from what I've read, I can use LINQ to first group, then order each Group by using "SelectMany", which is described here: How to group a IQueryable by property 1 but order by property 2?
But this doesn't work for IQueryable I guess.
We basically get a BusinessObject with an Main-Entity and an IEnumable of Entities, so I'd like to first order by the Main-Entity sequence, then by each Name of the Subentities.
So I guess my query would look like this in LINQ to objects:
var qry = GetQueryFromSomeWhere();
qry = qry.OrderBy(f => f.MainEntity.SequenceNumber)
.ThenBy(f => f.SubEntities.SelectMany(f => f.Name));
I could order this Names in the Query-Service, but it should be up the consumer to order the entities as he needs.
Is there a possibility to make this work kindahow without loading all Entities in the Memory?
If I'am correctly understanding you want to sort records inside each group by record Name. I think that you could accomplish this by ordering records before doing a group by, try this code:
var q = from m in MainEntities
join s in SubEntities on m.Id equals s.MainId
orderby m.SequenceNumber, s.Name
group new { m, s } by m into grp
orderby grp.Key.SequenceNumber
select grp;
Related
I think this is kind of a basic question but I'm getting confused. I have two objects, Orders and OrderTags. In the database, Orders has no relation to OrderTags, but OrderTags has a FK relation to Orders.
So I capture both objects in my context like so:
orders = context.Orders;
tags = context.OrderTags.Where(tag=> tag.ID = myID);
Now I want to reduce the orders list to only be equal to the orders that exist in my tags list. Here is my best pseudocode of what I want to do:
orders = orders.Where(every order id exists somewhere in the tags list of order ids)
For clarification, each Tag object has a TagID and an OrderID. So I only want the orders that correspond to the tags I have looked up. Can anyone assist me with the syntax so I can get what I'm looking for?
Using a LINQ query:
var results = (from o in context.Orders
join t in context.Tags on o.OrderId equals t.OrderId
where t.ID == myID
select o ).ToList();
Using LINQ query:
orders = orders.Where(order => tags.Contains(tag => tag.ID == order.OrderID)).ToList();
Using a LINQ query with lambda expressions:
orders.RemoveAll(x => !tags.ConvertAll(y => y.tagId).Contains(x.tagID));
Something like this should work.
orders = orders.Where(o=>tags.Contains(t=>o.ID == t.OrderID));
You could also just perform a join.
I have a sql statement like this:
DECLARE #destinations table(destinationId int)
INSERT INTO #destinations
VALUES (414),(416)
SELECT *
FROM GroupOrder grp (NOLOCK)
JOIN DestinationGroupItem destItem (NOLOCK)
ON destItem.GroupOrderId = grp.GroupOrderId
JOIN #destinations dests
ON destItem.DestinationId = dests.destinationId
WHERE OrderId = 5662
I am using entity framework and I am having a hard time getting this query into Linq. (The only reason I wrote the query above was to help me conceptualize what I was looking for.)
I have an IQueryable of GroupOrder entities and a List of integers that are my destinations.
After looking at this I realize that I can probably just do two joins (like my SQL query) and get to what I want.
But it seems a bit odd to do that because a GroupOrder object already has a list of DestinationGroupItem objects on it.
I am a bit confused how to use the Navigation property on the GroupOrder when I have an IQueryable listing of GroupOrders.
Also, if possible, I would like to do this in one trip to the database. (I think I could do a few foreach loops to get this done, but it would not be as efficient as a single IQueryable run to the database.)
NOTE: I prefer fluent linq syntax over the query linq syntax. But beggars can't be choosers so I will take whatever I can get.
If you already have the DestinationGroupItem as a Navigation-property, then you already have your SQL-JOIN equivalent - example. Load the related entities with Include. Use List's Contains extension method to see if the desired DestinationId(s) is(are) hit:
var destinations = new List<int> { 414, 416 };
var query = from order in GroupOrder.Include(o => o.DestinationGroupItem) // this is the join via the navigation property
where order.OrderId == 5662 && destinations.Contain(order.DestinationGroupItem.DestinationId)
select order;
// OR
var query = dataContext.GroupOrder
.Include(o => o.DestinationGroupItem)
.Where(order => order.OrderId == 5662 && destinations.Contain(order.DestinationGroupItem.DestinationId));
I am learning about LINQ-to-SQL and everything was going well until something strange happened:
I tried to make an example of distinct, so, using the Northwind dabatase I wrote the following query:
var query =
from o in db.Orders
orderby o.CustomerID
select new
{
o.CustomerID
};
If I print the SQL generated by LINQ-to-SQL for the query stored in query it looks like this:
SELECT [t0].[CustomerID]
FROM [dbo].[Orders] AS [t0]
ORDER BY [t0].[CustomerID]
So, as usual, the query brings all the CustomerID for each Order in the Orders table ordered alphabetically.
