given a list of ids, I can query all relevant rows by:
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id));
But how do you achieve the same functionality when the Table has a composite key?
This is a nasty problem for which I don't know any elegant solution.
Suppose you have these key combinations, and you only want to select the marked ones (*).
Id1 Id2
--- ---
1 2 *
1 3
1 6
2 2 *
2 3 *
... (many more)
How to do this is a way that Entity Framework is happy? Let's look at some possible solutions and see if they're any good.
Solution 1: Join (or Contains) with pairs
The best solution would be to create a list of the pairs you want, for instance Tuples, (List<Tuple<int,int>>) and join the database data with this list:
from entity in db.Table // db is a DbContext
join pair in Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity
In LINQ to objects this would be perfect, but, too bad, EF will throw an exception like
Unable to create a constant value of type 'System.Tuple`2 (...) Only primitive types or enumeration types are supported in this context.
which is a rather clumsy way to tell you that it can't translate this statement into SQL, because Tuples is not a list of primitive values (like int or string). For the same reason a similar statement using Contains (or any other LINQ statement) would fail.
Solution 2: In-memory
Of course we could turn the problem into simple LINQ to objects like so:
from entity in db.Table.AsEnumerable() // fetch db.Table into memory first
join pair Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity
Needless to say that this is not a good solution. db.Table could contain millions of records.
Solution 3: Two Contains statements (incorrect)
So let's offer EF two lists of primitive values, [1,2] for Id1 and [2,3] for Id2. We don't want to use join, so let's use Contains:
from entity in db.Table
where ids1.Contains(entity.Id1) && ids2.Contains(entity.Id2)
select entity
But now the results also contains entity {1,3}! Well, of course, this entity perfectly matches the two predicates. But let's keep in mind that we're getting closer. In stead of pulling millions of entities into memory, we now only get four of them.
Solution 4: One Contains with computed values
Solution 3 failed because the two separate Contains statements don't only filter the combinations of their values. What if we create a list of combinations first and try to match these combinations? We know from solution 1 that this list should contain primitive values. For instance:
var computed = ids1.Zip(ids2, (i1,i2) => i1 * i2); // [2,6]
and the LINQ statement:
from entity in db.Table
where computed.Contains(entity.Id1 * entity.Id2)
select entity
There are some problems with this approach. First, you'll see that this also returns entity {1,6}. The combination function (a*b) does not produce values that uniquely identify a pair in the database. Now we could create a list of strings like ["Id1=1,Id2=2","Id1=2,Id2=3]" and do
from entity in db.Table
where computed.Contains("Id1=" + entity.Id1 + "," + "Id2=" + entity.Id2)
select entity
(This would work in EF6, not in earlier versions).
This is getting pretty messy. But a more important problem is that this solution is not sargable, which means: it bypasses any database indexes on Id1 and Id2 that could have been used otherwise. This will perform very very poorly.
Solution 5: Best of 2 and 3
So the most viable solution I can think of is a combination of Contains and a join in memory: First do the contains statement as in solution 3. Remember, it got us very close to what we wanted. Then refine the query result by joining the result as an in-memory list:
var rawSelection = from entity in db.Table
where ids1.Contains(entity.Id1) && ids2.Contains(entity.Id2)
select entity;
var refined = from entity in rawSelection.AsEnumerable()
join pair in Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity;
It's not elegant, messy all the same maybe, but so far it's the only scalable1 solution to this problem I found, and applied in my own code.
Solution 6: Build a query with OR clauses
Using a Predicate builder like Linqkit or alternatives, you can build a query that contains an OR clause for each element in the list of combinations. This could be a viable option for really short lists. With a couple of hundreds of elements, the query will start performing very poorly. So I don't consider this a good solution unless you can be 100% sure that there will always be a small number of elements. One elaboration of this option can be found here.
Solution 7: Unions
There's also a solution using UNIONs that I posted later here.
1As far as the Contains statement is scalable: Scalable Contains method for LINQ against a SQL backend
Solution for Entity Framework Core with SQL Server
🎉 NEW! QueryableValues EF6 Edition has arrived!
The following solution makes use of QueryableValues. This is a library that I wrote to primarily solve the problem of query plan cache pollution in SQL Server caused by queries that compose local values using the Contains LINQ method. It also allows you to compose values of complex types in your queries in a performant way, which will achieve what's being asked in this question.
