Develop Reference

Execute custom SQL before running FromSqlRaw in Entity Framework Core 6 or above in SQL Server

I only need it to work for SQL Server. This is an example. The question is about a general approach.
There is a nice extension method from https://entityframework-extensions.net called WhereBulkContains. It is, sort of, great, except that the code of the methods in this library is obfuscated and they do not produce valid SQL when .ToQueryString() is called on IQueryable<T> with these extension methods applied.
Subsequently, I can't use such methods in production code as I am not "allowed" to trust such code due to business reasons. Sure, I can write tons of tests to ensure that WhereBulkContains works as expected, except that there are some complicated cases where the performance of WhereBulkContains is well below stellar, whereas properly written SQL works in a blink of an eye. And (read above), since the code of this library is obfuscated, there is no way to figure out what's wrong there without spending a large amount of time. We would've bought the license (as this is not a freeware) if the library weren't obfuscated. All together that basically kills the library for our purposes.
This is where it gets interesting. I can easily create and populate a temporary table, e.g. (I have a table called EFAgents with an int PK called AgentId in the database):
private string GetTmpAgentSql(IEnumerable<int> agentIds) => #$"
drop table if exists #tmp_Agents;
create table #tmp_Agents (AgentId int not null, primary key clustered (AgentId asc));
{(agentIds
.Chunk(1_000)
.Select(e => $#"
insert into #tmp_Agents (AgentId)
values
({e.JoinStrings("), (")});
")
.JoinStrings(""))}
select 0 as Result
";
private const string AgentSql = #"
select a.* from EFAgents a inner join #tmp_Agents t on a.AgentID = t.AgentId";
where GetContext returns EF Core database context and JoinStrings comes from Unity.Interception.Utilities and then use it as follows:
private async Task<List<EFAgent>> GetAgents(List<int> agentIds)
{
var tmpSql = GetTmpAgentSql(agentIds);
using var ctx = GetContext();
// This creates a temporary table and populates it with the ids.
// This is a proprietary port of EF SqlQuery code, but I can post the whole thing if necessary.
var _ = await ctx.GetDatabase().SqlQuery<int>(tmpSql).FirstOrDefaultAsync();
// There is a DbSet<EFAgent> called Agents.
var query = ctx.Agents
.FromSqlRaw(AgentSql)
.Join(ctx.Agents, t => t.AgentId, a => a.AgentId, (t, a) => a);
var sql = query.ToQueryString() + Environment.NewLine;
// This should provide a valid SQL; https://entityframework-extensions.net does NOT!
// WriteLine - writes to console or as requested. This is irrelevant to the question.
WriteLine(sql);
var result = await query.ToListAsync();
return result;
}
So, basically, I can do what I need in two steps:
using var ctx = GetContext();
// 1. Create a temp table and populate it - call GetTmpAgentSql.
...
// 2. Build the join starting from `FromSqlRaw` as in example above.
This is doable, half-manual, and it is going to work.
The question is how to do that in one step, e.g., call:
.WhereMyBulkContains(aListOfIdConstraints, whateverElseIsneeded, ...)
and that's all.
I am fine if I need to pass more than one parameter in each case in order to specify the constraints.
To clarify the reasons why do I need to go into all these troubles. We have to interact with a third party database. We don't have any control of the schema and data there. The database is large and poorly designed. That resulted in some ugly EFC LINQ queries. To remedy that, some of that ugliness was encapsulated into a method, which takes IQueryable<T> (and some more parameters) and returns IQueryable<T>. Under the hood this method calls WhereBulkContains. I need to replace this WhereBulkContains by, call it, WhereMyBulkContains, which would be able to provide correct ToQueryString representation (for debugging purposes) and be performant. The latter means that SQL should not contain in clause with hundreds (and even sometimes thousands) of elements. Using inner join with a [temp] table with a PK and having an index on the FK field seem to do the trick if I do that in pure SQL. But, ... I need to do that in C# and effectively in between two LINQ method calls. Refactoring everything is also not an option because that method is used in many places.
Thanks a lot!

