I try to change that query to QueryOver<> to be able to do the Distinct operation yet inside the (generated sql) query
var result = (from x in Session.Query<Events>()
join o in Session.Query<Receivers>() on x.ID equals o.ID
where x.Owner.ID == 1 //the user is the owner of that Event (not null)
||
x.EVType.ID == 123 //(not null)
||
x.Receivers.Count(y => y.User.ID == 1) > 0 //the user is one of the Event Receivers
select x.StartDate)
.Distinct();
I tried something like that
Events x = null;
List<Receivers> t = null;
var result = Session.QueryOver<Events>(() => x)
.JoinAlias(() => x.Receivers, () => t)
.Where(() => x.Owner.ID == 1
||
x.EVType.ID == 123
||
t.Count(y => y.User.ID == 1) > 0)
.TransformUsing(Transformers.DistinctRootEntity)
.Select(a => a.StartDate)
.List();
but then I got the Value can not be null. Parameter name: source exception. Any ideas how can I fix that query ?
edit
thanks to the xanatos' answer, the final SQL query is correct (I used his 2nd approach):
SELECT distinct this_.StartDate as y0_
FROM Events this_
WHERE
(
this_.UserID = ?
or
this_.EventTypeID = ?
or
exists (SELECT this_0_.ID as y0_
FROM Receivers this_0_
WHERE this_0_.UserID = ?)
)
"In QueryOver, aliases are assigned using an empty variable. The variable can be declared anywhere (but should be empty/default at runtime). The compiler can then check the syntax against the variable is used correctly, but at runtime the variable is not evaluated (it's just used as a placeholder for the alias)." http://nhibernate.info/blog/2009/12/17/queryover-in-nh-3-0.html
Setting List<Receivers> t to empty collection as you did (as you have mentioned in comments) means that you check is event id in local empty collection - doesn't have sense at all.
You can try do your query with subquery (should work but i'm not sure, I wrote it without testing, "by hand"):
Receivers receiversSubQueryAlias = null;
var subquery = session.QueryOver<Events>()
.JoinQueryOver<Receivers>(x => x.Receivers, () => receiversSubqueryAlias, JoinType.Inner)
.Where(()=> receiversSubQueryAlias.UserId == 1)
.Select(x => x.Id)
.TransformUsing(Transformers.DistinctRootEntity);
Events eventsAlias = null;
var mainQueryResults = session.QueryOver<Events>(() => eventsAilas)
.Where(Restrictions.Disjunction()
.Add(() => eventAlias.OwnerId == 1)
.Add(() => eventAlias.EVType.Id == 123)
.Add(Subqueries.WhereProperty<Events>(() => eventAlias.Id).In(subquery))
).Select(x => x.StartDate)
.TransformUsing(Transformers.DistinctRootEntity)
.List();
As written by #fex, you can't simply do a new List<Receivers>. The problem is that you can't mix QueryOver with "LINQ" (the t.Count(...) part). The QueryOver "parser" tries to execute "locally" the t.Count(...) instead of executing it in SQL.
As written by someone else, TransformUsing(Transformers.DistinctRootEntity) is client-side. If you want to do a DISTINCT server-side you have to use Projections.Distinct .
You have to make an explicit subquery. Here there are two variants of the query. the first one is more similar to the LINQ query, the second one doesn't use the Count but uses the Exist (in LINQ you could have done the same by changing the Count(...) > 0 with a Any(...)
Note that when you use a .Select() you normally have to explicitly tell the NHibernate the type of the .List<something>()
Events x = null;
Receivers t = null;
// Similar to LINQ, with COUNT
var subquery2 = QueryOver.Of<Receivers>(() => t)
.Where(() => t.SOMETHING == x.SOMETHING) // The JOIN clause between Receivers and Events
.ToRowCountQuery();
var result2 = Session.QueryOver<Events>(() => x)
.Where(Restrictions.Disjunction()
.Add(() => x.Owner.ID == 1)
.Add(() => x.EVType.ID == 123)
.Add(Subqueries.WhereValue(0).Lt(subquery2))
)
.Select(Projections.Distinct(Projections.Property(() => x.StartDate)))
.List<DateTime>();
// With EXIST
var subquery = QueryOver.Of<Receivers>(() => t)
.Where(() => t.SOMETHING == x.SOMETHING) // The JOIN clause between Receivers and Events
.Select(t1 => t1.ID);
var result = Session.QueryOver<Events>(() => x)
.Where(Restrictions.Disjunction()
.Add(() => x.Owner.ID == 1)
.Add(() => x.EVType.ID == 123)
.Add(Subqueries.WhereExists(subquery))
)
.Select(Projections.Distinct(Projections.Property(() => x.StartDate)))
.List<DateTime>();
Note that you'll have to set "manually" the JOIN condition in the subquery.
