I have two database tables Contact (Id, Name, ...) and ContactOperationalPlaces (ContactId, MunicipalityId), where a contact can be connected to several ContactOperationalPlaces.
What I'm trying to do is to build a query (ASP .NET, C#) with IQueryable, that only selects all the contacts that exists in the ContactOperationalPlaces table, with a given MunicipalityId.
The sql query looks like this:
select * from Contacts c
right join ContactOperationPlaces cop on c.Id = cop.ContactId
where cop.MunicipalityId = 301;
With linq it would look something like this:
//_ctx is the context
var tmp = (from c in _ctx.Contacts
join cop in _ctx.ContactOperationPlaces on c.Id equals cop.ContactId
where cop.MunicipalityId == 301
select c);
So, I know how to do this if the point was to select all of this at once, unfortunately it's not. I'm building a query based on user input, so I don't know all of the selection at once.
So this is what my code looks like:
IQueryable<Contacts> query = (from c in _ctx.Contacts select c);
//Some other logic....
/*Gets a partial name (string nameStr), and filters the contacts
so that only those with a match on names are selected*/
query = query.Where(c => c.Name.Contains(nameStr);
//Some more logic
//Gets the municipalityId and wants to filter on it! :( how to?
query = query.where(c => c.ContactOperationalPlaces ...........?);
The difference with the two where statements is that with the first one, each contact has only one name, but with the latter a contact can contain several operational places...
I have managed to find one solution, but this solution gives me an unidentyfied object, that contains both of the tables. And I don't know how to proceed with it.
query.Join(_ctx.ContactOperationPlaces, c => c.Id, cop => cop.ContactId,
(c, cop) => new {c, cop}).Where(o => o.cop.municipalityId == 301);
The object returned from this expression is System.Linq.Iqueryable<{c:Contact, cop:ContactOperationalPlace}>, and it can't be cast to Contacts...
So, that's the issue. The answer is probably pretty simple, but I just can't find it...
You create an anonymous type with both objects before your where clause and filter it on ContactOperationPlaces value. You just have to select the Contact after that.
query.Join(_ctx.ContactOperationPlaces, c => c.Id, cop => cop.ContactId,
(c, cop) => new {c, cop}).Where(o => o.cop.municipalityId == 301)
.Select(o => o.c)
.Distinct();
You don't need to return new objects in the result selector function. The delegate provides both variables so you can choose one or the other, or some other variation (which would require a new object). Try this:
query.Join(_ctx.ContactOperationPlaces, c => c.Id, cop => cop.ContactId,
(c, cop) => c).Where(o => o.cop.municipalityId == 301);
can you just cast it to var and try to use intellisense on it?
var myCast = query.Join(_ctx.ContactOperationPlaces, c => c.Id, cop => cop.ContactId,
(c, cop) => new {c, cop}).Where(o => o.cop.municipalityId == 301);
Just a thought
I think it would be much easier if you start this as 2 different queries, then combine them. I'm assuming the relation is Contact (1 <-> many) Contactoperationplaces ? And in the end, you will be showing 1 item per Contactoperationplaces, not 1 item per Contact?
Do it like this:
IQueryable<Contacts> query = (from c in _ctx.Contacts select c);
...
query = query.Where(x=> x.Name.ToLower().Contains(nameStr.ToLower());
...
IQueryable<ContactOperationPlaces> query_2 =
(from c in _ctx.ContactOperationPlaces
where query.Where(x=> x.Name == c.Contact.Name).Count() > 0
select c);
//Now query_2 contains all contactoperationsplaces which have a contact that was found in var query
Conversely, there is a much easier way to do this, and that's by skipping the first part entirely.
IQueryable<ContactOperationPlaces> query_2 =
(from c in _ctx.ContactOperationPlaces
where c.Contact.Name.ToLower().Contains(strName.ToLower())
select c);
If you're using Entity Framework, you don't have to do any joins as long as you defined associations between the tables.
Now that I look at it, my second solution is far more efficient and easier. But if you need to do some other processing inbetween these commands, solution one works too :)
If you need more explanation, feel free to ask :)
Related
I have two tables - "Customer" table and "Blacklist" customer table. When I blacklist a customer, I put the customerid as a foreign key to Blacklist table.
What I want is to get CusId and Name that are not in the BlackList Table.
How can I code this Entity Framework C#?
Customer
---------
(CusId,Name,Telephone,Email)
Blacklist
---------
(CusId)
What you want is something like the following:
db.Customers
.Where(c => !db.Blacklists
.Select(b => b.CusId)
.Contains(c.CusId)
);
EF will happily turn that into a sub-query that will run quite well.
This pattern works for static lists (creates an IN(a, b, c) expression) as well as other tables. You can use it to check for being in the list or not in the list.
If you want to test it and see the SQL it generates, I strongly recommend LINQPad (it is free). That's what I use to test out little ideas in LINQ all the time.
