I have to show the movies which have most wanted to see status. For this I Join two tables 1. MovieInformation and 2. SeentItWantToSeeIt. I calculated most wanted to see movie with this code snippets.
public class RangkedMovieList
{
public int MovieID { get; set; }
public int count { get; set; }
}
rankedList = db.SeenItWantToSeeIt.Where(m => m.Status == 1 && m.MovieID != null)
.GroupBy(m => m.MovieID)
.Select(g => new RangkedMovieList
{ MovieID = g.Key.Value,
count = g.Count()
})
.ToList();
AllMovieInfo is Iqueryable with which I joined wanted to see movies.
AllMovieInfo = (from r in rankedList
join a in AllMovieInfo on r.MovieID equals a.MovieID
orderby r.count descending
select a).Distinct().AsQueryable();
This query works fine and orders the result by MovieID but I want to order all movies by their wanted to see count. Though I have written code to orderby r.count descending, Its not working. Please help me out.
I'm guessing your second LINQ query is operating at the database level. If so, it's likely that the Distinct call won't honor the previously specified sort order (in fact, if you drop the Distinct call and debug your output, it should appear sorted correctly). Typically for simple queries you can fix this by swapping the order of the sort (i.e., orderby) and Distinct call while keeping the query on the database level, as answered in another post, but your case is a little more complicated since you need to work with rankingList.
In your case you could bring it down to the LINQ to Objects level by adding a ToList() as you did for the first query, or an AsEnumerable(). At that level you wouldn't need to worry about swapping the order of the sort or distinct call. However, you'll likely need to use the overloaded Distinct method that accepts an IEqualityComparer and provide a comparer for AllMovieInfo. Check out the link for an example of how to implement that.
var query = (from r in rankedList
join a in AllMovieInfo on r.MovieID equals a.MovieID
select new { Info = a, Rank = r.count })
.AsEnumerable()
.OrderByDescending(o => o.Rank);
.Select(o => o.Info)
.Distinct(); // will likely need an IEqualityComparer here
// this could be combined with the above query, but I split it for clarity
AllMovieInfo = query.AsQueryable();
You might not need the AsQueryable at that point since it's already on the client at that point, in memory.
Related
I have a method that accepts two List<int> for which I need to get data from the database based on the List<>s.
So, I receive a List<PersonId> and List<NationalityId> for example, and I need to get a result set where records match the PersonIds and NationalistIds.
public List<PersonDTO> SearchPeople(List<int> persons, Lisy<int> nationalities)
{
var results = (from c in myDbContect.People where .... select c).ToList();
}
Note that I think Lists might be null.
Is there an efficient way?
I was going to try:
where ((persons != null && persons.Count > 0) && persons persons.Contains(x=>x.PersonId))
But this would generate rather inefficient SQL, and as I add more search parameters, the linq may get very messy.
Is there an efficient way to achieve this?
The join method may be easy to read, but the issue I face is that IF the input list is empty, then it shouldn't filter. That is, if nationalities is empty, don't filter any out:
var results = (from c in entities.Persons
join p in persons on c.PersonId equals b
join n in nationalities on c.NationalityId equals n
equals n
select c).ToList();
This would return no results if any of the lists were empty. Which, is bad.
If you join an IQueryable with an IEnumerable (in this case, entities.Persons and persons), your filtering will not happen within your query. Instead, your IQueryable is enumerated, retrieving all of your records from the database, while the join is performed in memory using the IEnumerable join method.
To perform your filtering against a list within your query, there are two main options:
Join using an IQueryable on both sides. This might be possible if your list of ids comes from the execution of another query, in which case you can use the underlying query in your join instead of the resulting set of ids.
Use the contains operator against your list. This is only possible with small lists, because each additional id requires its own query parameter. If you have many ids, you can possibly extend this approach with batching.
If you want to skip filtering when the list is empty, then you might consider using the extension method invocation instead of the LINQ syntax. This allows you to use an if statement:
IQueryable<Person> persons = entities.persons;
List<int> personIds = new List<int>();
if(personIds.Count > 0)
{
persons = persons.Where(p => personIds.Contains(p.PersonId));
}
var results = persons.ToList();
Note that the Where predicate uses option #2 above, and is only applied if there are any ids in the collection.