Hopefully this answer can help others. This error was being caused by declaring
List<Receivers> t = null;
followed by the query expression
t.Count(y => y.User.ID == 1) > 0
The QueryOver documentation states "The variable can be declared anywhere (but should be empty/default at runtime)." Since in this case, the place holder is a List, you must initialize it as an empty list.
List<Receivers> t = new List<Receivers>();
Otherwise, when you try to reference the Count method, or any other method on the placeholder object, the source (t) will be null.
This however still leaves a problem as #fex and #xanatos, in which it makes no sense to reference Count() from the alias List t, as it won't convert into SQL. Instead you should be creating a subquery. See their answers for more comprehensive answer.
Related
I have looked at a lot of similar questions but none could give me a solution so I am thinking if anyone can help me with this problem. I have a hierarchy of entities as Clients have multiple ClientRateDeals and then I am trying to fetch only those clients that have a list of client rate deals that all pass some condition. Here's my LINQ query that generating an error :
var query = _context.Client.Where(c=>c.Disabled==false)
.GroupJoin(_context.ClientRateDeal.Where(crd=>crd.Disabled==false),
c => c.Id,
crd => crd.ClientId,
(c, crd) => new
{
c,
crd = crd.Where(cr => cr.DateEnd == null || cr.DateEnd > DateTime.Today)
})
.Where(res => res.crd.Count() == 0)
.Select(cl => cl.c).AsNoTracking().ToList();
as you can see in the result selector argument I have kept that condition and then a where clause on the result selector to fetch only those whose client rate deal whose count is 0. However due to some reason I am getting the exception that the LINQ cant be translated. Can anyone help me with this ?
For unknown reason (it has nothing in similar with GroupBy), LINQ GroupJoin operator is not supported in EF Core 3.x, 5.x.
You have to use one of the available alternatives - (1) collection navigation property (preferred) or (2) correlated subquery.
e.g.
(1) In Client class define
public ICollection<ClientRateDeal> ClientRateDeals { get; set; }
and use it inside the query
var query = _context.Client
.Where(c => c.Disabled==false)
// vvv
.Where(c => !c.ClientRateDeals.Any(
crd => crd.Disabled == false &&
(crd.DateEnd == null || crd.DateEnd > DateTime.Today)))
.AsNoTracking().ToList();
or (2)
var query = _context.Client
.Where(c => c.Disabled==false)
// vvv
.Where(c => !_context.ClientRateDeal.Any(crd =>
c.Id == crd.ClientId &&
crd.Disabled == false &&
cr.DateEnd == null || cr.DateEnd > DateTime.Today))
.AsNoTracking().ToList();
In general, instead of
db.As.GroupJoin(db.Bs, a => a.Id, b => b.AId, (a, Bs) => new { a, Bs })
use
db.As.Select(a => new { a, Bs = db.Bs.Where(b => a.Id == b.AId) })
Related github issue (please go vote in order to have a chance to get that implemented):
Query with GroupBy or GroupJoin throws exception #17068
Query: Support GroupJoin when it is final query operator #19930
even though the second is not exactly what we need (we want just GroupJoin to be translated as it was written in correlated subquery syntax shown above).
I form a request, it works.
var query = db.Persons.Where(p => p.Date == "27.02.2020").Where(p => p.Country == "USA");
But since I will need to use it in if-else
I changed it a little and now he just selects the last Where.
How can this problem be solved?
var query = db.Persons;
query.Where(p => p.Date == "27.02.2020");
query.Where(p => p.Country == "USA");
The Where method, like all LINQ methods, does not modify the source enumerable in-place, but instead returns a new enumerable that has the operation, or in this case filter, applied to it.
That means you need to assign the result of each operation back into your variable for it to persist. The following should be equivalent to your original snippet:
IQueryable<Person> query = db.Persons;
query = query.Where(p => p.Date == "27.02.2020");
query = query.Where(p => p.Country == "USA");
As pointed out in the comments, the query variable type now needs to be compatible with both the type of db.Persons and the return type of Where.
I inherited the LINQ query below and I feel that the query can be refactored for efficiency. The query currently takes about 6-8 seconds of processing time to return one record to the user on the front-end of the application. LINQ is not my strong suite, so any help would be greatly appreciated.
