I'm trying to get the union of these two queries but keep getting the following error:
'System.Linq.IQueryable<AnonymousType#1>' does not contain a definition for 'Union' and the best extension method overload 'System.Linq.ParallelEnumerable.Union<TSource>(System.Linq.ParallelQuery<TSource>, System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<TSource>)' has some invalid arguments
The linq queries look like this:
var g = from p in context.APP_PROD_COMP_tbl
where p.FAM_MFG == fam_mfg
group p by new
{
a_B_G = p.B_G,
a_MFG = p.MFG,
a_PRODUCT_FAM = p.PRODUCT_FAM,
};
var q = from p in context.APP_COMP_tbl
where p.FAM_MFG == fam_mfg
group p by new
{
a_B_G = p.a_B_G,
a_MFG = p.a_MFG,
a_PRODUCT_FAM = p.a_PRODUCT_FAM,
};
var data = q.Union(g);
I've tried using IEnumerable around the queries, but it still didn't work. Not really sure where I'm going wrong at this point, although admittedly LINQ isn't something I've had a ton of exposure to.
Update:
So I've gone in a slightly different direction from what I posted earlier. After doing more research, the group by statements were from old code and no longer needed for the intended purpose. I changed those to select new statements and had no further issue with the union.
I think that your problem here is type mismatch: g is of type IGrouping<AnonymousType#1, APP_PROD_COMP_tbl> and q is of type IGrouping<AnonymousType#1, APP_COMP_tbl>; this is why Union gives you the error.
I am not really sure what you are trying to Union (keys of the groups or groups of data themselves) but the solution would be:
If you want to union group keys, select the keys of your groups
var data = g.Select(x => x.Key).Union(q.Select(x => x.Key));
If you want to union the groups themselves then you need to project each element from both sequences into a common type, perform the grouping and then union the groups
var g = context.APP_PROD_COMP_tbl
.Where(p => p.FAM_MFG == fam_mfg)
.Select(ToCommonType)
.GroupBy(p => new
{
a_B_G = p.B_G,
a_MFG = p.MFG,
a_PRODUCT_FAM = p.PRODUCT_FAM,
});
var q = context.APP_COMP_tbl
.Where(p => p.FAM_MFG == fam_mfg)
.Select(ToCommonType)
.GroupBy(p => new
{
a_B_G = p.a_B_G,
a_MFG = p.a_MFG,
a_PRODUCT_FAM = p.a_PRODUCT_FAM,
});
var data = g.Union(q);
private CommonClass ToCommonType(APP_PROD_COMP_tbl item)
{
return new CommonClass
{
};
}
private CommonClass ToCommonType(APP_COMP_tbl item)
{
return new CommonClass
{
};
}
The problem is your Anonymouse types don't match:
var a = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Select(x => new {a = x}).AsQueryable();
var b = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Select(x => new {b = x}).AsQueryable();
var c = a.Union(b);
This won't work because typeof a is not same as typeof b
var a = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Select(x => new {a = x}).AsQueryable();
var b = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Select(x => new {a = x}).AsQueryable();
var c = a.Union(b);
But this will work, because Anonymouse types are the same.
You can try selecting same anonymouse types from your collection in q and g. Read more about Union for IQueryable
Union on IQueryAble<TSource>() accepts IQueryAble<TSource> as a parameter, so collection has to be the same type.
Related
I'm using MongoDB C# driver 2.4.4 in my web application. I need to group documents in a collection filtering them dynamically.
var query = collection.Aggregate()
.Match(y => y.IdLower.Contains(id))
.Match(y => y.NameLower.Contains(name))
.Group(
key => key.Id,
g => new
{
Id = g.Key
}).ToList();
I need to add or remove Match operators based to user input but I cannot figure how.
I tried something like this:
var query = collection.Aggregate();
if(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(id))
query = query.Match(y => y.IdLower.Contains(id));
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(name))
query = query.Match(y => y.NameLower.Contains(name));
query = query.Group(
key => key.Id,
g => new
{
Id = g.Key
}).ToList();
but I get syntax error Cannot imlicitly convert type System.Collection.Generic.List<<anonymous type: string Id>> to '...