How about something like this:
var subselect = (from b in BlackList select b.CusId).ToList();
var result = from c in Customer where !subselect.Contains(c.CusId) select c;
Any() is the best performance :
db.Customers.Where(c => !db.Blacklists.Any(b => b.CusId == c.Id));
If you also need columns of Blacklists , use join with condition : b.CusId == c.Id
IF in table BlackList yo have a List of Customer You can perform something like
IEnumerable<Customer> model = (from c in db.Customer
from b in c.BlackList.DefaultIfEmpty()
where b.CusID== null
select new Customer
{
CusId= c.OrderID
}).ToList();
This query I used and it works perfectly:
var query = _context.Customer.Where(x => x.Id == id && !x.BlackList.Any(z => x.Id == x.CustId)).ToList();
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.
I'm newbie to linq to sql, just trying to understand what type of queries I can handle with linq.
Here is my database scheme,
I want to get all customers of a specific user and this is what I've done,
var userId = 4;
var companies = from c in db.Company
where c.UserId == userId
select c.Id;
var costumers = from c in db.Customers
where companies.Contains(c.CompanyId)
select c;
I'm just wondering whether it's a nice approach and is there any better method to handle this type of queries?
Use can also get customers by this way also:
var result = db.Customers.Join(
db.Company, customer => customer.CompanyId, comp => comp.Id, (customer, comp)
=> new { customer, comp }).Where(#t => #t.comp.UserId == 4)
.Select(#t => #t.customer);
You can also keep it simple like this.
select * from db.Customers Cus
inner join db.company Com on Com.Id = Cus.CompanyId
where Com.UserId= userId
Contains is the equivalent of IN in SQL and your Linq statement will be translated to a SQL statement. So I can't really see another way that will give you better performance with Linq. If you want to use less code you can maybe try the following instead:
var companies = db.Companies.Where(x=> x.UserId == userid).Select(x=>x.Id);
var customers = db.Customers.Where(x=> companies.Contains(x.CompanyId));
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;
}
var query =context.Categories.Include("ChildHierarchy")
.Where(c =>
context.CategoryHierarchy.Where(ch => ch.ParentCategoryID == ch.ParentCategoryID)
.Select(ch => ch.ChildCategoryID).Contains(c.CategoryID));
Questions:
I need to include some data from another Navigation Propery (".Include("otherprop")")
Is it possible to do a select new after all of this?
Thanks
The title to your question intrigued me with the words "Crazy Query", and yes, you're right, it is a bit crazy.
You have a .Where(...) clause with the following predicate:
ch => ch.ParentCategoryID == ch.ParentCategoryID
Now that's going to always be true. So I guess that you're trying to do something else. I'll have a crack at what that might be at the end of my answer.
I then did some cleaning up of your query to get a better idea of what you're doing. This is what it now looks like:
var query =
context
.Categories
.Where(c => context
.CategoryHierarchy
.Select(ch => ch.ChildCategoryID)
.Contains(c.CategoryID));
So rather than use nested queries I would suggest something like this might be better in terms of readability and possibly performance:
var query =
from c in context.Categories
join h in context.CategoryHierarchy
on c.CategoryID equals h.ChildCategoryID into ghs
where ghs.Any()
select c;
This gives the same results as your query so hopefully this is helpful.
I do get the impression that you're trying to do a query where you want to return each Category along with any child categories it may have. If that's the case here are the queries you need:
var lookup =
(from c in context.Categories
join h in context.CategoryHierarchy
on c.CategoryID equals h.ChildCategoryID
select new { ParentCategoryID = h.ParentCategoryID, Category = c, }
).ToLookup(x => x.ParentCategoryID, x => x.Category);
var query =
from c in context.Categories
select new { Category = c, Children = lookup[c.CategoryID], };
The lookup query first makes a join on categories and the category hierarchies to return all children categories and their associated ParentCategoryID and then it creates a lookup from ParentCategoryID to a list of associated Category children.
The query now just has to select all categories and perform a lookup on the CategoryID to get the children.
The advantage of using the .ToLookup(...) approach is that it easily allows you to include categories that don't have children. Unlike using a Dictionary<,> the lookup does not throw an exception when you use a key that it hasn't got a value for - instead it returns an empty list.
Now, you can add back in the .Include(...) calls too.
var lookup =
(from c in context.Categories
.Include("ChildHierarchy")
.Include("otherprop")
join h in context.CategoryHierarchy
on c.CategoryID equals h.ChildCategoryID
select new { ParentCategoryID = h.ParentCategoryID, Category = c, }
).ToLookup(x => x.ParentCategoryID, x => x.Category);
var query =
from c in context.Categories
.Include("ChildHierarchy")
.Include("otherprop")
select new { Category = c, Children = lookup[c.CategoryID], };
Is that what you're after?
1) Then add it - context.Categories.Include("ChildHierarchy").Include("OtherCollection");
2) Absolutely, yes
var query = context.Categories
.Include("ChildHierarchy")
.Include("OtherProp")
.Where(c => context.CategoryHierarchy.Where(ch => ch.ParentCategoryID == ch.ParentCategoryID)
.Select(ch => ch.ChildCategoryID).Contains(c.CategoryID))
.Select(c => new { c.A, c.B, c.etc });