But! If I use the Distinct() method like this:
var query = (
from o in db.Orders
orderby o.CustomerID
select new
{
o.CustomerID
}).Distinct();
The query brings the expected results of the Distinct clause, but the CustomerIDs are not ordered despite I wrote orderby o.CustomerID!
The SQL query for this second LINQ query is the following:
SELECT DISTINCT [t0].[CustomerID]
FROM [dbo].[Orders] AS [t0]
As we can see **the ORDER BY clause is missing. Why is that?
Why does the ORDER BY clause disappears when I use the Distinct() method?
From the Queryable.Distinct documentation;
The expected behavior is that it returns an unordered sequence of the unique items in source.
In other words, any order the existing IQueryable has is lost when you use Distinct() on it.
What you want is probably something more like this, an OrderBy() after the Distinct() is done;
var query = (from o in db.Orders
select new
{
o.CustomerID
}).Distinct().OrderBy(x => x.CustomerID);
Try rearranging the members to place the OrderBy after the Distinct. You'll have to revert to method chaining:
db.Orders.Select(o=>o.CustomerId).Distinct().OrderBy(id=>id);
This would be the more efficient way to set up the query in Enumerable Linq anyway, because the OrderBy would then operate only on the unique items and not on all of them. Also, according to MSDN, Enumerable.Distinct does not guarantee the return order of the elements anyway, so ordering before deduping is pointless.
Due to the use of distinct, the order of the returned list is not guaranteed. LinqToSql is smart enough to recognize this, therefor it ignores it.
If you place the order by AFTER your Distinct, everything will happen as you desire.
var query = (from o in db.Orders
select new
{
o.CustomerID
}).Distinct().OrderBy(o => o.CustomerID);
or
var query = db.Orders.Select(o => o.CustomerID).Distinct().OrderBy(o => o.CustomerID);
Please see this article for clarification:
http://programminglinq.com/blogs/marcorusso/archive/2008/07/20/use-of-distinct-and-orderby-in-linq.aspx
You can simulate ORDERBY and DISTINCT with this counstruction:
var distinctItems = employees.GroupBy(x => x.EmpID).OrderBy(x => x).Select(y => y.First());
I have a table, lets call it Record. Containing:
ID (int) | CustID (int) | Time (datetime) | Data (varchar)
I need the latest (most recent) record for each customer:
SQL
select * from record as i group by i.custid having max(id);
LINQ version 1
dgvLatestDistinctRec.DataSource = from g in ee.Records
group g by g.CustID into grp
select grp.LastOrDefault();
This throws an error:
System.NotSupportedException was unhandled by user code Message=LINQ
to Entities does not recognize the method 'Faizan_Kazi_Utils.Record
LastOrDefault[Record
](System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[Faizan_Kazi_Utils.Record
])' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store
expression. Source=System.Data.Entity
LINQ version 2
var list = (from g in ee.Records
group g by g.CustID into grp
select grp).ToList();
Record[] list2 = (from grp in list
select grp.LastOrDefault()).ToArray();
dgvLatestDistinctRec.DataSource = list2;
This works, but is inefficient because it loads ALL records from the database into memory and then extracts just the last (most recent member) of each group.
Is there any LINQ solution that approaches the efficiency and readability of the mentioned SQL solution?
Update:
var results = (from rec in Record group rec by rec.CustID into grp
select new
{
CustID = grp.Key,
ID = grp.OrderByDescending(r => r.ID).Select(x => x.ID).FirstOrDefault(),
Data = grp.OrderByDescending(r => r.ID).Select(x => x.Data).FirstOrDefault()
}
);
So I made a test table and wrote a Linq -> SQL Query that will do exactly what you need. Take a look at this and let me know what you think. Only thing to keep in mind if this query is scaled I believe it will run a query to the DB for each and every CustID record after the grouping in the select new. The only way to be sure would be to run SQL Tracer when you run the query for info on that go here .. http://www.foliotek.com/devblog/tuning-sql-server-for-programmers/
Original:
Could you do something like this? from g in ee.Records where g.CustID == (from x in ee.Records where (g.CustID == x.CustID) && (g.ID == x.Max(ID)).Select(r => r.CustID))
That's all pseudo code but hopefully you get the idea.
