Develop Reference

How do I use Linq with a HashSet of Integers to pull multiple items from a list of Objects?

I have a HashSet of ID numbers, stored as integers:
HashSet<int> IDList; // Assume that this is created with a new statement in the constructor.
I have a SortedList of objects, indexed by the integers found in the HashSet:
SortedList<int,myClass> masterListOfMyClass;
I want to use the HashSet to create a List as a subset of the masterListOfMyclass.
After wasting all day trying to figure out the Linq query, I eventually gave up and wrote the following, which works:
public List<myclass> SubSet {
get {
List<myClass> xList = new List<myClass>();
foreach (int x in IDList) {
if (masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey(x)) {
xList.Add(masterListOfMyClass[x]);
}
}
return xList;
}
private set { }
}
So, I have two questions here:
What is the appropriate Linq query? I'm finding Linq extremely frustrating to try to figuere out. Just when I think I've got it, it turns around and "goes on strike".
Is a Linq query any better -- or worse -- than what I have written here?

var xList = IDList
.Where(masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey)
.Select(x => masterListOfMyClass[x])
.ToList();
If your lists both have equally large numbers of items, you may wish to consider inverting the query (i.e. iterate through masterListOfMyClass and query IDList) since a HashSet is faster for random queries.
Edit:
It's less neat, but you could save a lookup into masterListOfMyClass with the following query, which would be a bit faster:
var xList = IDList
.Select(x => { myClass y; masterListOfMyClass.TryGetValue(x, out y); return y; })
.Where(x => x != null)
.ToList();

foreach (int x in IDList.Where(x => masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey(x)))
{
xList.Add(masterListOfMyClass[x]);
}
This is the appropriate linq query for your loop.
Here the linq query will not effective in my point of view..

Here is the Linq expression:
List<myClass> xList = masterListOfMyClass
.Where(x => IDList.Contains(x.Key))
.Select(x => x.Value).ToList();
There is no big difference in the performance in such a small example, Linq is slower in general, it actually uses iterations under the hood too. The thing you get with ling is, imho, clearer code and the execution is defered until it is needed. Not i my example though, when I call .ToList().

Another option would be (which is intentionally the same as Sankarann's first answer)
return (
from x in IDList
where masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey(x)
select masterListOfMyClass[x]
).ToList();
However, are you sure you want a List to be returned? Usually, when working with IEnumerable<> you should chain your calls using IEnumerable<> until the point where you actually need the data. There you can decide to e.g. loop once (use the iterator) or actually pull the data in some sort of cache using the ToList(), ToArray() etc. methods.
Also, exposing a List<> to the public implies that modifying this list has an impact on the calling class. I would leave it to the user of the property to decide to make a local copy or continue using the IEnumerable<>.
Second, as your private setter is empty, setting the 'SubSet' has no impact on the functionality. This again is confusing and I would avoid it.
An alternate (an maybe less confusing) declaration of your property might look like this
public IEnumerable<myclass> SubSet {
get {
return from x in IDList
where masterListOfMyClass.ContainsKey(x)
select masterListOfMyClass[x]
}
}

How to optimize a LINQ with minimum and additional condition

Asume we have a list of objects (to make it more clear no properties etc.pp are used)
public class SomeObject{
public bool IsValid;
public int Height;
}
List<SomeObject> objects = new List<SomeObject>();
Now I want only the value from a list, which is both valid and has the lowest height.
Classically i would have used sth like:
SomeObject temp;
foreach(SomeObject so in objects)
{
if(so.IsValid)
{
if (null == temp)
temp = so;
else if (temp.Height > so.Height)
temp = so;
}
}
return temp;
I was thinking that it can be done more clearly with LinQ.
The first approach which came to my mind was:
List<SomeObject> sos = objects.Where(obj => obj.IsValid);
if(sos.Count>0)
{
return sos.OrderBy(obj => obj.Height).FirstOrDefault();
}
But then i waas thinking: In the foreach approach i am going one time through the list. With Linq i would go one time through the list for filtering, and one time for ordering even i do not need to complete order the list.
Would something like
return objects.OrderBy(obj => obj.Height).FirstOrDefault(o => o.IsValid);
also go twice throught the list?
Can this be somehow optimized, so that the linw also only needs to run once through the list?