First you will need to install and set up the library, after doing that you can use any of the following patterns that will allow you to query your entities using a composite key:
// Required to make the AsQueryableValues method available on the DbContext.
using BlazarTech.QueryableValues;
// Local data that will be used to query by the composite key
// of the fictitious OrderProduct table.
var values = new[]
{
new { OrderId = 1, ProductId = 10 },
new { OrderId = 2, ProductId = 20 },
new { OrderId = 3, ProductId = 30 }
};
// Optional helper variable (needed by the second example due to CS0854)
var queryableValues = dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values);
// Example 1 - Using a Join (preferred).
var example1Results = dbContext
.OrderProduct
.Join(
queryableValues,
e => new { e.OrderId, e.ProductId },
v => new { v.OrderId, v.ProductId },
(e, v) => e
)
.ToList();
// Example 2 - Using Any (similar behavior as Contains).
var example2Results = dbContext
.OrderProduct
.Where(e => queryableValues
.Where(v =>
v.OrderId == e.OrderId &&
v.ProductId == e.ProductId
)
.Any()
)
.ToList();
Useful Links
Nuget Package
GitHub Repository
Benchmarks
QueryableValues is distributed under the MIT license.
You can use Union for each composite primary key:
var compositeKeys = new List<CK>
{
new CK { id1 = 1, id2 = 2 },
new CK { id1 = 1, id2 = 3 },
new CK { id1 = 2, id2 = 4 }
};
IQuerable<CK> query = null;
foreach(var ck in compositeKeys)
{
var temp = context.Table.Where(x => x.id1 == ck.id1 && x.id2 == ck.id2);
query = query == null ? temp : query.Union(temp);
}
var result = query.ToList();
You can create a collection of strings with both keys like this (I am assuming that your keys are int type):
var id1id2Strings = listOfIds.Select(p => p.Id1+ "-" + p.Id2);
Then you can just use "Contains" on your db:
using (dbEntities context = new dbEntities())
{
var rec = await context.Table1.Where(entity => id1id2Strings .Contains(entity.Id1+ "-" + entity.Id2));
return rec.ToList();
}
You need a set of objects representing the keys you want to query.
class Key
{
int Id1 {get;set;}
int Id2 {get;set;}
If you have two lists and you simply check that each value appears in their respective list then you are getting the cartesian product of the lists - which is likely not what you want. Instead you need to query the specific combinations required
List<Key> keys = // get keys;
context.Table.Where(q => keys.Any(k => k.Id1 == q.Id1 && k.Id2 == q.Id2));
I'm not completely sure that this is valid use of Entity Framework; you may have issues with sending the Key type to the database. If that happens then you can be creative:
var composites = keys.Select(k => p1 * k.Id1 + p2 * k.Id2).ToList();
context.Table.Where(q => composites.Contains(p1 * q.Id1 + p2 * q.Id2));
You can create an isomorphic function (prime numbers are good for this), something like a hashcode, which you can use to compare the pair of values. As long as the multiplicative factors are co-prime this pattern will be isomorphic (one-to-one) - i.e. the result of p1*Id1 + p2*Id2 will uniquely identify the values of Id1 and Id2 as long as the prime numbers are correctly chosen.
But then you end up in a situation where you're implementing complex concepts and someone is going to have to support this. Probably better to write a stored procedure which takes the valid key objects.
Ran into this issue as well and needed a solution that both did not perform a table scan and also provided exact matches.
This can be achieved by combining Solution 3 and Solution 4 from Gert Arnold's Answer
var firstIds = results.Select(r => r.FirstId);
var secondIds = results.Select(r => r.SecondId);
var compositeIds = results.Select(r => $"{r.FirstId}:{r.SecondId}");
var query = from e in dbContext.Table
//first check the indexes to avoid a table scan
where firstIds.Contains(e.FirstId) && secondIds.Contains(e.SecondId))
//then compare the compositeId for an exact match
//ToString() must be called unless using EF Core 5+
where compositeIds.Contains(e.FirstId.ToString() + ":" + e.SecondId.ToString()))
select e;
var entities = await query.ToListAsync();
For EF Core I use a slightly modified version of the bucketized IN method by EricEJ to map composite keys as tuples. It performs pretty well for small sets of data.
