SELECT
FW1.id, count(*)
FROM
firmware FW1
LEFT JOIN
firmware FW2 ON FW1.firmware_group_id = FW2.firmware_group_id
AND FW1.br_date < FW2.br_date
AND FW2.[public]= '1'
GROUP BY
FW1.id
I am looking to convert into linq query. As I know less than symbol cannot be converted into Linq query. Please suggest how to do it. I have a string date and I need to compare into linq.
As you said, Linq does not support other types of join outside of EquiJoin. Docs is pretty clear on what you can do to bypass this:
you could use a simple cross join (a cartesian product), then applying in the where clause the conditions for your non-equijoin.
Or you could use a temporary variable to store a new table with only the attributes you need for your query and, like before, applying the conditions in the where clause.
In your case, a possible Linq query could be this one:
from f1 in firmwares
from f2 in firmwares
let f1_date = DateTime.Parse(f1.Dt)
let f2_date = DateTime.Parse(f2.Dt)
where f1.Group_Id == f2.Group_Id && f1_date < f2_date
group f1 by f1.Id into fres
select new {
Id = fres.Key,
Count = fres.Count()
};
However I am still thinking how to emulate the LEFT JOIN without casting it to a group join.
Of course the < symbol can be used. Just use method syntax instead of query syntax!
Every FW1 has zero or more FW2s. Every FW2 belongs to exactly one FW1. This one-to-many is implemented using foreign key firmware_group_id.
Apparently you want all FW1s, each with the number of its FW2s, that have a property public with a value equal to 1 and a property br-date larger than the value of the br-date of the FW1.
Whenever you want an item with its many sub-items (using a foreign key), like s School with its Students, a Customer with his Orders, a Book with his Pages, you'll need Enumerable.GroupJoin
var result = FW1.GroupJoin(FW2, // GroupJoin FW1 and FW2
fw1 => fw1.firmware_group_id, // from fw1 take the primary key firmware_group_id
fw2 => fw2.firmware_group_id, // from fw2 take the foreing key firmware_group_id
(fw1, fw2s) => new // from every fw1, with all its matching fw2s
{ // make one new object containing the following properties:
Id = fw1.Id,
// Count the fw2s of this fw1 that have public == 1
// and a date larger than fw1.date
Count = fw2.Where(fw2 => fw2.Public == 1 && fw1.br_date < fw2.br_date)
.Count(),
});
Note:
Related
Suppose I have a list of {City, State}. It originally came from the database, and I have LocationID, but by now I loaded it into memory. Suppose I also have a table of fast food restaurants that has City and State as part of the record. I need to get a list of establishments that match city and state.
NOTE: I try to describe a simplified scenario; my business domain is completely different.
I came up with the following LINQ solution:
var establishments = from r in restaurants
from l in locations
where l.LocationId == id &&
l.City == r.City &&
l.State == r.State
select r
and I feel there must be something better. For starters, I already have City/State in memory - so to go back to the database only to have a join seems very inefficient. I am looking for some way to say {r.City, r.State} match Any(MyList) where MyList is my collection of City/State.
UPDATE
I tried to update based on suggestion below:
List<CityState> myCityStates = ...;
var establishments =
from r in restaurants
join l in myCityStates
on new { r.City, r.State } equals new { l.City, l.State } into gls
select r;
and I got the following compile error:
Error CS1941 The type of one of the expressions in the join clause is incorrect. Type inference failed in the call to 'Join'.
UPDATE 2
Compiler didn't like anonymous class in the join. I made it explicit and it stopped complaining. I'll see if it actually works in the morning...
It seems to me that you need this:
var establishments =
from r in restaurants
join l in locations.Where(x => x.LocationId == id)
on new { r.City, r.State } equals new { l.City, l.State } into gls
select r;
Well, there isn't a lot more that you can do, as long as you rely on a table lookup, the only thing you can do to speed up things is to put an index on City and State.