You can use GroupBy:
IEnumerable<SomeObject> validHighestHeights = objects
.Where(o => o.IsValid)
.GroupBy(o => o.Height)
.OrderByDescending(g => g.Key)
.First();
This group contains all valid objects with the highest height.

The most efficient way to do this with Linq is as follows:
var result = objects.Aggregate(
default(SomeObject),
(acc, current) =>
!current.IsValid ? acc :
acc == null ? current :
current.Height < acc.Height ? current :
acc);
This will loop over the collection only once.
However, you said "I was thinking that it can be done more clearly with LinQ." Whether this is more clear or not, I leave that up to you to decide.

You can try this one:
return (from _Object in Objects Where _Object.isValid OrderBy _Object.Height).FirstOrDefault();
or
return _Objects.Where(_Object => _Object.isValid).OrderBy(_Object => _Object.Height).FirstOrDefault();

Would something like
return objects.OrderBy(obj => obj.Height).FirstOrDefault(o => o.IsValid);
also go twice throught the list?
Only in the worst case scenario, where the first valid object is the last in order of obj.Height (or there is none to be found). Iterating the collection using FirstOrDefault will stop as soon as a valid element is found.
Can this be somehow optimized, so that the linw also only needs to run
once through the list?
I'm afraid you'd have to make your own extension method. Considering what I've written above though, I'd consider it pretty optimized as it is.
**UPDATE**
Actually, the following would be a bit faster, as we'd avoid sorting invalid items:
return object.Where(o => o.IsValid).OrderBy(o => o.Height).FirstOrDefault();

how to use linq to retrieve values from a 2 dimensional generic list

I have a generic List List[int, myClass], and I would like to find the smallest int value, and retrieve the items from the list that match this.
I am generating this from another LINQ statement
var traysWithExtraAisles = (from t in poolTrays
where t.TrayItems.Select(i=>i.Aisle)
.Any(a=> ! selectedAisles.Contains(a))
select new
{
count= t.TrayItems.Select(i=>i.Aisle)
.Count(a=> !selectedAisles.Contains(a)),
tray=t
}).ToList();
this gives me my anonymous List of [count, Tray], but now I want to figure out the smallest count, and return a sublist for all the counts that match this.
Can anyone help me out with this?

var smallestGroup = traysWithExtraAisles
.GroupBy(x => x.count)
.OrderBy(g => g.Key)
.First();
foreach(var x in smallestGroup)
{
var poolTray = x.tray;
}

You can use SelectMany to "flatten" your list. Meaning, combine all of the lists into one, then take the Min. So;
int minimum = poolTrays.SelectMany(x => x).Min(x => x.TheIntegerIWantMinOf);
Will give you the smallest value contained in the sub lists. I'm not entirely sure this is what you're asking for but if your goal is simply to find the smallest element in the collection then I would scrap the code you posted and use this instead.

Right, I now realise this is actually incredibly easy to do with a bit more fiddling around. I have gone with
int minCount = traysWithExtraAisles.Min(x=>x.count);
var minAislesList = (from t in trayswithExtraAisles
where t.count==mincount
select t).ToList()
I imagine it is probably possible to do this in one statement

You can use GroupBy as answered by Tim... or OrderBy as follow:
var result = traysWithExtraAisles.OrderBy(x=>x.count)
.TakeWhile((x,i)=> i == 0 || x.count == traysWithExtraAisles[i-1]).count;