Sample usage
List<(int Id, int Id2)> listOfIds = ...
context.Table.In(listOfIds, q => q.Id, q => q.Id2);
Implementation
public static IQueryable<TQuery> In<TKey1, TKey2, TQuery>(
this IQueryable<TQuery> queryable,
IEnumerable<(TKey1, TKey2)> values,
Expression<Func<TQuery, TKey1>> key1Selector,
Expression<Func<TQuery, TKey2>> key2Selector)
{
if (values is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(values));
}
if (key1Selector is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(key1Selector));
}
if (key2Selector is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(key2Selector));
}
if (!values.Any())
{
return queryable.Take(0);
}
var distinctValues = Bucketize(values);
if (distinctValues.Length > 1024)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Too many parameters for SQL Server, reduce the number of parameters", nameof(values));
}
var predicates = distinctValues
.Select(v =>
{
// Create an expression that captures the variable so EF can turn this into a parameterized SQL query
Expression<Func<TKey1>> value1AsExpression = () => v.Item1;
Expression<Func<TKey2>> value2AsExpression = () => v.Item2;
var firstEqual = Expression.Equal(key1Selector.Body, value1AsExpression.Body);
var visitor = new ReplaceParameterVisitor(key2Selector.Parameters[0], key1Selector.Parameters[0]);
var secondEqual = Expression.Equal(visitor.Visit(key2Selector.Body), value2AsExpression.Body);
return Expression.AndAlso(firstEqual, secondEqual);
})
.ToList();
while (predicates.Count > 1)
{
predicates = PairWise(predicates).Select(p => Expression.OrElse(p.Item1, p.Item2)).ToList();
}
var body = predicates.Single();
var clause = Expression.Lambda<Func<TQuery, bool>>(body, key1Selector.Parameters[0]);
return queryable.Where(clause);
}
class ReplaceParameterVisitor : ExpressionVisitor
{
private ParameterExpression _oldParameter;
private ParameterExpression _newParameter;
public ReplaceParameterVisitor(ParameterExpression oldParameter, ParameterExpression newParameter)
{
_oldParameter = oldParameter;
_newParameter = newParameter;
}
protected override Expression VisitParameter(ParameterExpression node)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(node, _oldParameter))
return _newParameter;
return base.VisitParameter(node);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Break a list of items tuples of pairs.
/// </summary>
private static IEnumerable<(T, T)> PairWise<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
var sourceEnumerator = source.GetEnumerator();
while (sourceEnumerator.MoveNext())
{
var a = sourceEnumerator.Current;
sourceEnumerator.MoveNext();
var b = sourceEnumerator.Current;
yield return (a, b);
}
}
private static TKey[] Bucketize<TKey>(IEnumerable<TKey> values)
{
var distinctValueList = values.Distinct().ToList();
// Calculate bucket size as 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,...
var bucket = 1;
while (distinctValueList.Count > bucket)
{
bucket *= 2;
}
// Fill all slots.
var lastValue = distinctValueList.Last();
for (var index = distinctValueList.Count; index < bucket; index++)
{
distinctValueList.Add(lastValue);
}
var distinctValues = distinctValueList.ToArray();
return distinctValues;
}
In the absence of a general solution, I think there are two things to consider:
Avoid multi-column primary keys (will make unit testing easier too).
But if you have to, chances are that one of them will reduce the
query result size to O(n) where n is the size of the ideal query
result. From here, its Solution 5 from Gerd Arnold above.
For example, the problem leading me to this question was querying order lines, where the key is order id + order line number + order type, and the source had the order type being implicit. That is, the order type was a constant, order ID would reduce the query set to order lines of relevant orders, and there would usually be 5 or less of these per order.
To rephrase: If you have a composite key, changes are that one of them have very few duplicates. Apply Solution 5 from above with that.
