I have two tables from which I want to select data from:
Document_Data
Document_info
I want to execute the following query :
SELECT DISTINCT Document_Data.DOC_CLASS, TITLE FROM Document_info,Document_Data WHERE (((DOC_STATUS = '1') AND (PORTAL = 'First Page'))) AND (Document_info.DOC_NUMBER = Document_Data.DOC_NUMBER AND Document_info.REVISION = Document_Data.REVISION AND STATUS = 'CURRENT' AND Document_Data.DOC_CLASS = 'MESSAGE')
Can anyone give me info on how to execute the following query using Linq?
I have made a few assumptions since your query did leave off a few table names. I assumed that STATUS was on the Document_data table and DOC_STATUS was on the Document_info table. If its any different, it shouldn't be hard to modify this query to work.
DbContext is your entity framework context or wherever your store your db collections.
dbContext.Document_info.Where(i => i.DOC_STATUS == "1" && i.PORTAL == "First Page")
.Join(dbContext.Document_data.Where(d => d.DOC_CLASS == "MESSAGE" && d.STATUS == "CURRENT"),
i => new { i.REVISION, i.DOC_NUMBER }, //Document_info
d => new { d.REVISION, d.DOC_NUMBER }, //Document_data
(i, d) => new { d.DOC_CLASS, i.TITLE }) //(Document_info, Document_data)
.Distinct()
.ToList();
The way this works is that it first filters the document_info table to what you wanted from there. It then joins it with a filtered Document_data table on a composite "key" made up of REVISION and DOC_NUMBER. After that, it runs the Distinct and executes the whole query with a ToList.
The above should compile to valid SQL (at least it would using the MySQL connector...I haven't tried anything like that with MSSQL, but I assume that since the MSSQL one works better than MySQL so it would make sense that it would work there too). This particular query would come out to be a little convoluted, however, and might not work very optimally unless you have some foreign keys defined on REVISION and DOC_NUMBER.
I would note that your query will only return things where d.DOC_CLASS == "MESSAGE" and so your results will be quite repetitious.
Related
I can’t seem to come up with the right corresponding LINQ to SQL statement to generate the following T-SQL. Essentially, I'm trying to return payment information with only one of the customer's addresses... the AR address, if it exists, then the primary address, if it exists, then any address.
SELECT < payment and address columns >
FROM Payment AS p
INNER JOIN Customer AS c ON c.CustomerID = p.CustomerID
OUTER APPLY (
SELECT TOP 1 < address columns >
FROM Address AS a
WHERE a.person_id = c.PersonID
ORDER BY CASE WHEN a.BusinessType = 'AR' THEN 0
ELSE 1
END
, a.IsPrimary DESC
END
) AS pa
WHERE p.Posted = 1
We’re using the Repository Pattern to access the DB, so inside a method of the Payment Repository, I’ve tried:
var q = GetAll()
.Where(p => p.Posted == true)
.SelectMany(p => p.Customer
.Address
.OrderBy(a => a.BusinessType != "AR")
.ThenBy(a => a.Primary != true)
.Take(1)
.DefaultIfEmpty()
.Select(a => new
{
< only the columns I need from p and a >
});
But when I execute .ToList(), it throws the NullReferenceException (Object reference not set to an instance of an object) on a record where the customer has no addresses set up. So, I tried:
var q1 = GetAll().Where(p => p.Posted == true);
var q2 = q11.SelectMany(p => p.Customer
.Address
.OrderBy(a => a.BusinessType != "AR")
.ThenBy(a => a.Primary != true));
var q3 = q1.SelectMany(p => q2.Where(a => a.PersonID == p.Customer.PersonID)
.Take(1)
.DefaultIfEmpty()
.Select(a => new
{
< only the columns I need from p and a >
});
This returns the correct results, but the T-SQL it generates puts the entire T-SQL from above into the outer apply, which is then joined again on Payment and Customer. This seems somewhat inefficient and I wondered if it could be made more efficient because the T-SQL above returns in 6ms for the test case I’m using.
Additional Info:
Q: I think the problem here is that GetAll() returns IEnumerable, not IQueryable ... it would help to see this GetAll() method. - Gert Arnold
A: Actually, GetAll(), when traced all the way back, returns Table<TEntity> System.Data.Linq.GetTable<TEntity>() and Table<TEntity> does implement IQueryable.
However, DefaultIfEmpty() does return IEnumerable<Address>, which is what is throwing the exception, if I'm not mistaken, as I mentioned in the first L2S code section.
SOLUTION UPDATE
Okay, I knew I could fall back to simply going straight to joining the tables and foregoing the use of the navigation properties, and in this case, I now know that is how it should be done. It all makes sense now. I just had become accustomed to preferring using the navigation properties, but here, it’s best to go straight to joining tables.
The reason the T-SQL generated by the second L2S code section was so inefficient was because in order to get to the Address table, it required the inclusion of the Payment/Customer data.
When I simply go straight to joining the tables, the generated T-SQL, while not ideal, is much closer to the desired script code section. That’s because it didn’t require the inclusion of the Payment/Customer data. And that’s when the “well, duh” light bulb flashed on.