I think you really want to use a Table Valued Parameter.
Creating an SqlParameter from an enumeration is a little fiddly, but not too difficult to get right;
CREATE TYPE [IntValue] AS TABLE (
Id int NULL
)
private IEnumerable<SqlDataRecord> FromValues(IEnumerable<int> values)
{
var meta = new SqlMetaData(
"Id",
SqlDbType.Int
);
foreach(var value in values)
{
var record = new SqlDataRecord(
meta
);
record.SetInt32(0, value);
yield return record;
}
}
public SqlParameter ToIntTVP(IEnumerable<int> values){
return new SqlParameter()
{
TypeName = "IntValue",
SqlDbType = SqlDbType.Structured,
Value = FromValues(values)
};
}
Personally I would define a query type in EF Core to represent the TVP. Then you can use raw sql to return an IQueryable.
public class IntValue
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
modelBuilder.Entity<IntValue>(e =>
{
e.HasNoKey();
e.ToView("IntValue");
});
IQueryable<IntValue> ToIntQueryable(DbContext ctx, IEnumerable<int> values)
{
return ctx.Set<IntValue>()
.FromSqlInterpolated($"select * from {ToIntTVP(values)}");
}
Now you can compose the rest of your query using Linq.
var ids = ToIntQueryable(ctx, agentIds);
var query = ctx.Agents
.Where(a => ids.Any(i => i.Id == a.Id));

I would propose to use linq2db.EntityFrameworkCore (note that I'm one of the creators). It has built-in temporary tables support.
We can create simple and reusable function which filters records of any type:
public static class HelperMethods
{
private class KeyHolder<T>
{
[PrimaryKey]
public T Key { get; set; } = default!;
}
public static async Task<List<TEntity>> GetRecordsByIds<TEntity, TKey>(this IQueryable<TEntity> query, IEnumerable<TKey> ids, Expression<Func<TEntity, TKey>> keyFunc)
{
var ctx = LinqToDBForEFTools.GetCurrentContext(query) ??
throw new InvalidOperationException("Query should be EF Core query");
// based on DbContext options, extension retrieves connection information
using var db = ctx.CreateLinqToDbConnection();
// create temporary table and BulkCopy records into that table
using var tempTable = await db.CreateTempTableAsync(ids.Select(id => new KeyHolder<TKey> { Key = id }), tableName: "temporaryIds");
var resultQuery = query.Join(tempTable, keyFunc, t => t.Key, (q, t) => q);
// we use ToListAsyncLinqToDB to avoid collission with EF Core async methods.
return await resultQuery.ToListAsyncLinqToDB();
}
}
Then we can rewrite your function GetAgents to the following:
private async Task<List<EFAgent>> GetAgents(List<int> agentIds)
{
using var ctx = GetContext();
var result = await ctx.Agents.GetRecordsByIds(agentIds, a => a.AgentId);
return result;
}

Fetching only required columns from table using LINQ to modify and save record gives a typical error

So what I was trying was to fetch only those columns from table which has to be updated and I tried it as below:
var user = (from u in context.tbl_user where u.e_Id == model.Id select
new { u.first_name, u.last_name, u.role, u.email, u.account_locked })
.FirstOrDefault();
But when I tried to assign new value to the fetched data as below
user.first_name = model.FirstName;
I saw below error getting displayed
Property or indexer 'anonymous type: string first_name, string
last_name, string role, string email, bool account_locked.first_name'
cannot be assigned to -- it is read only
But when I retrieved all the values from table without filtering as below it worked fine.
var user = (from u in context.tbl_user where u.e_Id == model.Id select u).FirstOrDefault();
Why it doesn't work for first query. I've read in many sites that it is good to retrieve only required properties from database in terms of performance and security. But I am really not able to understand what's wrong with the first approach I opted. Any explanations are much appreciated.
Update
Are there any other ways to fetch only required column and update them and store them back?

Anonymous Types properties are read-only so you can not change them.
Stop doing micro-optimizing or premature-optimization on your code. Try to write code that performs correctly, then if you face a performance problem later then profile your application and see where is the problem. If you have a piece of code which have performance problem due to finding the shortest and longest string then start to optimize this part.
We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:
premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass
up our opportunities in that critical 3% - Donald Knuth
If you want to just fetch specific columns you can create a custom class and fill the properties in your query like others have mentioned.