I tried this solution and it worked with me and the output query was perfect without any parameters
using LinqKit; // nuget
var customField_Ids = customFields?.Select(t => new CustomFieldKey { Id = t.Id, TicketId = t.TicketId }).ToList();
var uniqueIds1 = customField_Ids.Select(cf => cf.Id).Distinct().ToList();
var uniqueIds2 = customField_Ids.Select(cf => cf.TicketId).Distinct().ToList();
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.New<CustomFieldKey>(false); //LinqKit
var lambdas = new List<Expression<Func<CustomFieldKey, bool>>>();
foreach (var cfKey in customField_Ids)
{
var id = uniqueIds1.Where(uid => uid == cfKey.Id).Take(1).ToList();
var ticketId = uniqueIds2.Where(uid => uid == cfKey.TicketId).Take(1).ToList();
lambdas.Add(t => id.Contains(t.Id) && ticketId.Contains(t.TicketId));
}
predicate = AggregateExtensions.AggregateBalanced(lambdas.ToArray(), (expr1, expr2) =>
{
var invokedExpr = Expression.Invoke(expr2, expr1.Parameters.Cast<Expression>());
return Expression.Lambda<Func<CustomFieldKey, bool>>
(Expression.OrElse(expr1.Body, invokedExpr), expr1.Parameters);
});
var modifiedCustomField_Ids = repository.GetTable<CustomFieldLocal>()
.Select(cf => new CustomFieldKey() { Id = cf.Id, TicketId = cf.TicketId }).Where(predicate).ToArray();
I ended up writing a helper for this problem that relies on System.Linq.Dynamic.Core;
Its a lot of code and don't have time to refactor at the moment but input / suggestions appreciated.
public static IQueryable<TEntity> WhereIsOneOf<TEntity, TSource>(this IQueryable<TEntity> dbSet,
IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Expression<Func<TEntity, TSource,bool>> predicate) where TEntity : class
{
var (where, pDict) = GetEntityPredicate(predicate, source);
return dbSet.Where(where, pDict);
(string WhereStr, IDictionary<string, object> paramDict) GetEntityPredicate(Expression<Func<TEntity, TSource, bool>> func, IEnumerable<TSource> source)
{
var firstP = func.Parameters[0];
var binaryExpressions = RecurseBinaryExpressions((BinaryExpression)func.Body);
var i = 0;
var paramDict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
var res = new List<string>();
foreach (var sourceItem in source)
{
var innerRes = new List<string>();
foreach (var bExp in binaryExpressions)
{
var emp = ToEMemberPredicate(firstP, bExp);
var val = emp.GetKeyValue(sourceItem);
var pName = $"#{i++}";
paramDict.Add(pName, val);
var str = $"{emp.EntityMemberName} {emp.SQLOperator} {pName}";
innerRes.Add(str);
}
res.Add( "(" + string.Join(" and ", innerRes) + ")");
}
var sRes = string.Join(" || ", res);
return (sRes, paramDict);
}
EMemberPredicate ToEMemberPredicate(ParameterExpression firstP, BinaryExpression bExp)
{
var lMember = (MemberExpression)bExp.Left;
var rMember = (MemberExpression)bExp.Right;
var entityMember = lMember.Expression == firstP ? lMember : rMember;
var keyMember = entityMember == lMember ? rMember : lMember;
return new EMemberPredicate(entityMember, keyMember, bExp.NodeType);
}
List<BinaryExpression> RecurseBinaryExpressions(BinaryExpression e, List<BinaryExpression> runningList = null)
{
if (runningList == null) runningList = new List<BinaryExpression>();
if (e.Left is BinaryExpression lbe)
{
var additions = RecurseBinaryExpressions(lbe);
runningList.AddRange(additions);
}
if (e.Right is BinaryExpression rbe)
{
var additions = RecurseBinaryExpressions(rbe);
runningList.AddRange(additions);
}
if (e.Left is MemberExpression && e.Right is MemberExpression)
{
runningList.Add(e);
}
return runningList;
}
}
Helper class:
public class EMemberPredicate
{
public readonly MemberExpression EntityMember;
public readonly MemberExpression KeyMember;
public readonly PropertyInfo KeyMemberPropInfo;
public readonly string EntityMemberName;
public readonly string SQLOperator;
public EMemberPredicate(MemberExpression entityMember, MemberExpression keyMember, ExpressionType eType)
{
EntityMember = entityMember;
KeyMember = keyMember;
KeyMemberPropInfo = (PropertyInfo)keyMember.Member;
EntityMemberName = entityMember.Member.Name;
SQLOperator = BinaryExpressionToMSSQLOperator(eType);
}
public object GetKeyValue(object o)
{
return KeyMemberPropInfo.GetValue(o, null);
}
private string BinaryExpressionToMSSQLOperator(ExpressionType eType)
{
switch (eType)
{
case ExpressionType.Equal:
return "==";
case ExpressionType.GreaterThan:
return ">";
case ExpressionType.GreaterThanOrEqual:
return ">=";
case ExpressionType.LessThan:
return "<";
case ExpressionType.LessThanOrEqual:
return "<=";
case ExpressionType.NotEqual:
return "<>";
default:
throw new ArgumentException($"{eType} is not a handled Expression Type.");
}
}
}
Use Like so:
// This can be a Tuple or whatever.. If Tuple, then y below would be .Item1, etc.