Select from a List<T>

I'm sure there's an wasy way of doing this (I'm guessing one of the extension methods?), but am struggling to find it with Google.
Basically I have a List of custom classes; I want to select some items from this into a new List where one of the properties is equal to any value in another List.
Here's a (simplified) quick example of what I'm trying to do:
public class Job
{
public int Number;
public string ClientCompanyName;
}
List<Job> lstJobs = new List<Job>();
List<Job> lstCompare = new List<Job>();
normally I would do something like:
List<Job> lstFiltered = new List<Job>();
foreach(Job jobThis in lstCompare)
{
foreach(jobComp in lstCompare)
{
if(jobThis.Number = jobComp.Number)
{
lstFiltered.Add(jobThis);
}
}
}
Is there an extension method that neatens this last bit up into (ideally) a single line?
Cheers

You can use Intersect() for this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb460136.aspx

Use Intersect.
For it to work with your custom comparison you either need to implement IEquatable<T> in your class or create a new class the implements IEqualityComparer<T> for your class and pass that to the overload of Intersect.

Jez,
You might be able to use the LINQ intersect function, or try:
var matches = from jobs in lstJobs
join comp in lstCompare on jobs.Number equals comp.Number
select jobs;
or LINQ syntax:
var matches = lstJobs.Join(lstCompare, jobs => jobs.Number,
comp => comp.Number, (jobs, comp) => jobs);
and here was reSharper's version based on your original loop:
List<Job> lstFiltered = (lstJobs.SelectMany(jobThis => lstCompare,
(jobThis, jobComp) => new {jobThis, jobComp})
.Where(#t => #t.jobThis.Number == #t.jobComp.Number)
.Select(#t => #t.jobThis)).ToList();
slightly verbose, but another way to skin the cat.
[edited] as had set to new list, rather than selected elements - doh

var lstFiltered = lstJobs
.Where(job => lstCompare.Any(item => item.Number == job.Number))
.ToList();
The above solution works well if the number of items in the lstCompare is small. For bigger comparison lists you may want to use some hash based collection.
var compareSet = new HashSet<int>(lstCompare.Select(item => item.Number));
var lstFiltered = lstJobs
.Where(job => compareSet.Contains(job.Number))
.ToList();
If the comparison condition is more complex or it is needed in several places, you should create a comparer class that implements IEqualityComparer<T>. Then you could use the Intersect() method as others have already suggested. However, it is not functionally identical with the above solutions. It returns only distinct elements while my solutions return all matching elements. It may be a significant difference in some applications.
My second example can be easily changed to use IEqualityComparer<T> if necessary. The HashSet<T> takes the comparer as second parameter.

How to sort a list with two sorting rules?

I have a list that I want to sort using to parameters. That means it are all values and if for example I have
A 2/2
B 3/3
C 3/4
I want the sorting C B A
I tried to implement that the following way:
methods.Sort((y, x) => x.GetChangingMethodsCount().CompareTo(y.GetChangingMethodsCount()));
methods.Sort((y, x) => x.GetChangingClassesCount().CompareTo(y.GetChangingClassesCount()));
First sort the list with the second parameter and then sort it again with the first parameter. But the ordering isn0t correct. Any hints how to achieve that?

What you need to do is combine the two sort keys into a single function. If the first comparison returns 0, only then try the second one:
methods.Sort((y, x) =>
{
int sort = x.GetChangingClassesCount().CompareTo(y.GetChangingClassesCount());
if (sort == 0)
sort = x.GetChangingMethodsCount().CompareTo(y.GetChangingMethodsCount());
return sort;
});

Probably the easiest way is to use the OrderBy and ThenBy extension methods like that :
methods.OrderByDescending(x => x.GetChangingMethodCount()).
ThenByDescending(x => x.GetChangingClassesCount()).
ToList();

It's not clear (to me at least) if this is what you want based on your example, but you could give this a try:
var sortedMethods = methods.OrderByDescending(m => m.GetChangingMethodsCount()).ThenByDescending(m => m.GetChangingClassesCount());