I know that we can use the Contains method in generating a where clause in a linq query like this:
List<long> objectIDs = new List<long>() { 1, 1, 2 };
var objects = dbcontext.Where(o => objectIDs.Contains(o.ID))
.Select(o => o).ToList();
My question is, how will I be able to select the matching object twice if the ID occurs twice in the where condition?
It sounds like you want to select a separate copy of the object for each match.
Select() can only return exactly one object; you need SelectMany():
list.SelectMany(p => Enumerable.Repeat(p, objectIDs.Count(id => id == p.ID)))
You could also do this faster using a join.
Related
I have a linq query which seems to be reversing one column of several in some rows of an earlier query:
var dataSet = from fb in ds.Feedback_Answers
where fb.Feedback_Questions.Feedback_Questionnaires.QuestionnaireID == criteriaType
&& fb.UpdatedDate >= dateFeedbackFrom && fb.UpdatedDate <= dateFeedbackTo
select new
{
fb.Feedback_Questions.Feedback_Questionnaires.QuestionnaireID,
fb.QuestionID,
fb.Feedback_Questions.Text,
fb.Answer,
fb.UpdatedBy
};
Gets the first dataset and is confirmed working.
This is then grouped like this:
var groupedSet = from row in dataSet
group row by row.UpdatedBy
into grp
select new
{
Survey = grp.Key,
QuestionID = grp.Select(i => i.QuestionID),
Question = grp.Select(q => q.Text),
Answer = grp.Select(a => a.Answer)
};
While grouping, the resulting returnset (of type: string, list int, list string, list int) sometimes, but not always, turns the question order back to front, without inverting answer or questionID, which throws it off.
i.e. if the set is questionID 1,2,3 and question A,B,C it sometimes returns 1,2,3 and C,B,A
Can anyone advise why it may be doing this? Why only on the one column? Thanks!
edit: Got it thanks all! In case it helps anyone in future, here is the solution used:
var groupedSet = from row in dataSet
group row by row.UpdatedBy
into grp
select new
{
Survey = grp.Key,
QuestionID = grp.OrderBy(x=>x.QuestionID).Select(i => i.QuestionID),
Question = grp.OrderBy(x=>x.QuestionID).Select(q => q.Text),
Answer = grp.OrderBy(x=>x.QuestionID).Select(a => a.Answer)
};
Reversal of a grouped order is a coincidence: IQueryable<T>'s GroupBy returns groups in no particular order. Unlike in-memory GroupBy, which specifies the order of its groups, queries performed in RDBMS depend on implementation:
The query behavior that occurs as a result of executing an expression tree that represents calling GroupBy<TSource,TKey,TElement>(IQueryable<TSource>, Expression<Func<TSource,TKey>>, Expression<Func<TSource,TElement>>) depends on the implementation of the type of the source parameter.`
If you would like to have your rows in a specific order, you need to add OrderBy to your query to force it.
How I do it and maintain the relative list order, rather than apply an order to the resulting set?
One approach is to apply grouping to your data after bringing it into memory. Apply ToList() to dataSet at the end to bring data into memory. After that, the order of subsequent GrouBy query will be consistent with dataSet. A drawback is that the grouping is no longer done in RDBMS.
How do I convert this code to a Lambda expression when there are two columns to select at the same time?
LINQ
var lq=(from a in tbl
group a by 0 into b
select new { intYear = b.Min(p => p.intYear), tintMonth = b.Max(p => p.tintMonth) }
).SingleOrDefault();
T-SQL
SELECT MIN(intYear), MAX(tintMonth)
FROM tbl
Lambda Expression
tbl.Select(x => x.intYear).Min(); //Can't figure how to select if 2 columns
If you're intent on returning a "row" rather than two values, you can group all the rows together as you do in the first LINQ expression:
tbl.GroupBy(t => 1)
.Select(g => new { intYear = g.Min(p => p.intYear), tintMonth = g.Max(p => p.tintMonth) })
Note, I assume this is for LINQ-to-SQL. For plain old objects, this would most likely result in three iterations through the collection. One to do the grouping, one for the Min(), and one for Max(). For large collections, you would be be better off looping once and doing it the good-ol'-fashioned way with a single foreach over the collection.
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.
What I have is a string of comma separated IDs that I'm receiving from a query string (e.g. 23,51,6,87,29). Alternately, that string could just say "all".