How to achieve something like this?
The problem is that the type of query is IAggregateFluent<T1> (where T1 is your document type), but the return type of the .Group() method is IAggregateFluent<T2> (where T2 is an anonymous type). The compiler does not know how to implicitly convert these types, hence the error.
It depends on what you're trying to do here, but one possible way to fix this would be to return instances of T1 (your document type) from the group expression:
query = query.Group(
key => key.Id,
g => new T1 // replace "T1" with the actual name of your class
{
Id = g.Key
}).ToList();
Another option would be to assign the results of the group function to a new variable:
var grouped = query.Group(
key => key.Id,
g => new
{
Id = g.Key
}).ToList();
Hope this helps.
I have a very simple SQL
SELECT s.shop_code
,SUM(im.amt) sum_amt
,s.cell_no#1 shop_cell
FROM tb_sn_so_wt_mst im
,tb_cm_shop_inf s
WHERE im.shop_code = s.shop_code
GROUP BY s.shop_code, s.cell_no#1)
then i try to code linq
var listResult = from warrantyMaster in listWarrantyMasters2.Records
join shopInfo in listShopInfos
on warrantyMaster.ShopCode equals shopInfo.ShopCode
i don't know group by shop code and cell no and sum atm, any one help me out of this problem
The group by syntax with some examples is explained here group clause (C# Reference) and related links.
Here is the direct translation of your SQL query (of course the field names are just my guess since you didn't provide your classes):
var query = from im in listWarrantyMasters2.Records
join s in listShopInfos
on im.ShopCode equals s.ShopCode
group im by new { s.ShopCode, s.CellNo } into g
select new
{
g.Key.ShopCode,
g.Key.CellNo,
SumAmt = g.Sum(e => e.Amt)
};
You can try this code:
var results = from warrantyMaster in listWarrantyMasters2.Records
from shopInfo in listShopInfos
.Where(mapping => mapping.ShopCode == warrantyMaster.ShopCode )
.select new
{
ShopCode = warrantyMaster.ShopCode,
ATM = listWarrantyMasters2.ATM,
ShellNo = shopInfo.ShellNo
}
.GroupBy(x=> new { x.ShopCode, x.ShellNo })
.Select(x=>
new{
ShopCode = x.Key.ShopCode,
ShellNo = x.Key.ShellNo,
SumATM = x.Sum(item=>item.ATM)
});
I have a mapping table in the following form:
Id ReferenceId ReferenceType LinkId
To retrieve a set of combinations, I could run each query separately:
var pairs = new List<Pair>
{
Pair.Create(1000, "Car"),
Pair.Create(2000, "Truck"),
};
var maps = new List<Mapping>();
foreach (var pair in pairs)
{
maps.AddRange(context.Mappings.Where(x => x.ReferenceId = pair.Id && x.ReferenceType == pair.Type).ToList());
}
However, I want to combine these into a single statement to reduce my hits on the db. Is there some form of Contains statement that can work with pairs of objects? Or is it possible to append an OR clause onto an IQueryable within a loop? Any other solutions?
Not sure if it works for your LINQ provider but you could try to join with an anonymous type:
var mapQuery = from p in pairs
join m in context.Mappings
on new { p.Id, p.Type } equals new { m.ReferenceId, m.ReferenceType}
select m;
List<Mapping> maps = mapQuery.ToList();
You could union your queries together.
Something like this:
var pairs = new List<Pair>
{
Pair.Create(1000, "Car"),
Pair.Create(2000, "Truck"),
};
List<Mapping> result =
pairs
.Select(pair =>
context.Mappings.Where(
x => x.ReferenceId == pair.Id
&& x.ReferenceType == pair.Type))
.Aggregate(Queryable.Union)
.ToList();
I have the following code. The function has a lot of Linq calls and I had help on putting this into place.