The linq statement has to translate into a valid SQL Statement, where "Any" would translate to something like :
SELECT * FROM Restaurants where City in ('...all cities')
I dont know if other ORM's give better performance for these types of scenarios that EF, but it might be worth investigating. EF has never had a rumor for being fast on reads.
Edit: You can also do this:
List<string> names = new List { "John", "Max", "Pete" };
bool has = customers.Any(cus => names.Contains(cus.FirstName));
this will produce the necessary IN('value1', 'value2' ...) functionality that you were looking for
For a school project I need to filter students who have signed up for multiple courses at the same timeblock. Instead of querying the DB via procedures/views I want to use LINQ to filter it in memory for learning purposes.
Everything seems alright according to the debugger however the result of my linq query is 0 and I can't figure out how.
Here's the code:
foreach (Timeblock tb in ctx.Timeblocks)
{
List<Student> doublestudents = new List<Student>();
//Get the schedules matching the timeblock.
Schedule[] schedules = (from sched in ctx.Schedules
where sched.Timeblock.Id == tb.Id
select sched).ToArray();
/\/\/\Gives me 2 schedules matching that timeblock.
if (schedules.Count() > 1)
{
doublestudents = (from s in ctx.Students
where s.Courses.Contains(schedules[0].Course) && s.Courses.Contains(schedules[1].Course)
select s).ToList();
Console.WriteLine(doublestudents.Count); <<< count results in 0 students.
}
}
While debugging it seems everything should work alright.
Each student has a List and each Course hsa a List
schedules[0].Course has Id 1
schedules[0].Course has Id 6
The student with Id 14 has both these courses in it's list.
Still the linq query does not return this student. Can this be because it's not the same reference of course it wont find a match at the .Contains()?
It's driving me totally crazy since every way I try this it wont return any results while there are matches...
You are comparing on Course which is a reference type. This means the objects are pointing to locations in memory rather than the actual values of the Course object itself, so you will never get a match because the courses of the student and the courses from the timeblock query are all held in different areas of memory.
You should instead use a value type for the comparison, like the course ID. Value types are the actual data itself so using something like int (for integer) will let the actual numerical values be compared. Two different int variables set to the same number will result in an equality.
You can also revise the comparison to accept any number of courses instead of just two so that it's much more flexible to use.
if (schedules.Count() > 1)
{
var scheduleCourseIds = schedules.Select(sch => sch.Course.Id).ToList();
doublestudents = (from s in ctx.Students
let studentCourseIds = s.Courses.Select(c => c.Id)
where !scheduleCourseIds.Except(studentCourseIds).Any()
select s).ToList();
Console.WriteLine(doublestudents.Count);
}
Some notes:
Compare the Course IDs (assuming these are unique and what you use to match them in the database) so that you're comparing value types and will get a match.
Use the let keyword in Linq to create temporary variables you can use in the query and make everything more readable.
Use the logic for one set containing all the elements of another set (found here) so you can have any number of duplicated courses to match against.
The problem is that your schedule[0].Course object and the s.Courses, from the new query, are completely different.
you may use the element's key to evaluate your equality condition/expression, as:
if (schedules.Count() > 1)
{
doublestudents = (from s in ctx.Students
where s.Courses.Any(x=> x.Key == schedules[0].Course.Key) && s.Courses.Any(x=> x.Key == schedules[1].Course.Key)
select s).ToList();
Console.WriteLine(doublestudents.Count); <<< count results in 0 students.
}
}
In order to achieve this you will need to include
using System.Linq
As you have guessed, this is probably related to reference equality. Here is a quick fix:
doublestudents =
(from s in ctx.Students
where s.Courses.Any(c => c.Id == schedules[0].Course.Id) &&
s.Courses.Any(c => c.Id == schedules[1].Course.Id)
select s).ToList();
Please note that I am assuming that the Course class has a property called Id which is the primary key. Replace it as needed.
Please note that this code assumes that there are two schedules. You need to work on the code to make it work for any number of schedules.
