Develop Reference

Self join in LINQ

SELECT
FW1.id, count(*)
FROM
firmware FW1
LEFT JOIN
firmware FW2 ON FW1.firmware_group_id = FW2.firmware_group_id
AND FW1.br_date < FW2.br_date
AND FW2.[public]= '1'
GROUP BY
FW1.id
I am looking to convert into linq query. As I know less than symbol cannot be converted into Linq query. Please suggest how to do it. I have a string date and I need to compare into linq.

As you said, Linq does not support other types of join outside of EquiJoin. Docs is pretty clear on what you can do to bypass this:
you could use a simple cross join (a cartesian product), then applying in the where clause the conditions for your non-equijoin.
Or you could use a temporary variable to store a new table with only the attributes you need for your query and, like before, applying the conditions in the where clause.
In your case, a possible Linq query could be this one:
from f1 in firmwares
from f2 in firmwares
let f1_date = DateTime.Parse(f1.Dt)
let f2_date = DateTime.Parse(f2.Dt)
where f1.Group_Id == f2.Group_Id && f1_date < f2_date
group f1 by f1.Id into fres
select new {
Id = fres.Key,
Count = fres.Count()
};
However I am still thinking how to emulate the LEFT JOIN without casting it to a group join.

Of course the < symbol can be used. Just use method syntax instead of query syntax!
Every FW1 has zero or more FW2s. Every FW2 belongs to exactly one FW1. This one-to-many is implemented using foreign key firmware_group_id.
Apparently you want all FW1s, each with the number of its FW2s, that have a property public with a value equal to 1 and a property br-date larger than the value of the br-date of the FW1.
Whenever you want an item with its many sub-items (using a foreign key), like s School with its Students, a Customer with his Orders, a Book with his Pages, you'll need Enumerable.GroupJoin
var result = FW1.GroupJoin(FW2, // GroupJoin FW1 and FW2
fw1 => fw1.firmware_group_id, // from fw1 take the primary key firmware_group_id
fw2 => fw2.firmware_group_id, // from fw2 take the foreing key firmware_group_id
(fw1, fw2s) => new // from every fw1, with all its matching fw2s
{ // make one new object containing the following properties:
Id = fw1.Id,
// Count the fw2s of this fw1 that have public == 1
// and a date larger than fw1.date
Count = fw2.Where(fw2 => fw2.Public == 1 && fw1.br_date < fw2.br_date)
.Count(),
});
Note:

Linq to get data from a table but not if in another table?

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.

LINQ: Is there a way to combine these queries into one?

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.

grouping and counting in linq-to-sql

I have the following query that receives a list of IDs and I want to do a count. There's also an object model CountModel that holds the counts with each property defined as an int.
public class GetCountByStatus(List<int> TheIDs)
{
...using MyDC...
var CountData = (from d in MyDC.Data
where TheIDs.Contains(d.ID)
group d by d.Status into statusgroup
select new CountModel()
{
CountStatus1 = (from g in statusgroup
where g.Status == 1
select g).Count(),
CountStatus2 = (from g in statusgroup
where g.Status == 2
select g).Count(),
CountStatusN = ....
}).Single();
If for instance there are no elements with status N, will this code crash or will the count be 0 for CountStatusN ? Is this the best way to do what I want?
Thanks.

I would go for a dictionary instead, try something like this:
var countData = MyDC.Data.Where(y => TheIDs.Contains(y.ID))
.GroupBy(y => y.Status).ToDictionary(y => y.Key, y => y.Count());
I haven't tried it my self and not written the code in VS, but I think that is almost how you do can do it. That will give you a dictionary where the key is the status and the value is the count of that status.
Defining a model with properties named SomethingX is not very flexible. That means you have to go in an change the model when there is a new status. Keeping the data in the dictionary instead will save you from that.

Count() will always return an integer, which is 0 if there are no elements with the given status. Therefore CountStatusN will always be an integer as well.

Linking Multiple Tables in LINQ to SQL

I would like to get the list of albums (Distinct) which was sung by the artistId=1
I am very new to LINQ to SQL and do not know how to join multiple tables. Please see the database diagram below:
alt text http://a.imageshack.us/img155/8572/13690801.jpg
SingBy is the middle table between Track and Artist.
How could I achieve this?

var albums = from singer in artist
from sb in singby
from t in track
from a in album
where singer.artistId == 1 &&
sb.artistId == 1 &&
sb.trackId == t.trackId &&
a.albumId == track.albumId
select a;
I'm sure there must be a better way. You should look into creating Navigation Properties on your entities. Navigation Properties are like foreign keys.
Edit - corrected to get albums, not artists.

Now, I wrote the codes like the following and it works.
var albums = (from a in db.artists
where a.artistId == 1
join sb in db.singbies on a equals sb.artist
join t in db.tracks on sb.track equals t
join al in db.albums on t.album equals al
select al).Distinct();
return albums.ToList() as List<album>;
I tested the Chad's version and it works too. I would like to know which way is better and good for query optimization? Thanks all.

If you have all the foreign key relationship defined, you should be able to issue call like below:
dc.GetTable<Album>().Where(a => a.Track.Singby.ArtistId == 1).ToList();
This is relying on Linq to perform lazy load for Track and Singby automatically when required. Obviously this is not optimal to use when you have a large set of data in the db and performance is critical. You can chain the query with GroupBy or Distinct operation to return only the distinct set such as
dc.GetTable<Album>().Where(a => a.Track.Singby.ArtistId == 1).Distinct().ToList();

I would like to get the list of albums
(Distinct) which was sung by the
artistId=1
DBDataContext = new DBDataContext();
album[] = db.artists.Where(a => a.artistId == 1) /* Your artist */
.SelectMany(a => a.singbies) /* Check if `singby` converted to `singbies` */
.Select(sb => sb.track) /* The tracks */
.Select(t => t.album) /* The albums */
.GroupBy(al => al.albumId) /* Group by id */ /* "Distinct" for objects */
.Select(alG => alG.First()) /* Select first of each group */
.ToArray();

IEnumerable<Album> query =
from album in myDC.Albums
let artists =
from track in album.Tracks
from singBy in track.SingBys
select singBy.Artist
where artists.Any(artist => artist.ArtistId == 1)
select album;

List<int> Ids = dc.Albums.Where(a => a.Track.Singby.ArtistId == 1).Select(a=> a.albumId).Distinct().ToList();
List<Album> distinctAlbums = dc.Albums.Where(a => distinctAlbumIds.Contains(a.albumId)).ToList();
Hey TTCG, above is the simplest way to do it. This is because doing a Distinct on a List of objects won't do it based on the albumId.
Either you do it in two steps as above, or, you write your own Album Comparer which specifies uniqueness based on AlbumId and pass it to the Distinct call on a List.
NOTE:
The above will only work if you've defined the constraints in your DBML, but better still in your DB.
For best practices, always define your relationships IN THE DATABASE when using Linq to SQL, as Linq to SQL is not like EF, or NHibernate, in that is does not "abstract" your db, it simply reflects it. It's a tool for Data Driven Design, not Domain Driven, so define the relationships in the db.