public IList<Content.Grid> Details(string pk)
{
IEnumerable<Content.Grid> details = null;
IList<Content.Grid> detailsList = null;
var data = _contentRepository.GetPk(pk);
var refType = this.GetRefType(pk);
var refStat = this.GetRefStat(pk);
var type = _referenceRepository.GetPk(refType);
var stat = _referenceRepository.GetPk(refStat);
details =
from d in data
join s in stat on d.Status equals s.RowKey into statuses
from s in statuses.DefaultIfEmpty()
join t in type on d.Type equals t.RowKey into types
from t in types.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new Content.Grid
{
PartitionKey = d.PartitionKey,
RowKey = d.RowKey,
Order = d.Order,
Title = d.Title,
Status = s == null ? null : s.Value,
StatusKey = d.Status,
Type = t == null ? null : t.Value,
TypeKey = d.Type,
Link = d.Link,
Notes = d.Notes,
TextLength = d.TextLength
};
detailsList = details
.OrderBy(item => item.Order)
.ThenBy(item => item.Title)
.Select((t, index) => new Content.Grid()
{
PartitionKey = t.PartitionKey,
RowKey = t.RowKey,
Row = index + 1,
Order = t.Order,
Title = t.Title,
Status = t.Status,
StatusKey = t.StatusKey,
Type = t.Type,
TypeKey = t.TypeKey,
Link = t.Link,
Notes = t.Notes,
TextLength = t.TextLength,
})
.ToList();
return detailsList;
}
The first uses one format for Linq and the second another. Is there some way that I could simplify and/or combine these? I would really like to make this code simpler but I am not sure how to do this. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.
Of course you can combine them. The Linq keywords such as from, where and select get translated into calls like the Extension methods that you call below, so effectively there's no difference.
If you really want to combine them, the quickest way is to put () around the first query, then append the method calls you use on details in the second query. Like this:
detailsList =
(from d in data // <-- The first query
// ...
select new Content.Grid
{
// ...
})
.OrderBy(item => item.Order) // <-- The calls from the second query
.ThenBy(item => item.Title)
.Select((t, index) => new Content.Grid()
{
//...
}).ToList();
But i think that would be ugly. Two queries are just fine IMO.
Basically I'm trying to do this in LINQ to SQL;
SELECT DISTINCT a,b,c FROM table WHERE z=35
I have tried this, (c# code)
(from record in db.table
select new table {
a = record.a,
b = record.b,
c = record.c
}).Where(record => record.z.Equals(35)).Distinct();
But when I remove column z from the table object in that fashion I get the following exception;
Binding error: Member 'table.z' not found in projection.
I can't return field z because it will render my distinct useless. Any help is appreciated, thanks.
Edit:
This is a more comprehensive example that includes the use of PredicateBuilder,
var clause = PredicateBuilder.False<User>();
clause = clause.Or(user => user.z.Equals(35));
foreach (int i in IntegerList) {
int tmp = i;
clause = clause.Or(user => user.a.Equals(tmp));
}
var results = (from u in db.Users
select new User {
a = user.a,
b = user.b,
c = user.c
}).Where(clause).Distinct();
Edit2:
Many thanks to everyone for the comments and answers, this is the solution I ended up with,
var clause = PredicateBuilder.False<User>();
clause = clause.Or(user => user.z.Equals(35));
foreach (int i in IntegerList) {
int tmp = i;
clause = clause.Or(user => user.a.Equals(tmp));
}
var results = (from u in db.Users
select u)
.Where(clause)
.Select(u => new User {
a = user.a,
b = user.b,
c = user.c
}).Distinct();
The ordering of the Where followed by the Select is vital.
problem is there because you where clause is outside linq query and you are applying the where clause on the new anonymous datatype thats y it causing error
Suggest you to change you query like
(from record in db.table
where record.z == 35
select new table {
a = record.a,
b = record.b,
c = record.c
}).Distinct();
Can't you just put the WHERE clause in the LINQ?
(from record in db.table
where record.z == 35
select new table {
a = record.a,
b = record.b,
c = record.c
}).Distinct();
Alternatively, if you absolutely had to have it the way you wrote it, use .Select
.Select(r => new { a = r.a, b=r.b, c=r.c }).Distinct();
As shown here LINQ Select Distinct with Anonymous Types, this method will work since it compares all public properties of anonymous types.
Hopefully this helps, unfortunately I have not much experience with LINQ so my answer is limited in expertise.