Another approach is to override the Equals and GetHashCode methods on the Course class so that objects of this type are compared based on their values (the values of their properties, possibly the ID property alone?).
I have a database that contains 3 tables:
Phones
PhoneListings
PhoneConditions
PhoneListings has a FK from the Phones table(PhoneID), and a FK from the Phone Conditions table(conditionID)
I am working on a function that adds a Phone Listing to the user's cart, and returns all of the necessary information for the user. The phone make and model are contained in the PHONES table, and the details about the Condition are contained in the PhoneConditions table.
Currently I am using 3 queries to obtain all the neccesary information. Is there a way to combine all of this into one query?
public ActionResult phoneAdd(int listingID, int qty)
{
ShoppingBasket myBasket = new ShoppingBasket();
string BasketID = myBasket.GetBasketID(this.HttpContext);
var PhoneListingQuery = (from x in myDB.phoneListings
where x.phonelistingID == listingID
select x).Single();
var PhoneCondition = myDB.phoneConditions
.Where(x => x.conditionID == PhoneListingQuery.phonelistingID).Single();
var PhoneDataQuery = (from ph in myDB.Phones
where ph.PhoneID == PhoneListingQuery.phonePageID
select ph).SingleOrDefault();
}
You could project the result into an anonymous class, or a Tuple, or even a custom shaped entity in a single line, however the overall database performance might not be any better:
var phoneObjects = myDB.phoneListings
.Where(pl => pl.phonelistingID == listingID)
.Select(pl => new
{
PhoneListingQuery = pl,
PhoneCondition = myDB.phoneConditions
.Single(pc => pc.conditionID == pl.phonelistingID),
PhoneDataQuery = myDB.Phones
.SingleOrDefault(ph => ph.PhoneID == pl.phonePageID)
})
.Single();
// Access phoneObjects.PhoneListingQuery / PhoneCondition / PhoneDataQuery as needed
There are also slightly more compact overloads of the LINQ Single and SingleOrDefault extensions which take a predicate as a parameter, which will help reduce the code slightly.
Edit
As an alternative to multiple retrievals from the ORM DbContext, or doing explicit manual Joins, if you set up navigation relationships between entities in your model via the navigable join keys (usually the Foreign Keys in the underlying tables), you can specify the depth of fetch with an eager load, using Include:
var phoneListingWithAssociations = myDB.phoneListings
.Include(pl => pl.PhoneConditions)
.Include(pl => pl.Phones)
.Single(pl => pl.phonelistingID == listingID);
Which will return the entity graph in phoneListingWithAssociations
(Assuming foreign keys PhoneListing.phonePageID => Phones.phoneId and
PhoneCondition.conditionID => PhoneListing.phonelistingID)
You should be able to pull it all in one query with join, I think.
But as pointed out you might not achieve alot of speed from this, as you are just picking the first match and then moving on, not really doing any inner comparisons.
If you know there exist atleast one data point in each table then you might aswell pull all at the same time. if not then waiting with the "sub queries" is nice as done by StuartLC.
var Phone = (from a in myDB.phoneListings
join b in myDB.phoneConditions on a.phonelistingID equals b.conditionID
join c in ph in myDB.Phones on a.phonePageID equals c.PhoneID
where
a.phonelistingID == listingID
select new {
Listing = a,
Condition = b,
Data = c
}).FirstOrDefault();
FirstOrDefault because single throws error if there exists more than one element.
I have 2 tables, one is Posts another is Comments. These tables contain "RatedPoint" field.
I want to take 5 users who have the highest point.
For example, user ID =1 and its total point 50 in Post table
and it's total point is 25 in Comment table, so its total point is 75
so, i have to look whole members and after choose 5 highest point
It seems a bit complicated, i hope its clear..
I tried something like that
var abc= csEntity.Users.Where(u => csEntity.Posts.Any(p => u.Id == p.UserId)).