// This data structure is up to you but is what I use.
[FromBody] List<CustomerAddressPk> cKeys
var res = await dbCtx.CustomerAddress
.WhereIsOneOf(cKeys, (x, y) => y.CustomerId == x.CustomerId
&& x.AddressId == y.AddressId)
.ToListAsync();
Hope this helps others.
in Case of composite key you can use another idlist and add a condition for that in your code
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id) && listOfIds2.Contains(q.Id2));
or you can use one another trick create a list of your keys by adding them
listofid.add(id+id1+......)
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id+q.id1+.......));
I tried this on EF Core 5.0.3 with the Postgres provider.
context.Table
.Select(entity => new
{
Entity = entity,
CompositeKey = entity.Id1 + entity.Id2,
})
.Where(x => compositeKeys.Contains(x.CompositeKey))
.Select(x => x.Entity);
This produced SQL like:
SELECT *
FROM table AS t
WHERE t.Id1 + t.Id2 IN (#__compositeKeys_0)),
Caveats
this should only be used where the combination of Id1 and Id2 will always produce a unique result (e.g., they're both UUIDs)
this cannot use indexes, though you could save the composite key to the db with an index
I am trying to build a method in my asp.net WebAPI to grab data based on the arguments passed on the method. The method is used to perform a search on restaurant data. I have a variable called 'type' that determines the type of data search performed. The second variable 'keyword' is the keyword searched by the user. The WHERE condition in my LINQ query depends on the type and needs to be dynamic, so I have used a separate variable outside the LINQ query to define the condition. I have tried assigning this variable to my WHERE statement on the LINQ query but it doesn't seem to work. Can someone help with it please? I have been stuck on this for a few days now
public IQueryable<RestaurantView> GetRestaurantsForSearch(string keyword, int type, string location)
{
//
var condition = "";
if(type == 1)
{
condition = "x.RestaurantName.Contains(keyword)";
} else if(type == 2){
condition = "x.Cuisine.Equals(keyword)";
}
else {
condition = "x.Rating.Equals(keyword)";
}
var query = from x in db.Restaurants
join y in db.Cuisine on x.RestaurantCuisine equals y.CuisineID
where condition
select new RestaurantView
{
RestaurantID = x.RestaurantID,
RestaurantName = x.RestaurantName,
RestaurantCuisine = y.CuisineName,
RestaurantDecription = x.RestaurantDecription
};
return query;
}
Try this:
Predicate<Restaurant> pred;
if (type == 1) pred = x => x.RestaurantName.Contains(keyword);
else if (type == 2) pred = x => x.Cuisine.Equals(keyword);
else pred = x => x.Rating.Equals(keyword);
var query = from x in db.Restaurants
join y in db.Cuisine on x.RestaurantCuisine equals y.CuisineID
where pred(x)
select new RestaurantView
{
RestaurantID = x.RestaurantID,
RestaurantName = x.RestaurantName,
RestaurantCuisine = y.CuisineName,
RestaurantDecription = x.RestaurantDecription
};
return query;
You need to look a dynamic linq library i think then you can execute string statements inside your linq
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/07/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library.aspx
or you can execute direct query
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.linq.datacontext.executequery.aspx
If you are ok with dropping your comprehensive LINQ query in favour of the extension method syntax, it's pretty simple (I'm on a netbook without VS, so I apologize that this is untested but should give you the idea):
var query = db.Restaurants
.Include("Cuisine")
if(type == 1)
{
query= query.Where(x => x.RestaurantName.Contains(keyword));
}
else if(type == 2)
{
query = query.Where(x => x.Cuisine == keyword);
}
else {
query = query.Where(x => x.Rating == keyword);
}
This builds out your expression tree differently based on your logic checks, which will result in a different SQL query being generated based on the value of type.