Thanks for all who helped on this path to discovery!
When trying a similar query it turned out that this DefaultIfEpty() call knocks down LINQ-to-SQL. The exception's stack trace shows that things go wrong in System.Data.Linq.SqlClient.SqlBinder.Visitor.IsOuterDependent, i.e. during SQL query building.
Contrary to your conclusion it's not advisable to abandon the use of navigation properties and return to explicit joins. The question is: how to use the best parts of LINQ (which includes nav properties) without troubling LINQ-to-SQL. This, by the way, is true for each ORM with LINQ support.
In this particular case I'd switch to query syntax for the main query and use the keyword let. Something like:
from p in context.Payments
let address = p.Customer
.Addresses
.OrderBy(a => a.BusinessType != "AR")
.ThenBy(a => a.Primary != true)
.FirstOrDefault()
select new
{
p.PropertyX,
address.PropertyY
...
}
This will be translated into one SQL statement and it avoids LINQ-to-SQL's apparent issue with DefaultIfEmpty.
Because of a poor design on our database I have to write a complex query to get my data.
I need to get all valid data from a table_1. In other works I need to get each valid row of my table_1. I don't have a simple valid or invalid column in my table_1. This information is stored in a table_2. Table_2 contains all invalid row with the error message.
Let say the data I need to retrieve are orders. For my example notice that OrderNo is the number of an order. So I can have multiple line, version, of this order in table_1 and I can also have multiple line of error on this order in table_2. So I will also have to use a version number.
I already tried this:
table_1.Where(y => (y.OrderNo == "1234"));
table_2.Where(y => (y.OrderNo == "1234")).Select(y => y.Version).Distinct();
And I think I need to do something like this:
var errorList = table_2.Where(y => (y.OrderNo == "1234")).Select(y => y.Version).Distinct();
table_1.Where(y => (y.OrderNo == "1234" && y.Version.NOT_IN(erriList)));
Could you help me?
I suppose you are searching for Contains function with ! symbol (logical negation operator). Like this:
var errorList = table_2.Where(y => y.OrderNo == "1234")
.Select(y => y.Version);
var res = table_1.Where(y => y.OrderNo == "1234"
//here you get only rows that doesn't represent in errorList
&& !errorList.Contains(y.Version));
to get data from a table but not if in another table
This is called antijoin. While you can use Contains and Any based approaches presented in the other answers, usually you'll get the best performance by using the classic SQL approach - LEFT OUTER JOIN combined with checking the right side for NULL.
Which in LINQ looks like this:
var query =
from t1 in table_1
//where t1.OrderNo == "1234"
join t2 in table_2 on t1.OrderNo equals t2.OrderNo into t2group
from t2 in t2group.DefaultIfEmpty()
where t2 == null
select t1;
Actually when you use OrderNo filter, most probably there will not be a noticeable speed difference between this and other queries. The main benefit of the above would be if you remove that filter, although many nowadays SQL query optimizers are able to derive one and the same execution plan regardless of whether the query uses JOIN / IN / EXISTS constructs.
How about this:
var validRows = table1
.Where(t1 => !table2
.Any(t2 => t1.OrderNo == t2.OrderNo &&
t1.Version == t2.Version));
Note that this is far more efficient in SQL unless you're using something fancy that translates the expression to SQL.
I have a database that contains 3 tables:
Phones
PhoneListings
PhoneConditions
PhoneListings has a FK from the Phones table(PhoneID), and a FK from the Phone Conditions table(conditionID)
I am working on a function that adds a Phone Listing to the user's cart, and returns all of the necessary information for the user. The phone make and model are contained in the PHONES table, and the details about the Condition are contained in the PhoneConditions table.
Currently I am using 3 queries to obtain all the neccesary information. Is there a way to combine all of this into one query?
public ActionResult phoneAdd(int listingID, int qty)
{
ShoppingBasket myBasket = new ShoppingBasket();
string BasketID = myBasket.GetBasketID(this.HttpContext);
var PhoneListingQuery = (from x in myDB.phoneListings
where x.phonelistingID == listingID
select x).Single();
var PhoneCondition = myDB.phoneConditions
.Where(x => x.conditionID == PhoneListingQuery.phonelistingID).Single();
var PhoneDataQuery = (from ph in myDB.Phones
where ph.PhoneID == PhoneListingQuery.phonePageID
select ph).SingleOrDefault();
}
You could project the result into an anonymous class, or a Tuple, or even a custom shaped entity in a single line, however the overall database performance might not be any better:
var phoneObjects = myDB.phoneListings
.Where(pl => pl.phonelistingID == listingID)
.Select(pl => new
{
PhoneListingQuery = pl,
PhoneCondition = myDB.phoneConditions
.Single(pc => pc.conditionID == pl.phonelistingID),
PhoneDataQuery = myDB.Phones
.SingleOrDefault(ph => ph.PhoneID == pl.phonePageID)
})
.Single();
// Access phoneObjects.PhoneListingQuery / PhoneCondition / PhoneDataQuery as needed
There are also slightly more compact overloads of the LINQ Single and SingleOrDefault extensions which take a predicate as a parameter, which will help reduce the code slightly.