I'm probably too late to help with your problem, but I had a similar issue and was able to get the desired results with a query like this:
from g in ee.Records
group g by g.CustID into grp
from last in (from custRec in grp where custRec.Id == grp.Max(cr => cr.Id) select custRec)
select last
What if you replace LastOrDefault() with simple Last()?
(Yes, you will have to check your records table isn't empty)
Because I can't see a way how MySQL can return you "Default" group. This is not the thing that can be simply translated to SQL.
I think grp.LastOrDefault(), a C# function, is something that SQL doesn't know about. LINQ turns your query into an SQL query for your db server to understand. You might want to try and create an stored procedure instead, or another way to filter out what your looking for.
The reason your second query works is because the LINQ to SQL returns a list and then you do a LINQ query (to filter out what you need) on a C# list, which implements the IEnumerable/IQueryable interfaces and understands the grp.LastOrDefault().
I had another idea:
// Get a list of all the id's i need by:
// grouping by CustID, and then selecting Max ID from each group.
var distinctLatest = (from x in ee.Records
group x by x.CustID into grp
select grp.Max(g => g.id)).ToArray();
// List<Record> result = new List<Record>();
//now we can retrieve individual records using the ID's retrieved above
// foreach (int i in distinctLatest)
// {
// var res = from g in ee.Records where g.id == i select g;
// var arr = res.ToArray();
// result.Add(res.First());
// }
// alternate version of foreach
dgvLatestDistinctRec.DataSource = from g in ee.Records
join i in distinctLatest
on g.id equals i
select g;
I'm trying to write some LINQ To SQL code that would generate SQL like
SELECT t.Name, g.Name
FROM Theme t
INNER JOIN (
SELECT TOP 5 * FROM [Group] ORDER BY TotalMembers
) as g ON t.K = g.ThemeK
So far I have
var q = from t in dc.Themes
join g in dc.Groups on t.K equals g.ThemeK into groups
select new {
t.Name, Groups = (from z in groups orderby z.TotalMembers select z.Name )
};
but I need to do a top/take on the ordered groups subquery. According to http://blogs.msdn.com/vbteam/archive/2008/01/08/converting-sql-to-linq-part-7-union-top-subqueries-bill-horst.aspx in VB I could just add TAKE 5 on the end, but I can't get this syntax to work in c#. How do you use the take syntax in c#?
edit: PS adding .Take(5) at the end causes it to run loads of individual queries
edit 2: I made a slight mistake with the intent of the SQL above, but the question still stands. The problem is that if you use extension methods in the query like .Take(5), LinqToSql runs lots of SQL queries instead of a single query.
Second answer, now I've reread the original question.
Are you sure the SQL you've shown is actually correct? It won't give the top 5 groups within each theme - it'll match each theme just against the top 5 groups overall.
In short, I suspect you'll get your original SQL if you use:
var q = from t in dc.Themes
join g in dc.Groups.OrderBy(z => z.TotalMembers).Take(5)
on t.K equals g.ThemeK into groups
select new { t.Name, Groups = groups };
But I don't think that's what you actually want...
Just bracket your query expression and call Take on it:
var q = from t in dc.Themes
join g in dc.Groups on t.K equals g.ThemeK into groups
select new { t.Name, Groups =
(from z in groups orderby z.TotalMembers select z.Name).Take(5) };
In fact, the query expression isn't really making things any simpler for you - you might as well call OrderBy directly:
var q = from t in dc.Themes
join g in dc.Groups on t.K equals g.ThemeK into groups
select new { t.Name, Groups = groups.OrderBy(z => z.TotalMembers).Take(5) };
Here's a faithful translation of the original query. This should not generate repeated roundtrips.
var subquery =
dc.Groups
.OrderBy(g => g.TotalMembers)
.Take(5);
var query =
dc.Themes
.Join(subquery, t => t.K, g => g.ThemeK, (t, g) => new
{
ThemeName = t.Name, GroupName = g.Name
}
);
The roundtrips in the question are caused by the groupjoin (join into). Groups in LINQ have a heirarchical shape. Groups in SQL have a row/column shape (grouped keys + aggregates). In order for LinqToSql to fill its hierarchy from row/column results, it must query the child nodes seperately using the group's keys. It only does this if the children are used outside of an aggregate.