The query should ultimately produce a distinct list of CA_TASK_VW objects that are tied to a list of distinct CA_OBJECT_ID's obtained from the CA_OBJECT, CA_PEOPLE, and CA_CONTRACTOR tables.
var data = (from a in _db.CA_TASK_VW
where a.TASK_TYPE == "INSPECTION" && a.TASK_AVAILABLE_FLAG == "Y" && a.TARGET_END_DATE == null
select a).AsQueryable();
data = data.Join(_db.CA_OBJECT.Where(o => o.ENTERED_BY == _userId),
o => o.CA_OBJECT_ID, p => p.CA_OBJECT_ID,
(t, p) => t)
.Union(data.Join(_db.CA_PEOPLE.Where(p => p.EMAIL == _email),
t => t.CA_OBJECT_ID, p => p.CA_OBJECT_ID,
(t, p) => t))
.Union(data.Join(_db.CA_CONTRACTOR.Where(c => c.CONTRACTOR.EMAIL == _email),
t => t.CA_OBJECT_ID, c => c.CA_OBJECT_ID,
(t, c) => t));
The code seems to be using Join/Union to execute basically a where predicate on the list of CA_TASK_VW, filtering it step by step to the final result, so what happens if you just specify the where condition directly?
var data = from a in _db.CA_TASK_VW
where a.TASK_TYPE == "INSPECTION" && a.TASK_AVAILABLE_FLAG == "Y" && a.TARGET_END_DATE == null
select a;
data = data.Where(t => _db.CA_OBJECT.Where(o => o.ENTERED_BY == _userId).Select(o => o.CA_OBJECT_ID).Contains(t.CA_OBJECT_ID) ||
_db.CA_PEOPLE.Where(p => p.EMAIL == _email).Select(p => p.CA_OBJECT_ID).Contains(t.CA_OBJECT_ID) ||
_db.CA_CONTRACTOR.Where(c => c.CONTRACTOR.EMAIL == _email).Select(c => c.CA_OBJECT_ID).Contains(t.CA_OBJECT_ID));
You could try using UNION ALL if you don`t really care about duplicates in your query results as it works much faster than UNION
I have a somewhat complex LINQ to SQL query that I'm trying to optimise (no, not prematurely, things are slow), that goes a little bit like this;
IQueryable<SearchListItem> query = DbContext.EquipmentLives
.Where(...)
.Select(e => new SearchListItem {
EquipmentStatusId = e.EquipmentStatuses.FirstOrDefault(s => s.DateTo == null).Id,
StatusStartDate = e.EquipmentStatuses.FirstOrDefault(s => s.DateTo == null).DateFrom,
...
});
The where clauses aren't important, they don't filter EquipmentStatuses, happy to include if someone thinks they're required.
This is on quite a large set of tables and returns a fairly details object, there's more references to EquipmentStatuses, but I'm sure you get the idea. The problem is that there's quite obviously two sub-queries and I'm sure that (among some other things) is not ideal, especially since they are exactly the same sub-query each time.
Is it possible to flatten this out a bit? Perhaps it's easier to do a few smaller queries to the database and create the SearchListItem in a foreach loop?
Here's my take given your comments, and with some assumptions I've made
It may look scary, but give it a try, with and without the ToList() before the GroupBy()
If you have LinqPad, check the SQL produced, and the number of queries, or just plug in the SQL Server Profiler
With LinqPad you could even put a Stopwatch to measure things precisely
Enjoy ;)
var query = DbContext.EquipmentLives
.AsNoTracking() // Notice this!!!
.Where(...)
// WARNING: SelectMany is an INNER JOIN
// You won't get EquipmentLive records that don't have EquipmentStatuses
// But your original code would break if such a case existed
.SelectMany(e => e.EquipmentStatuses, (live, status) => new
{
EquipmentLiveId = live.Id, // We'll need this one for grouping
EquipmentStatusId = status.Id,
EquipmentStatusDateTo = status.DateTo,
StatusStartDate = status.DateFrom
//...
})
// WARNING: Again, you won't get EquipmentLive records for which none of their EquipmentStatuses have a DateTo == null
// But your original code would break if such a case existed
.Where(x => x.EquipmentStatusDateTo == null)
// Now You can do a ToList() before the following GroupBy(). It depends on a lot of factors...
// If you only expect one or two EquipmentStatus.DateTo == null per EquipmentLive, doing ToList() before GroupBy may give you a performance boost
// Why? GroupBy sometimes confuses the EF SQL generator and the SQL Optimizer
.GroupBy(x => x.EquipmentLiveId, x => new SearchListItem
{
EquipmentLiveId = x.EquipmentLiveId, // You may or may not need this?