As others said anonymous type is read only, for achieving what you want, you will have to create a type for it with properties that are required:
public class User
{
public string FirstName {get;set;}
public string LastName {get;set;}
.....................
.....................
}
and then, you have to use it in your linq query:
var user = (from u in context.tbl_user
where u.e_Id == model.Id
select new User
{
FirstName = u.first_name,
LastName = u.last_name,
......................,
.....................
}).FirstOrDefault();

Anonymous types are read-only by design.
In order to retrieve something that you can edit, you have to create a class and select your entities into that class, as done here: How to use LINQ to select into an object?
Or here:
var user = (from u in context.tbl_user where u.e_Id == model.Id select
new User_Mini { u.first_name, u.last_name, u.role, u.email, u.account_locked })
.FirstOrDefault();
Note: you won't be able to call context.SubmitChnages() when editing this new object. You could do something like this though: LINQ to SQL: how to update the only field without retrieving whole entity
This will allow you to update only certain parts of the object.

How to create a custom property in a Linq-to-SQL entity class?

I have two tables Studies and Series. Series are FK'd back to Studies so one Study contains a variable number of Series.
Each Series item has a Deleted column indicating it has been logically deleted from the database.
I am trying to implement a Deleted property in the Study class that returns true only if all the contained Series are deleted.
I am using O/R Designer generated classes, so I added the following to the user modifiable partial class for the Study type:
public bool Deleted
{
get
{
var nonDeletedSeries = from s in Series
where !s.Deleted
select s;
return nonDeletedSeries.Count() == 0;
}
set
{
foreach (var series in Series)
{
series.Deleted = value;
}
}
}
This gives an exception "The member 'PiccoloDatabase.Study.Deleted' has no supported translation to SQL." when this simple query is executed that invokes get:
IQueryable<Study> dataQuery = dbCtxt.Studies;
dataQuery = dataQuery.Where((s) => !s.Deleted);
foreach (var study in dataQuery)
{
...
}
Based on this http://www.foliotek.com/devblog/using-custom-properties-inside-linq-to-sql-queries/, I tried the following approach:
static Expression<Func<Study, bool>> DeletedExpr = t => false;
public bool Deleted
{
get
{
var nameFunc = DeletedExpr.Compile();
return nameFunc(this);
}
set
{ ... same as before
}
}
I get the same exception when a query is run that there is no supported translation to SQL. (
The logic of the lambda expression is irrelevant yet - just trying to get past the exception.)
Am I missing some fundamental property or something to allow translation to SQL? I've read most of the posts on SO about this exception, but nothing seems to fit my case exactly.

I believe the point of LINQ-to-SQL is that your entities are mapped for you and must have correlations in the database. It appears that you are trying to mix the LINQ-to-Objects and LINQ-to-SQL.
If the Series table has a Deleted field in the database, and the Study table does not but you would like to translate logical Study.Deleted into SQL, then extension would be a way to go.
public static class StudyExtensions
{
public static IQueryable<study> AllDeleted(this IQueryable<study> studies)
{
return studies.Where(study => !study.series.Any(series => !series.deleted));
}
}
class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
DBDataContext db = new DBDataContext();
db.Log = Console.Out;
var deletedStudies =
from study in db.studies.AllDeleted()
select study;
foreach (var study in deletedStudies)
{
Console.WriteLine(study.name);
}
}
}
This maps your "deleted study" expression into SQL:
SELECT t0.study_id, t0.name
FROM study AS t0
WHERE NOT EXISTS(
SELECT NULL AS EMPTY
FROM series AS t1
WHERE (NOT (t1.deleted = 1)) AND (t1.fk_study_id = t0.study_id)
)
Alternatively you could build actual expressions and inject them into your query, but that is an overkill.
If however, neither Series nor Study has the Deleted field in the database, but only in memory, then you need to first convert your query to IEnumerable and only then access the Deleted property. However doing so would transfer records into memory before applying the predicate and could potentially be expensive. I.e.
var deletedStudies =
from study in db.studies.ToList()
where study.Deleted
select study;
foreach (var study in deletedStudies)
{
Console.WriteLine(study.name);
}