I notice that in your join, Cuisine appears to be an Entity, but in your logic checks, you attempt to filter by comparing Cuisine to a string so I think there is some disconnect.
var query = from x in db.Restaurants
join y in db.Cuisine on x.RestaurantCuisine equals y.CuisineID
where condition
select new RestaurantView
{
RestaurantID = x.RestaurantID,
RestaurantName = x.RestaurantName,
RestaurantCuisine = y.CuisineName,
RestaurantDecription = x.RestaurantDecription
};
return query;
}
how to get the return query value in client side to assign for grid view binding
I am creating a report to list people in my database, according to user-defined filter criteria. So, for example, I could filter by name, age etc.
var people = db.People.AsQueryable();
if (filterByName)
people = people.Where(p => p.LastName.Contains(nameFilter));
if (filterByAge)
people = people.Where(p => p.Age == age);
Now, one of the filter criteria is to show people who have not had their required immunizations. I have tables for Immunization and PersonImmunization (with a unique index on PersonID, ImmunizationID). If someone is missing any PersonImmunization records, or if number of doses they have received is under the requirement, they should be included, otherwise not.
If I were writing a SQL query, it would be:
select p.*
from Person p
cross join Immunization i
left join PersonImmunization pi
on pi.PersonID = p.ID and pi.ImmunizationID = i.ID
where pi.ID is null or pi.Doses < i.RequiredDoses;
Now in order to make this part of my where clause, I need to express this using an Expression predicate:
if (filterByImmunizations) {
Expression<Func<Person, bool>> nonCompliantImmunization =
person => <now what?>;
people = people.Where(nonCompliantImmunization);
}
The first problem I have is how to work Immunizations into the expression. Then, once I have it, I suspect that finding the non-compliant people might be more straightforward, but if you could include that in your answer, I'd much appreciate it!
EDIT: I've been requested to explain why I'm so set on getting a solution using an Expression<Func<Person, bool>>. The reason is because I have built a whole generic framework for writing complex, user-defined queries, in several different contexts. To give you an idea of what's inside the engine, here's a snippet of what's inside my base class:
public abstract class QueryBuilder<T> where T : EntityObject {
public static IQueryable<T> FilterQuery(IQueryable<T> query, IEnumerable<QueryConditionLite> filters, bool anyConditionSufficient) {
...
}
protected Expression<Func<TBase, bool>> GetPredicate(Expression<Func<TBase, double>> expression, IQueryCondition condition) {
...
}
}
Then I have a PersonQueryBuilder : QueryBuilder<Person>, and within that I want to create a filter that shows the people who are non-compliant with their immunization requirements. I think you will agree that query syntax just ain't gonna cut it.
I'd approach it as a multi-part join:
var nonCompiantImmunization =
from p in Persons
from i in Immunizations
let pi = PersonImmunizations.Where(x =>
x.ImmunizationID == i.ID && x.PersonID == p.ID)
where !pi.Any() || pi.Sum(x => x.Doses) < i.RequiredDoses
select new { p, i };
Edit: To make it fit the Expression<Func<Person, bool>> constraint, I suppose you could rephrase it as:
Expression<Func<Person, bool>> nonCompliantImmunization =
person => (
from i in Immunizations
let pi = PersonImmunizations.Where(x =>
x.ImmunizationID == i.ID && x.PersonID == person.ID)
where !pi.Any() || pi.Sum(x => x.Doses) < i.RequiredDoses
select true
).Any();
You should be able to write is like this instead:
var people = db.People.AsQueryable();
if(filterByImmunizations)
{
people = from p in people
from i in db.Immunization
from pi in db.PersonImmunization.Where(x =>
x.PersonID == p.ID && x.ImmunizationID == i.ID).DefaultIfEmpty()
where pi.ID == null || pi.Doses < i.RequiredDoses
select p;
}
I have a paging API that returns rows a user requests, but only so many at one time, not the entire collection. The API works as designed, but I do have to calculate the total number of records that are available (for proper page calculations). Within the API, I use Linq2Sql and I work a lot with the IQueryable before i finally make my requests. When I go to get the count, I call something like: totalRecordCount = queryable.Count();
The resulting SQL is interesting none the less, but it also adds an unnecessary Order By which makes the query very expensive.
exec sp_executesql N'SELECT COUNT(*) AS [value]
FROM (
SELECT TOP (1) NULL AS [EMPTY]
FROM [dbo].[JournalEventsView] AS [t0]
WHERE [t0].[DataOwnerID] = #p0
ORDER BY [t0].[DataTimeStamp] DESC
) AS [t1]',N'#p0 int',#p0=1
Because I am using the IQueryable, I can manipulate the IQueryable prior to it making it to the SQL server.