EquipmentStatusId = x.EquipmentStatusId,
StatusStartDate = x.StatusStartDate,
//...
})
// Now you have one group of SearchListItem per EquipmentLive
// Each group has a list of EquipmenStatuses with DateTo == null
// Just select the first one (you could do g.OrderBy... as well)
.Select(g => g.FirstOrDefault())
// Materialize
.ToList();
You don't need to repeat the FirstOrDefault. You can add an intermediate Select to select it once and then reuse it:
IQueryable<SearchListItem> query = DbContext.EquipmentLives
.Where(...)
.Select(e => e.EquipmentStatuses.FirstOrDefault(s => s.DateTo == null))
.Select(s => new SearchListItem {
EquipmentStatusId = s.Id,
StatusStartDate = s.DateFrom,
...
});
In query syntax (which I find more readable) it would look like this:
var query =
from e in DbContext.EquipmentLives
where ...
let s = e.EquipmentStatuses.FirstOrDefault(s => s.DateTo == null)
select new SearchListItem {
EquipmentStatusId = s.Id,
StatusStartDate = s.DateFrom,
...
});
There is another problem in your query though. If there is no matching EquipmentStatus in your EquipmentLive, FirstOrDefault will return null, which will cause an exception in the last select. So you might need an additional Where:
IQueryable<SearchListItem> query = DbContext.EquipmentLives
.Where(...)
.Select(e => e.EquipmentStatuses.FirstOrDefault(s => s.DateTo == null))
.Where(s => s != null)
.Select(s => new SearchListItem {
EquipmentStatusId = s.Id,
StatusStartDate = s.DateFrom,
...
});
or
var query =
from e in DbContext.EquipmentLives
where ...
let s = e.EquipmentStatuses.FirstOrDefault(s => s.DateTo == null)
where s != null
select new SearchListItem {
EquipmentStatusId = s.Id,
StatusStartDate = s.DateFrom,
...
});
Given that you don't test for null after calling FirstOrDefault(s => s.DateTo == null) I assume that:
either for each device there is always a status with DateTo == null or
you need to see only devices which have such status
In order to do so you need to join EquipmentLives with EquipmentStatuses to avoid subqueries:
var query = DbContext.EquipmentLives
.Where(l => true)
.Join(DbContext.EquipmentStatuses.Where(s => s.DateTo == null),
eq => eq.Id,
status => status.EquipmentId,
(eq, status) => new SelectListItem
{
EquipmentStatusId = status.Id,
StatusStartDate = status.DateFrom
});
However, if you do want to perform a left join replace DbContext.EquipmentStatuses.Where(s => s.DateTo == null) with DbContext.EquipmentStatuses.Where(s => s.DateTo == null).DefaultIfEmpty().
I have a L2S repository query which I'm stuggling to write in a nice way. It looks something like...
_orderRepository
.GetAllByFilter(o => o.CustomerId == id)
.Select(o =>
new CustomerOrderRecord
(
o.Id,
o.PartNumber,
o.Date
// ... etc, more order details
/* Here I need the last DateTime? the customer placed
an order for this item, which might be null.
So I end up with the following horrible part of
the query */
o.Customer.CustomerOrderRecords
.Where(x => x.PartNumber == o.PartNumber)
.OrderByDescending(x => x.Date).FirstOrDefault()
== null ? null :
o.Customer.CustomerOrderRecords
.Where(x => x.PartNumber == o.PartNumber)
.OrderByDescending(x => x.Date).First().Date;
)).ToList();
So hopefully you can see the problem that I'm having to write the whole query chain twice just to do the null check when receiving the LastOrdered value.
This needs to be written in-line (I think) because GetAllByFilter returns an IQueryable.
I tried to use an intermediate variable within the select statement, so I'd have something a bit like the following, but I couldn't get anything like that to compile.
.Select(o =>
new CustomerOrderRecord
(
o.Id,
o.PartNumber,
o.Date
// ... etc, more order details
var last = o.Customer.CustomerOrderRecords
.Where(x => x.PartNumber == o.PartNumber)
.OrderByDescending(x => x.Date).FirstOrDefault()
== null ? null : last.Date;
)).ToList();
Is there a syntax trick available which solves this problem?
Try using Select to fetch the Date member:
o.Customer.CustomerOrderRecords
.Where(x => x.PartNumber == o.PartNumber)
.OrderByDescending(x => x.Date)
.Select(x => (DateTime?)x.Date)
.FirstOrDefault()