If you want to get all the records for persons for example if the list is empty and then filter by nationalityId list if its not empty you can do something like this:
List<int> personsIds = ...;
List<int> nationalitiesIds = ...;
var results = (from c in entities.Persons
join p in persons on c.PersonId equals b
join n in nationalities on c.NationalityId equals n
where ((personsIds == null || personsIds.Contains(p.Id))
&& (nationalitiesIds == null || nationalitiesIds.Contains(n.Id))
select c).ToList();
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've got a List of objects, lets call them Product, which each of them contains a bunch of properties and also a List of Version (which are also objects).
Version also has a bunch of properties and does contain a List of Customer (which again are objects).
Customer again has properties, one of them is its ID (=Guid).
What i try to do is to make a List of Product, selected by a certain ID of its Product.VersionList.Version.ID.
I would prefere a join query, but every efficient way is welcome. I tried so far this, but because i have only a single ID to compare with, i don't know how to construct the join.
lp = List<Entity.Product>;
g = GetGuid();
var query = from product in Entity.ProductCollection
join g in g
on product.Version.Where(x => x.id == g)
select product;
lp.AddRange(query);
I'm guessing you mean:
var query = from product in Entity.ProductCollection
where product.Version.Any(x => x.id == g)
select product;
i.e. select all the products that have a version where the id matches the guid you were thinking of.
Note that joining to the versions would cause product duplication if any product has multiple matching versions.
Try this .... May be you wants more deep digging on it..
var query = from Product product in pc
from varsion in product.Version
let v= varsion as Entity.Version
where v.id == g
select product;
var query = Entity.ProductCollection.Where(p => p.Version.Any(v => v.Id == g));
You can use Any rather than having to do a self join.
The database contains Orders.
Orders can be contained within a group of Orders.
For every group of Orders it could contain 1 to many Orders.
However, Orders could have a NULL value assigned GroupOrderId as previous Orders did not have the grouping concept. Only new Orders enforce the concept of being added to a group.
The class structure to be populated in order to perform actions on each Order is
public class OrdersGroup
{
public int? GroupOrderId { get; set; }
public List<int> OrderIds { get; set; }
}
The linq statement
var workPacketOrdersList = (from o in db.Orders
where
o.GroupOrderId >= groupOrderIdMin && o.GroupOrderId <= groupOrderIdMax &&
o.IsDeleted == false
orderby o.WorkPacketId ascending
group o by o.WorkPacketId
into grp
select new OrdersGroup
{
GroupOrderId = grp.Key,
OrderIds = grp.Select(g => g.OrderId).ToList()
}).ToList();
Full exception
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.Collections.Generic.List`1[System.Int32] ToList[Int32](System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[System.Int32])' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
I see that the returned type of the linq query is a List<OrdersGroup>.
If the final .ToList() is omitted from the query than the return type becomes an IQueryable<OrdersGroup>
No matter what action is performed next the result is an exception that this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
I have tried to remove the specific select new OrdersGroup into a more generic select new and then perform actions on this result only to find the same store expression exception.
Can someone give some insight into where this linq is incorrect?
this is the part that's failing - grp.Select(g => g.OrderId).ToList() - you can't have a .ToList() in the select clause. remove that and you should be fine.
The problem is that LINQ to Entities is attempting to convert your query into SQL. It doesn't know how translate ToList into SQL, so that's the problem. You need to remove the call to ToList from inside your query.
That is,
OrderIds = grp.Select(g => g.OrderId).ToList()
LINQ to Entities can not convert that to SQL. Remove the call
OrderIds = grp.Select(g => g.OrderId)
and if you need OrderIds to be a List<int>, do the call to ToList after you execute the query.