My question is, if I already have an IQueryable with a OrderBy in it, is it possible to remove that OrderBy before I call the Count()?
like: totalRecordCount = queryable.NoOrder.Count();
If not, no biggie. I see many questions how to OrderBy, but not any involving removing an OrderBy from the Linq expression.
Thanks!
So, the below code is a spike against an in-memory array. There may be some hurdles to get this working with Entity Framework (or some other arbitrary IQueryProvider implementation). Basically, what we are going to do is visit the expression tree and look for any Ordering method call and simply remove it from the tree. Hope this points you in the right direction.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var seq = new[] { 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 2, 4, 6, 8 };
var query = seq.OrderBy(x => x);
Console.WriteLine("Print out in reverse order.");
foreach (var item in query)
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
Console.WriteLine("Prints out in original order");
var queryExpression = seq.AsQueryable().OrderBy(x => x).ThenByDescending(x => x).Expression;
var queryDelegate = Expression.Lambda<Func<IEnumerable<int>>>(new OrderByRemover().Visit(queryExpression)).Compile();
foreach (var item in queryDelegate())
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class OrderByRemover : ExpressionVisitor
{
protected override Expression VisitMethodCall(MethodCallExpression node)
{
if (node.Method.DeclaringType != typeof(Enumerable) && node.Method.DeclaringType != typeof(Queryable))
return base.VisitMethodCall(node);
if (node.Method.Name != "OrderBy" && node.Method.Name != "OrderByDescending" && node.Method.Name != "ThenBy" && node.Method.Name != "ThenByDescending")
return base.VisitMethodCall(node);
//eliminate the method call from the expression tree by returning the object of the call.
return base.Visit(node.Arguments[0]);
}
}
There isn't just an unneeded ORDER BY, there's also a spurious TOP(1).
SELECT TOP (1) NULL AS [EMPTY] ...
That subselect will only return 0 or 1 rows. In fact without the TOP there it wouldn't be legal to have an ORDER BY in a subselect.
The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, subqueries, and common table expressions, unless TOP or FOR XML is also specified.: SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ( SELECT * FROM Table1 ORDER BY foo )
sqlfiddle
I think you have probably done something wrong in your LINQ. Are you sure you haven't written .Take(1) or similar somewhere in your query, before calling .Count()?
This is wrong:
IQueryable<Foo> foo = (...).OrderBy(x => x.Foo).Take(1);
int count = foo.Count();
You should do this instead:
IQueryable<Foo> foo = (...);
Iqueryable<Foo> topOne = foo.OrderBy(x => x.Foo).Take(1);
int count = foo.Count();
I am afraid there is no easy way to remove the OrderBy operator from queryable.
What you can do, however, is to re-create the IQueryable based on the new expression obtained from rewriting queryable.Expression(see here) omitting the OrderBy call.
If you can't eliminate the root cause, here is a workaround:
totalRecordCount = queryable.OrderBy(x => 0).Count();
SQL Server's query optimizer will remove this useless ordering. It won't have runtime cost.
I think you have implemented you paging code wrongly. You actually need to query the database twice, once for the paged datasource and once for the total row count. This is how the setup should look.
public IList<MyObj> GetPagedData(string filter, string sort, int skip, int take)
{
using(var db = new DataContext())
{
var q = GetDataInternal(db);
if(!String.IsNullOrEmpty(filter))
q = q.Where(filter); //Using Dynamic linq
if(!String.IsNullOrEmpty(sort))
q = q.OrderBy(sort); //And here
return q.Skip(skip).Take(take).ToList();
}
}
public int GetTotalCount(string filter)
{
using(var db = new DataContext())
{
var q = GetDataInternal(db);
if(!String.IsNullOrEmpty(filter))
q = q.Where(filter); //Using Dynamic linq
return q.Count(); //Without ordering and paging.