When you make your query, you will want to use the statically defined Expression, not the property.
Effectively, instead of:
dataQuery = dataQuery.Where((s) => !s.Deleted);
Whenever you are making a Linq to SQL query, you will instead want to use:
dataQuery = dataQuery.Where(DeletedExpr);
Note that this will require that you can see DeletedExpr from dataQuery, so you will either need to move it out of your class, or expose it (i.e. make it public, in which case you would access it via the class definition: Series.DeletedExpr).
Also, an Expression is limited in that it cannot have a function body. So, DeletedExpr might look something like:
public static Expression<Func<Study, bool>> DeletedExpr = s => s.Series.Any(se => se.Deleted);
The property is added simply for convenience, so that you can also use it as a part of your code objects without needing to duplicate the code, i.e.
var s = new Study();
if (s.Deleted)
...

C# EF / LINQ hack fix hitting perfomance? Other way of fixing?

I've been learning C# / LINQ / ASP.NET / MVC 3 / EF for a few months now comming from Java / Icefaces / Ibatis base (Real world uses .NET D;). I really enjoy LINQ / Entity Framework from the .NET Framework but I'm having a few issues understand what's really happening behind the scenes.
Here's my problem:
I'm using a AJAX / JSON fed jQuery datatable (that I highly recommend to anyone in need of a free web datatable system by the way). I have a method in my MVC3 application that returns a JSON result of the data needed by the table, doing the sorting and all. Everything is working nicely and smoothly. However, I'm having a concern with the "dirty" hack I had to do to make this work.
Here's the complete code:
//inEntities is the Entity Framework Database Context
//It includes the following entities:
// Poincon
// Horaire
// HoraireDetail
//Poincon, Horaire and HoraireDetail are "decorated" using the Metadata technic which
//adds properties methods and such to the Entity (Like getEmploye which you will see in
//the following snippet)
//
//The Entity Employe is not a database data and therefor not handled by the EF.
//Instead, it is a simple object with properties that applies Lazy Loading to get an
//Employe Name based off of his Employe ID in the Active Directory. An employe object
//can be constructed with his Employe ID which will expose the possibility of getting
//the Employe Name from the AD if needed.
[HttpPost]
public JsonResult List(FormCollection form)
{
String sEcho;
int iDisplayStart;
int iDisplayLength;
String sSearch;
int iSortingCols;
Dictionary<String, String> sorting;
try
{
sEcho = form["sEcho"];
iDisplayStart = int.Parse(form["iDisplayStart"]);
iDisplayLength = int.Parse(form["iDisplayLength"]);
sSearch = form["sSearch"];
iSortingCols = int.Parse(form["iSortingCols"]);
sorting = new Dictionary<string,string>();
for (int i = 0; i < iSortingCols; i++)
sorting.Add(form["mDataProp_" + form["iSortCol_" + i]].ToUpper(), form["sSortDir_" + i].ToUpper());
}
catch
{
HttpContext.Response.StatusCode = 500;
return null;
}
var qPoincon = inEntities.Poincons.AsEnumerable();
var lPoincon = qPoincon.Select(o => new
{
o.id,
emp = o.getEmploye(),
o.poinconStart,
o.poinconEnd,
o.commentaire,
o.codeExceptions
}).AsEnumerable();
//Search
lPoincon = lPoincon.Where(p => (p.emp.empNoStr.Contains(sSearch) || p.emp.empNom.Contains(sSearch) || (p.commentaire != null && p.commentaire.Contains(sSearch))));
//Keep count
int iTotalDisplayRecords = lPoincon.Count();
//Sorting
foreach(KeyValuePair<String,String> col in sorting)
{
switch (col.Key)
{
case "EMPNO":
if (col.Value == "ASC")
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderBy(h => h.emp.empNo);
else
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderByDescending(h => h.emp.empNo);
break;
case "POINCONSTART":
if (col.Value == "ASC")
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderBy(h => h.poinconStart);
else
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderByDescending(h => h.poinconStart);
break;
case "POINCONEND":
if (col.Value == "ASC")
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderBy(h => h.poinconEnd);
else
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderByDescending(h => h.poinconEnd);
break;
case "COMMENTAIRE":
if (col.Value == "ASC")
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderBy(h => h.commentaire);
else
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderByDescending(h => h.commentaire);
break;
}
}
//Paging
lPoincon = lPoincon.Skip(iDisplayStart).Take(iDisplayLength);
//Building Response
var jdt = new
{
iTotalDisplayRecords = iTotalDisplayRecords,
iTotalRecords = inEntities.Poincons.Count(),
sEcho = sEcho,
aaData = lPoincon
};
return Json(jdt);
}
As you can see, when I'm grabbing the entire list of "Poincons" from the EF and turning it into a Enumerable. From my current understanding, turning the LINQ query into a Enumerable "kills" the link to the EF, or in other words, will generate the SQL required to get that list at that point instead of keeping the LINQ data until the end and execute a percise query that will return only the data you require. After turning this LINQ Query into a Enumerable, I'm heavily filtering the LINQ (since there is paging, sorting, searching in the datatable). This leads me to thinkg that what my code is currently doing is "Grab all the "Poincons" from the database and put it into the web server's memory as a Enumerable, do your work with the Enumerable then serialize the result as a JSON string and send it to the client.
If I'm correct, the performance hit is quite heavy when you hit the couple thousand of entries (which will happen quite fast once in production... everytime an employe comes to work, it will add 1 entry. 100 employes, ~300 work days a year, you get the idea).
The reason for this hack is that the EF does not know what "getEmploye" method of "Poincon" is, therefor throwing an exception at runtime similar to this:
LINQ to Entities ne reconnaît pas la méthode « PortailNorclair.Models.Employe getEmploye() », et cette dernière ne peut pas être traduite en expression de magasin.
Approximated traduction (If anyone can let me know in a comment how to configure IIS / ASP.NET to display errors in english while keeping the globalization in a foreign language, I would be really grateful. French information about error messages is sometimes lacking):
LINQ to Entity does not recognize the method " PortailNorclair.Models.Employe getEmploye()" and the following could not be translated to a SQL expression.
The "getEmploye" method instances and returns a Employe object with the employe id found in the Poincon object. That Employe object has properties that "lazy loads" information like the employe name from the Active Directory.
So the question is: How can I avoid the performance hit from using .AsEnumerable() on the non-filtered list of objects?
Thanks a lot!