Take(userCount).OrderByDescending(u => u.Posts.Count).ToList();
or..
var xyz = csEntity.Posts.Where(p => csEntity.Comments.Any(c => c.UserId == p.UserId));
I dont want to use 2 different list if possible.. is it possible to do it in one query?
I could do it with 2 for loops, but i think its a bad idea..
Post TABLE
Comments TABLE
As you see, these two tables contain userID and each user has RatedPoint...
I think now its clear
EDIT: Maybe a user never write a comment or never write a post just write a comment.. then i think we musnt make equal posts.userId=comments.UserId
Here is a LINQ expression that does what you seem to be asking for:
var result = from p in posts
join c in comments on p.Id equals c.Id
select new { Id = p.Id, Total = p.Points + c.Points };
That provides the actual joined data. Then you can pick the top 5 like this:
result.OrderByDescending(item => item.Total).Take(5)
Note that the above does assume that both tables always have each user, even if they didn't post or comment. I.e. they would simply have a point count of 0. Your updated question clarifies that in your case, you have potentially disjoint tables, i.e. a user can be in one table but not the other.
In that case, the following should work for you:
var leftOuter = from p in posts
join c in comments on p.Id equals c.Id into groupJoin
let c = groupJoin.SingleOrDefault()
select new { Id = p.Id, Total = p.Points + (c == null ? 0 : c.Points) };
var rightAnti = from c in comments
join p in posts on c.Id equals p.Id into groupJoin
let p = groupJoin.SingleOrDefault()
where p == null
select new { Id = c.Id, Total = c.Points };
var result = leftOuter.Concat(rightAnti);
The first LINQ expression does a left outer join. The second LINQ expression does a left anti-join (but I call it "right" because it's effectively the right-join of the original data :) ). I'm using SingleToDefault() to ensure that each user is in each table once at most. The code will throw an exception if it turns out they are present more than once (which otherwise would result in that user being represented in the final result more than once).
I admit, I don't know whether the above is the most efficient approach. I think it should be pretty close, since the joins should be optimized (in objects or SQL) and that's the most expensive part of the whole operation. But I make no promises regarding performance. :)
I'm having trouble coming up with an efficient LINQ-to-SQL query. I am attempting to do something like this:
from x in Items
select new
{
Name = x.Name
TypeARelated = from r in x.Related
where r.Type == "A"
select r
}
As you might expect, it produces a single query from the "Items" table, with a left join on the "Related" table. Now if I add another few similar lines...
from x in Items
select new
{
Name = x.Name
TypeARelated = from r in x.Related
where r.Type == "A"
select r,
TypeBRelated = from r in x.Related
where r.Type == "B"
select r
}
The result is that a similar query to the first attempt is run, followed by an individual query to the "Related" table for each record in "Items". Is there a way to wrap this all up in a single query? What would be the cause of this? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
The above query if written directly in SQL would be written like so (pseudo-code):
SELECT
X.NAME AS NAME,
(CASE R.TYPE WHEN A THEN R ELSE NULL) AS TypeARelated,
(CASE R.TYPE WHEN B THEN R ELSE NULL) AS TypeBRelated
FROM Items AS X
JOIN Related AS R ON <some field>
However, linq-to-sql is not as efficient, from your explanation, it does one join, then goes to individually compare each record. A better way would be to use two linq queries similar to your first example, which would generate two SQL queries. Then use the result of the two linq queries and join them, which would not generate any SQL statement. This method would limit the number of queries executed in SQL to 2.
If the number of conditions i.e. r.Type == "A" etc., are going to increase over time, or different conditions are going to be added, you're better off using a stored procedure, which would be one SQL query at all times.
Hasanain
You can use eager loading to do a single join on the server to see if that helps. Give this a try.
using (MyDataContext context = new MyDataContext())
{
DataLoadOptions options = new DataLoadOptions();
options.LoadWith<Item>(i => i.Related);
context.LoadOptions = options;
// Do your query now.
}