}
}
private static IQuerable<MyObj> GetDataInternal(DataContext db)
{
return
from x in db.JournalEventsView
where ...
select new ...;
}
The filtering and sorting is done using the Dynamic linq library
I know it is not quite what you are looking for, but index on [DataOwnerID] with inclusion of DataTimeStamp could make your query less expensive.
The following LINQ statement:
public override List<Item> SearchListWithSearchPhrase(string searchPhrase)
{
List<string> searchTerms = StringHelpers.GetSearchTerms(searchPhrase);
using (var db = Datasource.GetContext())
{
return (from t in db.Tasks
where searchTerms.All(term =>
t.Title.ToUpper().Contains(term.ToUpper()) &&
t.Description.ToUpper().Contains(term.ToUpper()))
select t).Cast<Item>().ToList();
}
}
gives me this error:
System.NotSupportedException: Local
sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL
implementation of query operators
except the Contains() operator.
Looking around it seems my only option is to get all my items first into a generic List, then do a LINQ query on that.
Or is there a clever way to rephrase the above LINQ-to-SQL statement to avoid the error?
ANSWER:
Thanks Randy, your idea helped me to build the following solution. It is not elegant but it solves the problem and since this will be code generated, I can handle up to e.g. 20 search terms without any extra work:
public override List<Item> SearchListWithSearchPhrase(string searchPhrase)
{
List<string> searchTerms = StringHelpers.GetSearchTerms(searchPhrase);
using (var db = Datasource.GetContext())
{
switch (searchTerms.Count())
{
case 1:
return (db.Tasks
.Where(t =>
t.Title.Contains(searchTerms[0])
|| t.Description.Contains(searchTerms[0])
)
.Select(t => t)).Cast<Item>().ToList();
case 2:
return (db.Tasks
.Where(t =>
(t.Title.Contains(searchTerms[0])
|| t.Description.Contains(searchTerms[0]))
&&
(t.Title.Contains(searchTerms[1])
|| t.Description.Contains(searchTerms[1]))
)
.Select(t => t)).Cast<Item>().ToList();
case 3:
return (db.Tasks
.Where(t =>
(t.Title.Contains(searchTerms[0])
|| t.Description.Contains(searchTerms[0]))
&&
(t.Title.Contains(searchTerms[1])
|| t.Description.Contains(searchTerms[1]))
&&
(t.Title.Contains(searchTerms[2])
|| t.Description.Contains(searchTerms[2]))
)
.Select(t => t)).Cast<Item>().ToList();
default:
return null;
}
}
}
Ed, I've run into a similiar situation. The code is below. The important line of code is where I set the memberList variable. See if this fits your situation. Sorry if the formatting didn't come out to well.
Randy
// Get all the members that have an ActiveDirectorySecurityId matching one in the list.
IEnumerable<Member> members = database.Members
.Where(member => activeDirectoryIds.Contains(member.ActiveDirectorySecurityId))
.Select(member => member);
// This is necessary to avoid getting a "Queries with local collections are not supported"
//error in the next query.
memberList = members.ToList<Member>();
// Now get all the roles associated with the members retrieved in the first step.
IEnumerable<Role> roles = from i in database.MemberRoles
where memberList.Contains(i.Member)
select i.Role;
Since you cannot join local sequence with linq table, the only way to translate the above query into SQL woluld be to create WHERE clause with as many LIKE conditions as there are elements in searchTerms list (concatenated with AND operators). Apparently linq doesn't do that automatically and throws an expception instead.
But it can be done manually by iterating through the sequence:
public override List<Item> SearchListWithSearchPhrase(string searchPhrase)
{
List<string> searchTerms = StringHelpers.GetSearchTerms(searchPhrase);
using (var db = Datasource.GetContext())
{
IQueryable<Task> taskQuery = db.Tasks.AsQueryable();
foreach(var term in searchTerms)
{
taskQuery = taskQuery.Where(t=>t.Title.ToUpper().Contains(term.ToUpper()) && t.Description.ToUpper().Contains(term.ToUpper()))
}
return taskQuery.ToList();
}
}
Mind that the query is still executed by DBMS as a SQL statement. The only drawback is that searchTerms list shouldn't be to long - otherwise the produced SQL statement won'tbe efficient.