It's because you're trying to call ToList() in a part of the query that will become raw SQL and executed at the source (ie SQL Server, not the CLR). I don't know exactly what your data is so I can't necessarily make an accurate recommendation on how to fix it but I would try taking making the ToList() call after this query or just not making it all. It's likely IEnumberable will offer whatever functionality you need which is what the Select will return if you remove the ToList() call.
By the way since I wasn't explicit, I'm referring to the ToList() call inside the select -(second to last line) OrderIds = grp.Select(g => g.OrderId).ToList() the other one is fine. It's executed on the results of the SQL query which is perfectly fine, you just can't make calls to C# specific methods within a query that will be executed by the SQL provider.
Your problem is that you select a list in your select statement.
select new OrdersGroup
{
GroupOrderId = grp.Key,
OrderIds = grp.Select(g => g.OrderId).ToList()
/////////////////////////////////////^^^^^^^^^HERE
}
What you need to do is change OrderIds to an IEnumerable<int>, and then get rid of the ToList.
I currently a list of a Supplier class, within that supplier class is a list of orders.
Each order has a userID and an empty string variable for username.
I then have a list of users which contains userID and username.
The way I am doing this now is:
foreach(supplier s in SupplierList)
{
foreach (order o in s.childorders)
{
user u = _users.First(p => p.userid == o.userid);
o.username = u.username;
}
}
I feel this might be a little inefficient and I was wondering if it is possible to compact it down into one linq query?
The logic should be
set supplierslist.childorders.username to the value in _users where supplierslist.childorders.userid == _users.userid.
Im fairly new to Linq so any advice for this would be apreciated, or also if its a bad idea and to leave it as it is / reasons why would be good too.
Thanks
What you want to do here is iterate over a collection (many collections, really, but it doesn't make a difference) and mutate its members. LINQ is not really targeted at performing mutating operations but rather at querying. You can do it with LINQ, but it's against the spirit of the tool.
If you are constructing the SupplierList yourself, it might be possible to fetch the data appropriately with LINQ so that it comes pre-populated as you want it to be.
Otherwise, I 'd leave the foreach as it is. You can make a dictionary that maps ids to users to make the inner loop faster, but that's your call and it depends on your data size.
var orderUserPairs = SupplierList
.SelectMany(s => s.ChildOrders)
.Join(_users, o => o.UserId, u => u.userId, (Order, User) => new {Order, User});
foreach (var orderUserPair in orderUserPairs)
orderUserPair.Order.username = orderUserPair.User.username;
Though having both username and userId as part of order looks suspicious.
First a question...
It looks like you are operating on every order. Why do you need to cycle through the supplierlist first since you don't seem to be using it inside the loop? Unless there are orders that don't belong to any supplierlist, you might be able to skip that step.
If that isn't the case, then I think you can use a join. If you aren't familiar with the syntax for joins in linq, this is one (simplified) way to approach it:
var x = from S in SupplierList
join C in childorders on C.supplierlistID equals S.ID
where [whatever you need here if anything]
select new { field1, field2};
foreach var y in x
{
}
Note I assumed a foreign key in childorders to supplierlist. If that isn't the case you will have to modify accordingly.
Hope that helps.
You need to use SelectMany or join depending on weather you are using linq-to-sql or linq with local collections. If you are using local collections the better way is to use join, else use SelectMany.
Like this...join:
var selection = (from s in SupplierList
join o in s.childholders on s.userid equals o.userid
select new { username = o.username);
or, in case of linq-to-sql:
var selection = (from s in SupplierList
from o in s.childholders
select { username = o.username);
You can then use the anonymous type you projected the way you want.
I agree with Jon, but you could say:
var orders = (from s in supplier
from o in s.childorders
select new
{
Order = o,
User = _users.First(p => p.userid == o.userid)
}).ToList();
foreach(var order in orders) {
order.Order.username = order.User.username;
}
Untested of course :)
If users list contains many elements, it can be really slow so I'd use a temporary dictionary:
var userById = users.GroupBy(x => x.userid)
.ToDictionary(x => x.Key, x => x.First());
foreach(var order in supplier.SelectMany(x => x.childorders))
{
order.username = userById[order.userid].username;
}