The "getEmploye" method instances and returns a Employe object with
the employe id found in the Poincon object. That Employe object has
properties that "lazy loads" information like the employe name from
the Active Directory.
You should be storing the Employee Name in the database, so you can then order, sort, skip and take in your Linq Query without having to load every employee object.
If empNoStr, empNom, and empNo were all in the database, you could retrieve just the records you want, and call getEmploye() (loading whatever else you need from active directory, or wherever) for each of those.

There are some classes on which your program performs its main work.
There are other classes which represent to database rows.
If you keep them separated, you can also separate actions you intend to occur in the database from actions you intend to perform locally. This makes it trivial to avoid loading the full table, when specific rows are required.
I see you're also doing Paging locally, while the database can do that and save your webserver some memory.

Retrieve an object from entityframework without ONE field

I'm using entity framework to connect with the database. I've one little problem:
I've one table which have one varbinary(MAX) column(with filestream).
I'm using SQL request to manage the "Data" part, but EF for the rest(metadata of the file).
I've one code which has to get all files id, filename, guid, modification date, ... of a file. This doesn't need at all the "Data" field.
Is there a way to retrieve a List but without this column filled?
Something like
context.Files.Where(f=>f.xyz).Exclude(f=>f.Data).ToList();
??
I know I can create anonymous objects, but I need to transmit the result to a method, so no anonymous methods. And I don't want to put this in a list of anonymous type, and then create a list of my non-anonymous type(File).
The goal is to avoid this:
using(RsSolutionsEntities context = new RsSolutionsEntities())
{
var file = context.Files
.Where(f => f.Id == idFile)
.Select(f => new {
f.Id, f.MimeType, f.Size, f.FileName, f.DataType,
f.DateModification, f.FileId
}).FirstOrDefault();
return new File() {
DataType = file.DataType, DateModification = file.DateModification,
FileId = file.FileId, FileName = file.FileName, Id = file.Id,
MimeType = file.MimeType, Size = file.Size
};
}
(I'm using here the anonymous type because otherwise you will get a NotSupportedException: The entity or complex type 'ProjectName.File' cannot be constructed in a LINQ to Entities query.)
(e.g. this code throw the previous exception:
File file2 = context.Files.Where(f => f.Id == idFile)
.Select(f => new File() {Id = f.Id, DataType = f.DataType}).FirstOrDefault();
and "File" is the type I get with a context.Files.ToList(). This is the good class:
using File = MyProjectNamespace.Common.Data.DataModel.File;
File is a known class of my EF datacontext:
public ObjectSet<File> Files
{
get { return _files ?? (_files = CreateObjectSet<File>("Files")); }
}
private ObjectSet<File> _files;