Edit
As an alternative to multiple retrievals from the ORM DbContext, or doing explicit manual Joins, if you set up navigation relationships between entities in your model via the navigable join keys (usually the Foreign Keys in the underlying tables), you can specify the depth of fetch with an eager load, using Include:
var phoneListingWithAssociations = myDB.phoneListings
.Include(pl => pl.PhoneConditions)
.Include(pl => pl.Phones)
.Single(pl => pl.phonelistingID == listingID);
Which will return the entity graph in phoneListingWithAssociations
(Assuming foreign keys PhoneListing.phonePageID => Phones.phoneId and
PhoneCondition.conditionID => PhoneListing.phonelistingID)
You should be able to pull it all in one query with join, I think.
But as pointed out you might not achieve alot of speed from this, as you are just picking the first match and then moving on, not really doing any inner comparisons.
If you know there exist atleast one data point in each table then you might aswell pull all at the same time. if not then waiting with the "sub queries" is nice as done by StuartLC.
var Phone = (from a in myDB.phoneListings
join b in myDB.phoneConditions on a.phonelistingID equals b.conditionID
join c in ph in myDB.Phones on a.phonePageID equals c.PhoneID
where
a.phonelistingID == listingID
select new {
Listing = a,
Condition = b,
Data = c
}).FirstOrDefault();
FirstOrDefault because single throws error if there exists more than one element.
I have an Entity Framework entity Provider, with a list of rating votes for that provider. My current queries look something like this:
int previousVote = provider.ProviderRankings.FirstOrDefault(r => r.UserId == CurrUserId);
double averageVote = provider.ProviderRankings.Average(r => r.Rating);
int totalVotes = provider.ProviderRankings.Count();
This seems functionally correct. However, I believe this will result in three additional trips to the database. Is there anyway to have these requests combined into a single query such that only one SQL query will be sent, and all results can be returned with only one additional trip to the server?
You could combine the two aggregates fairly easily using a Group By:
Multiple SQL aggregate functions in a single Linq-to-Entities query
I am pretty sure the FirstOrDefault will work if you choose a suitably vague key for the grouping (for example key = 0) i.e:
from t in ProviderRankings
group t by key = 0
into g
select new {
previousVote = g.FirstOrDefault(r => r.UserId == CurrUserId),
totalVotes = g.Count(),
averageVote = g.Average(x => x.Rating)
}
In SQL one might sometimes write something like
DELETE FROM table WHERE column IS NULL
or
UPDATE table SET column1=value WHERE column2 IS NULL
or any other criterion that might apply to multiple rows.
As far as I can tell, the best EntityFramework can do is something like
foreach (var entity in db.Table.Where(row => row.Column == null))
db.Table.Remove(entity); // or entity.Column2 = value;
db.SaveChanges();
But of course that will retrieve all the entities, and then run a separate DELETE query for each. Surely that must be much slower if there are many entities that satisfy the criterion.
So, cut a long story short, is there any support in EntityFramework for updating or deleting multiple entities in a single query?
EF doesn't have support for batch updates or deletes but you can simply do:
db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("DELETE FROM ...", someParameter);
Edit:
People who really want to stick with LINQ queries sometimes use workaround where they first create select SQL query from LINQ query:
string query = db.Table.Where(row => row.Column == null).ToString();
and after that find the first occurrence of FROM and replace the beginning of the query with DELETE and execute result with ExecuteSqlCommand. The problem with this approach is that it works only in basic scenarios. It will not work with entity splitting or some inheritance mapping where you need to delete two or more records per entity.
Take a look to Entity Framework Extensions (Multiple entity updates). This project allow set operations using lambda expressions. Samples from doc:
this.Container.Devices.Delete(o => o.Id == 1);
this.Container.Devices.Update(
o => new Device() {
LastOrderRequest = DateTime.Now,
Description = o.Description + "teste"
},
o => o.Id == 1);
Digging EFE project source code you can see how automatize #Ladislav Mrnka second approach also adding setting operations:
public override string GetDmlCommand()
{
//Recover Table Name
StringBuilder updateCommand = new StringBuilder();
updateCommand.Append("UPDATE ");
updateCommand.Append(MetadataAccessor.GetTableNameByEdmType(
typeof(T).Name));
updateCommand.Append(" ");
updateCommand.Append(setParser.ParseExpression());
updateCommand.Append(whereParser.ParseExpression());
return updateCommand.ToString();
}
Edited 3 years latter
Take a look to this great answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/12751429
Entity Framework Extended Library helps to do this.
Delete
//delete all users where FirstName matches
context.Users.Delete(u => u.FirstName == "firstname");
Update
//update all tasks with status of 1 to status of 2
context.Tasks.Update(
t => t.StatusId == 1,
t2 => new Task {StatusId = 2});
//example of using an IQueryable as the filter for the update
var users = context.Users.Where(u => u.FirstName == "firstname");
context.Users.Update(users, u => new User {FirstName = "newfirstname"});
https://github.com/loresoft/EntityFramework.Extended