In my Linq query I need a way to say (in pseudo code):
from l in List<>
where l.Id = all_of_the_ids_in_csv
&& other conditions
select new {...}
I'm just not sure how to go about doing that. I'm not even sure what to google to get me going in the right direction. Any pointing in the right direction would be extremely helpful.
I would suggest to split your query in 2 - first part will select by ID, and the select one will select other conditions.
First of all: check if query string contains numbers, or is just all:
var IEnumerable<ListItemType> query = sourceList;
if(queryStringValue != "All")
{
var ids = queryStringValue.Split(new[] { ',' })
.Select(x => int.Parse(x)) // remove that line id item.Id is a string
.ToArray();
query = query.Where(item => ids.Contains(item.Id));
}
from l in query
// other conditions
select new {...}
Because LINQ queries have deffered execution you can build queries like that without performance drawback. Query won't be executed until you ask for results (by ToList call or enumeration).
If you really want it with just one LINQ query:
var idArray = all_of_the_ids_in_csv.Split(',');
from l in List<>
where (all_of_the_ids_in_csv == "All" || idArray.Contains(l.Id))
&& other conditions
select new {...}
The trick is using string.Split
var ids = string.split(rawIdString, ",").ToList();
var objects = ids.Where(id=> /*filter id here */).Select(id=>new { /* id will be the single id from the csv */ });
// at this point objects will be an IEnumerable<T> where T is whatever type you created in the new statement above
i have some Linq to Entity code like so:
var tablearows = Context.TableB.Include("TableA").Where(c => c.TableBID == 1).Select(c => c.TableA).ToList();
So i'm returning the results of TableA with TableB.TableBID = 1
That's all good
Now how can I sort TableA by one of its column? There is a many to many relation ship between the two tables
I tried various ways with no look, for example
var tablearows = Context.TableB.Include("TableA").Where(c => c.TableBID == 1).Select(c => c.TableA).OrderBy(p => p.ColumnToSort).ToList();
In the above case when i type "p." i don't have access to the columns from TableA, presumably because it's a collection of TableA objects, not a single row
How about using SelectMany instead of Select :
var tablearows = Context.TableB.Include("TableB")
.Where(c => c.TableBID == 1)
.SelectMany(c => c.TableA)
.OrderBy(p => p.ColumnToSort)
.ToList();
EDIT :
The expression below returns collection of TableAs -every element of the collection is an instance of TableA collection not TableA instance- (that's why you can't get the properties of the TableA) :
var tablearows = Context.TableB.Include("TableB")
.Where(c => c.TableBID == 1)
.Select(c => c.TableA);
If we turn the Select to SelectMany, we get the result as one concatenated collection that includes elements :
var tablearows = Context.TableB.Include("TableB")
.Where(c => c.TableBID == 1)
.SelectMany(c => c.TableA);
Okay, so now I've taken on board that there's a many to many relationship, I think Canavar is right - you want a SelectMany.
Again, that's easier to see in a query expression:
var tableARows = from rowB in Context.TableB.Include("TableA")
where rowB.TableBID == 1
from rowA in rowB.TableA
orderby rowA.ColumnToSort
select rowA;
The reason it didn't work is that you've got a different result type. Previously, you were getting a type like:
List<EntitySet<TableA>>
(I don't know the exact type as I'm not a LINQ to Entities guy, but it would be something like that.)
Now we've flattened all those TableA rows into a single list:
List<TableA>
Now you can't order a sequence of sets by a single column within a row - but you can order a sequence of rows by a column. So basically your intuition in the question was right when you said "presumably because it's a collection of TableA objects, not a single row" - but it wasn't quite clear what you mean by "it".
Now, is that flattening actually appropriate for you? It means you no longer know which B contributed any particular A. Is there only actually one B involved here, so it doesn't matter? If so, there's another option which may even perform better (I really don't know, but you might like to look at the SQL generated in each case and profile it):
var tableARows = Context.TableB.Include("TableA")
.Where(b => b.TableBID == 1)
.Single()
.TableA.OrderBy(a => a.ColumnToSort)
.ToList();
Note that this will fail (or at least would in LINQ to Objects; I don't know exactly what will happen in entities) if there isn't a row in table B with an ID of 1. Basically it selects the single row, then selects all As associated with that row, and orders them.