Is there a way to retrieve a List but without this column filled?
Not without projection which you want to avoid. If the column is mapped it is natural part of your entity. Entity without this column is not complete - it is different data set = projection.
I'm using here the anonymous type because otherwise you will get a
NotSupportedException: The entity or complex type 'ProjectName.File'
cannot be constructed in a LINQ to Entities query.
As exception says you cannot project to mapped entity. I mentioned reason above - projection make different data set and EF don't like "partial entities".
Error 16 Error 3023: Problem in mapping fragments starting at line
2717:Column Files.Data in table Files must be mapped: It has no
default value and is not nullable.
It is not enough to delete property from designer. You must open EDMX as XML and delete column from SSDL as well which will make your model very fragile (each update from database will put your column back). If you don't want to map the column you should use database view without the column and map the view instead of the table but you will not be able to insert data.
As a workaround to all your problems use table splitting and separate the problematic binary column to another entity with 1 : 1 relation to your main File entity.

I'd do something like this:
var result = from thing in dbContext.Things
select new Thing {
PropertyA = thing.PropertyA,
Another = thing.Another
// and so on, skipping the VarBinary(MAX) property
};
Where Thing is your entity that EF knows how to materialize. The resulting SQL statement shouldn't include the large column in its result set, since it's not needed in the query.
EDIT: From your edits, you get the error NotSupportedException: The entity or complex type 'ProjectName.File' cannot be constructed in a LINQ to Entities query. because you haven't mapped that class as an entity. You can't include objects in LINQ to Entities queries that EF doesn't know about and expect it to generate appropriate SQL statements.
You can map another type that excludes the VarBinary(MAX) column in its definition or use the code above.

you can do this:
var files = dbContext.Database.SqlQuery<File>("select FileId, DataType, MimeType from Files");
or this:
var files = objectContext.ExecuteStoreQuery<File>("select FileId, DataType, MimeType from Files");
depending on your version of EF

I had this requirement because I have a Document entity which has a Content field with the content of the file, i.e. some 100MB in size, and I have a Search function that I wanted to return the rest of the columns.
I chose to use projection:
IQueryable<Document> results = dbContext.Documents.Include(o => o.UploadedBy).Select(o => new {
Content = (string)null,
ContentType = o.ContentType,
DocumentTypeId = o.DocumentTypeId,
FileName = o.FileName,
Id = o.Id,
// etc. even with related entities here like:
UploadedBy = o.UploadedBy
});
Then my WebApi controller passes this results object to a common Pagination function, which applies a .Skip, .Take and a .ToList.
This means that when the query gets executed, it doesn't access the Content column, so the 100MB data is not being touched, and the query is as fast as you'd want/expect it to be.
Next, I cast it back to my DTO class, which in this case is pretty much exactly the same as the entity class, so this might not be a step you need to implement, but it's follows my typical WebApi coding pattern, so:
var dtos = paginated.Select(o => new DocumentDTO
{
Content = o.Content,
ContentType = o.ContentType,
DocumentTypeId = o.DocumentTypeId,
FileName = o.FileName,
Id = o.Id,
UploadedBy = o.UploadedBy == null ? null : ModelFactory.Create(o.UploadedBy)
});
Then I return the DTO list:
return Ok(dtos);
So it uses projection, which might not fit the original poster's requirements, but if you're using DTO classes, you're converting anyway. You could just as easily do the following to return them as your actual entities:
var dtos = paginated.Select(o => new Document
{
Content = o.Content,
ContentType = o.ContentType,
DocumentTypeId = o.DocumentTypeId,
//...
Just a few extra steps but this is working nicely for me.

