of the masterListOfMyclass.
After wasting all day trying to figure out the Linq query, I eventually gave up and wrote the following, which works:
public List<myclass> SubSet {
get {
List<myClass> xList = new List<myClass>();
foreach (int x in IDList) {
if (masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey(x)) {
xList.Add(masterListOfMyClass[x]);
}
}
return xList;
}
private set { }
}
So, I have two questions here:
What is the appropriate Linq query? I'm finding Linq extremely frustrating to try to figuere out. Just when I think I've got it, it turns around and "goes on strike".
Is a Linq query any better -- or worse -- than what I have written here?

var xList = IDList
.Where(masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey)
.Select(x => masterListOfMyClass[x])
.ToList();
If your lists both have equally large numbers of items, you may wish to consider inverting the query (i.e. iterate through masterListOfMyClass and query IDList) since a HashSet is faster for random queries.
Edit:
It's less neat, but you could save a lookup into masterListOfMyClass with the following query, which would be a bit faster:
var xList = IDList
.Select(x => { myClass y; masterListOfMyClass.TryGetValue(x, out y); return y; })
.Where(x => x != null)
.ToList();

foreach (int x in IDList.Where(x => masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey(x)))
{
xList.Add(masterListOfMyClass[x]);
}
This is the appropriate linq query for your loop.
Here the linq query will not effective in my point of view..

Here is the Linq expression:
List<myClass> xList = masterListOfMyClass
.Where(x => IDList.Contains(x.Key))
.Select(x => x.Value).ToList();
There is no big difference in the performance in such a small example, Linq is slower in general, it actually uses iterations under the hood too. The thing you get with ling is, imho, clearer code and the execution is defered until it is needed. Not i my example though, when I call .ToList().

Another option would be (which is intentionally the same as Sankarann's first answer)
return (
from x in IDList
where masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey(x)
select masterListOfMyClass[x]
).ToList();
However, are you sure you want a List to be returned? Usually, when working with IEnumerable<> you should chain your calls using IEnumerable<> until the point where you actually need the data. There you can decide to e.g. loop once (use the iterator) or actually pull the data in some sort of cache using the ToList(), ToArray() etc. methods.
Also, exposing a List<> to the public implies that modifying this list has an impact on the calling class. I would leave it to the user of the property to decide to make a local copy or continue using the IEnumerable<>.
Second, as your private setter is empty, setting the 'SubSet' has no impact on the functionality. This again is confusing and I would avoid it.
An alternate (an maybe less confusing) declaration of your property might look like this
public IEnumerable<myclass> SubSet {
get {
return from x in IDList
where masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey(x)
select masterListOfMyClass[x]
}
}

How to optimize a LINQ with minimum and additional condition

Asume we have a list of objects (to make it more clear no properties etc.pp are used)
public class SomeObject{
public bool IsValid;
public int Height;
}
List<SomeObject> objects = new List<SomeObject>();
Now I want only the value from a list, which is both valid and has the lowest height.
Classically i would have used sth like:
SomeObject temp;
foreach(SomeObject so in objects)
{
if(so.IsValid)
{
if (null == temp)
temp = so;
else if (temp.Height > so.Height)
temp = so;
}
}
return temp;
I was thinking that it can be done more clearly with LinQ.
The first approach which came to my mind was:
List<SomeObject> sos = objects.Where(obj => obj.IsValid);
if(sos.Count>0)
{
return sos.OrderBy(obj => obj.Height).FirstOrDefault();
}
But then i waas thinking: In the foreach approach i am going one time through the list. With Linq i would go one time through the list for filtering, and one time for ordering even i do not need to complete order the list.
Would something like
return objects.OrderBy(obj => obj.Height).FirstOrDefault(o => o.IsValid);
also go twice throught the list?
Can this be somehow optimized, so that the linw also only needs to run once through the list?

You can use GroupBy:
IEnumerable<SomeObject> validHighestHeights = objects
.Where(o => o.IsValid)
.GroupBy(o => o.Height)
.OrderByDescending(g => g.Key)
.First();
This group contains all valid objects with the highest height.

The most efficient way to do this with Linq is as follows:
var result = objects.Aggregate(
default(SomeObject),
(acc, current) =>
!current.IsValid ? acc :
acc == null ? current :
current.Height < acc.Height ? current :
acc);
This will loop over the collection only once.
However, you said "I was thinking that it can be done more clearly with LinQ." Whether this is more clear or not, I leave that up to you to decide.

You can try this one:
return (from _Object in Objects Where _Object.isValid OrderBy _Object.Height).FirstOrDefault();
or
return _Objects.Where(_Object => _Object.isValid).OrderBy(_Object => _Object.Height).FirstOrDefault();

Would something like
return objects.OrderBy(obj => obj.Height).FirstOrDefault(o => o.IsValid);
also go twice throught the list?
Only in the worst case scenario, where the first valid object is the last in order of obj.Height (or there is none to be found). Iterating the collection using FirstOrDefault will stop as soon as a valid element is found.
Can this be somehow optimized, so that the linw also only needs to run
once through the list?
I'm afraid you'd have to make your own extension method. Considering what I've written above though, I'd consider it pretty optimized as it is.
**UPDATE**
Actually, the following would be a bit faster, as we'd avoid sorting invalid items:
return object.Where(o => o.IsValid).OrderBy(o => o.Height).FirstOrDefault();

Search within a list in C# [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How can I find a specific element in a List<T>?
(8 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I have a list containing the following structure.
class CompareDesignGroup
{
string FieldId;
string Caption;
}
The list is containing items of the above structure.
Is it possible to retrieve an element of the list if FieldId is known?