For EF Core 2
I implemented a solution like this:
var files = context.Files.AsNoTracking()
.IgnoreProperty(f => f.Report)
.ToList();
The base idea is to turn for example this query:
SELECT [f].[Id], [f].[Report], [f].[CreationDate]
FROM [File] AS [f]
into this:
SELECT [f].[Id], '' as [Report], [f].[CreationDate]
FROM [File] AS [f]
you can see the full source code in here:
https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFrameworkCore/issues/1387#issuecomment-495630292

I'd like to share my attempts to workaround this problem in case somebody else is in the same situation.
I started with what Jeremy Danyow suggested, which to me is the less painful option.
// You need to include all fields in the query, just make null the ones you don't want.
var results = context.Database.SqlQuery<myEntity>("SELECT Field1, Field2, Field3, HugeField4 = NULL, Field5 FROM TableName");
In my case, I needed a IQueryable<> result object so I added AsQueryable() at the end. This of course let me add calls to .Where, .Take, and the other commands we all know, and they worked fine. But there's a caveat:
The normal code (basically context.myEntity.AsQueryable()) returned a System.Data.Entity.DbSet<Data.DataModel.myEntity>, while this approach returned System.Linq.EnumerableQuery<Data.DataModel.myEntity>.
Apparently this means that my custom query gets executed "as is" as soon as needed and the filtering I added later is done afterwards and not in the database.
Therefore I tried to mimic Entity Framework's object by using the exact query EF creates, even with those [Extent1] aliases, but it didn't work. When analyzing the resulting object, its query ended like
FROM [dbo].[TableName] AS [Extent1].Where(c => ...
instead of the expected
FROM [dbo].[TableName] AS [Extent1] WHERE ([Extent1]...
Anyway, this works, and as long as the table is not huge, this method will be fast enough. Otherwise you have no option than to manually add the conditions by concatenating strings, like classic dynamic SQL. A very basic example in case you don't know what I'm talking about:
string query = "SELECT Field1, Field2, Field3, HugeField4 = NULL, Field5 FROM TableName";
if (parameterId.HasValue)
query += " WHERE Field1 = " + parameterId.Value.ToString();
var results = context.Database.SqlQuery<myEntity>(query);
In case your method sometimes needs this field, you can add a bool parameter and then do something like this:
IQueryable<myEntity> results;
if (excludeBigData)
results = context.Database.SqlQuery<myEntity>("SELECT Field1, Field2, Field3, HugeField4 = NULL, Field5 FROM TableName").AsQueryable();
else
results = context.myEntity.AsQueryable();
If anyone manages to make the Linq extensions work properly like if it was the original EF object, please comment so I can update the answer.

I'm using here the anonymous type because otherwise you will get a
NotSupportedException: The entity or complex type 'ProjectName.File'
cannot be constructed in a LINQ to Entities query.
var file = context.Files
.Where(f => f.Id == idFile)
.FirstOrDefault() // You need to exeucte the query if you want to reuse the type
.Select(f => new {
f.Id, f.MimeType, f.Size, f.FileName, f.DataType,
f.DateModification, f.FileId
}).FirstOrDefault();
And also its not a bad practice to de-normalize the table into further, i.e one with metadata and one with payload to avoid projection. Projection would work, the only issue is, need to edit any time a new column is added to the table.

I tried this:
From the edmx diagram (EF 6), I clicked the column I wanted to hide from EF and on their properties you can set their getter and setter to private. That way, for me it works.
I return some data which includes a User reference, so I wanted to hide the Password field even though it's encrypted and salted, I just didn't want it on my json, and I didn't want to do a:
Select(col => new {})
because that's a pain to create and maintain, especially for big tables with a lot of relationships.
The downside with this method is that if you ever regenerate your model, you would need to modify their getter and setter again.

Using Entity Framework Power Tools you can do the following in efpt.config.json:
"Tables": [
{
"ExcludedColumns": [
"FileData"
],
"Name": "[dbo].[Attachment]",
"ObjectType": 0
}
]