You can use the Find method on the generic list class. The find method takes a predicate that lets you filter/search the list for a single item.
List<CompareDesignGroup> list = // ..;
CompareDesignGroup item = list.Find(c => c.FieldId == "SomeFieldId");
item will be null if there is no matching item in the list.
If you need to find more than one item you can use the FindAll method:
List<CompareDesignGroup> list = // ..;
List<CompareDesignGroup> result= list.FindAll(c => c.FieldId == "SomeFieldId");

You can use LINQ like this:
CompareDesignGroup result = yourList.FirstOrDefault(x => x.FieldId == yourKnownId);
If you use the FirstOrDefault method the result will be null when list doesn't contain a record with a known id. So before using result check if it is not null.

There are a plethora of methods to find an item inside a list.
LINQ provides extensions method useful to work with collections that does not provide their own search features (or when you do not have the collection itself but a generic interface like IEnumerable<T>). If you have a List<CompareDesignGroup> object and you'll work on that object you can use the methods provided by that class (specialized methods are almost always faster than LINQ methods, they know collection's internal structure and does not have to rely on many abstraction layers).
In all examples I'll perform a culture invariant and case sensitive comparison for FieldId to a hypothetical id parameter. This may not be what you need and you may have to change according to your requirements.
Using List<T>
Given a list declared as:
List<CompareDesignGroup>() list = new List<CompareDesignGroup>();
To find first element that matches the search criteria (it'll return null if no items have been found):
CompareDesignGroup item = list.Find(
x => String.Equals(x.FieldId, id, StringComparison.InvariantCulture));
To find all the elements that matches the search criteria:
List<CompareDesignGroup> items = list.FindAll(
x => String.Equals(x.FieldId, id, StringComparison.InvariantCulture));
Using IEnumerable<T> (or IList<T>, for example)
Given a list declared as:
IEnumerable<CompareDesignGroup> list = ...
To find first element that matches the search criteria (null if no items have been found):
CompareDesignGroup item = list.FirstOrDefault(
x => String.Equals(x.FieldId, id, StringComparison.InvariantCulture));
To find the first element that matches the search criteria (or throw an exception if no items have been found):
CompareDesignGroup item = list.First(
x => String.Equals(x.FieldId, id, StringComparison.InvariantCulture));
To find all elements that matches the search criteria:
IEnumerable<CompareDesignGroup> item = list.Where(
x => String.Equals(x.FieldId, id, StringComparison.InvariantCulture));
There are many LINQ extensions methods, I suggest to take a look to them all to find the one that better suits your needs.

You can use Where and then you can use FirstOrDefault. That is an LINQ expression.
var ls = new List<CompareDesignGroup>();
var result = ls.Where(a => a.FieldId=="123").FirstOrDefault();
Or SingleOrDefault to get the item you want. Like this:
var ls = new List<CompareDesignGroup>();
var result = ls.Where(a => a.FieldId=="123").SingleOrDefault()
Or even simpler:
var result = ls.SingleOrDefault(a => a.FieldId=="123");
var result2 = ls.FirstOrDefault(a => a.FieldId=="123");

Yes. Use LINQ or the built-in functionalities of List.

List<CompareDesignGroup> listData = new List<CompareDesignGroup>(); // init the data
var result = listData.Where(x=> String.Equals(x.FieldID,"FIELDID KNOWN VALUE"); // gets all data
var first = listData.FirstOrDefault(x=> String.Equals(x.FieldID,"FIELDID KNOWN VALUE"); // gets first search result

Can I use linq to achieve the same thing this foreach loop does?

Here's the c# code that I have:
private double get806Fees (Loan loan)
{
Loan.Fee.Items class806;
foreach (Loan.Fee.Item currentFee in loan.Item.Fees)
{
if (currentFee.Classification == 806) class806.Add(currentFee);
}
// then down here I will return the sum of all items in class806
}
Can I do this using linq? If so, how? I have never used linq and i've read in several places that using linq instead of a foreach loop is faster... is this true?

Similar to some existing answers, but doing the projection in the query, to make the Sum call a lot simpler:
var sum = (from fee in loan.Items.Fees
where fee.Classification == 806
select fee.SomeValueToSum).Sum();

loan.Item.Fees.
Where(x => x.Classification == 806).
Sum(x => x.SomeValueProperty)
Whether it is faster or not is debatable. IMO, both complexities are the same, the non-LINQ version may be faster.

var q =
from currentFee in loan.Item.Fees
where currentFee.Classification == 806
select currentFee;
var sum = q.Sum(currentFee => currentFee.Fee);

private double get806Fees(Loan loan)
{
return load.Item.Fees.
Where(f => f.Classification == 806).
Sum(f => f.ValueToCalculateSum);
}
I'm assuming here that ValueToCalculateSum is also a double. If it's not then you have to convert it before it is returned.

All of the answers so far are assuming that you're summing up loan.Fees. But the code you actually posted calls Items.Add() to add each Item in loan.Fees.Items to an Items object, and it's that Items object (and not loan.Fees, which is also an Items object) that you say you want to sum up.
Now, if Items is just a simple collection class, then there's no need to do anything other than what people are suggesting here. But if there's some side-effect of the Add method that we don't know about (or, worse, that you don't know about), simply summing up a filtered list of Item objects might not give you the results you're looking for.
You could still use Linq:
foreach (Loan.Fee.Item currentFee in loan.Item.Fees.Where(x => x.Classification == 806)
{
class806.Add(currentFee);
}
return class806.Sum(x => x.Fee)
I'll confess that I'm a little perplexed by the class hierarchy implied here, though, in which the Loan.Item.Fees property is a collection of Loan.Fee.Item objects. I don't know if what I'm seeing is a namespace hierarchy that conflicts with a class hierarchy, or if you're using nested classes, or what. I know I don't like it.