I have two IEnumerables:
IEnumerable<ThisEmployee> thisEmployees;
IEnumerable<ThatEmployee> thatEmployees;
They are populated from 2 separate contexts. ThisEmployee and ThatEmployee are not matching types. They don't share anything similar apart from an EmployeeNumber property.
I want to get all ThatEmployee.Notes for any employee in thatEmployees that has a matching EmployeeNumber in thisEmployees.
I can't for the life of me work out how.
Your collections come from different contexts so get ids of employees first in linq-to-objects:
var ids = from e1 in thatEmployees
join e2 in thisEmployees on e1.EmployeeNumber equals e2.EmployeeNumber
select e1.Id;
Now use ids to get Notes from the database in single query
var notes = from n in context.Notes
where ids.Contains(n.Employee.Id)
select n;
Since its in two different contexts try using ToList to get all objects. Then using Linq to Objects u can use Where(r => thisEmployees.Any(s => s.EmployeeNumber == r.EmployeeNumber)). Not sure if i understood u correctly :)
How about something like:
var notes = thatEmployees
.Join(thisEmployees,
ta => ta.EmployeeNumber,
ti => ti.EmployeeNumber,
(ta, ti) => ta.Notes)
Related
Here's a quick overview of my relationships:
one Account has many AccountRoles
one AccountRole has many UserAccountRoles
many UserAccountRoles can have one User
What I need to get is a set of all Users for one Account.
How can I do this in LINQ?
Edit:
Here's what I've tried so far:
var dto = _context.Set<Model.Account>()
.Find(account.Id);
if (dto == null)
return null;
var userAccountRoleDTOs = dto.AccountRoles
.Select(ar => ar.UserAccountRoles);
var userDTOs = userAccountRoleDTOs
.Select(uar => uar.Select(uar2 => uar2.User));
return userDTOs;
userDTOs is a collection of collections at the return. It doesn't make much sense to me.
Since ultimately all you want is a flattened collection for the one user, you should be able to use SelectMany() to flatten the one-to-many relationship and then call Distinct() at the end:
var users = dto.AccountRoles
.SelectMany(ar => ar.UserAccountRoles.Select(uar => uar.User))
.Distinct();
Or, in query form
var users = (from ar in dto.AccountRoles
from uar in ar.UserAccountRoles
select uar.User)
.Distinct();
Or you can go the other way around:
from u in context.Users
where u.UserAccountRoles.Any(uar=>uar.AccountRole.Account.Id == someAccountId)
I think this is kind of a basic question but I'm getting confused. I have two objects, Orders and OrderTags. In the database, Orders has no relation to OrderTags, but OrderTags has a FK relation to Orders.
So I capture both objects in my context like so:
orders = context.Orders;
tags = context.OrderTags.Where(tag=> tag.ID = myID);
Now I want to reduce the orders list to only be equal to the orders that exist in my tags list. Here is my best pseudocode of what I want to do:
orders = orders.Where(every order id exists somewhere in the tags list of order ids)
For clarification, each Tag object has a TagID and an OrderID. So I only want the orders that correspond to the tags I have looked up. Can anyone assist me with the syntax so I can get what I'm looking for?
Using a LINQ query:
var results = (from o in context.Orders
join t in context.Tags on o.OrderId equals t.OrderId
where t.ID == myID
select o ).ToList();
Using LINQ query:
orders = orders.Where(order => tags.Contains(tag => tag.ID == order.OrderID)).ToList();
Using a LINQ query with lambda expressions:
orders.RemoveAll(x => !tags.ConvertAll(y => y.tagId).Contains(x.tagID));
Something like this should work.
orders = orders.Where(o=>tags.Contains(t=>o.ID == t.OrderID));
You could also just perform a join.
I have a sql statement like this:
DECLARE #destinations table(destinationId int)
INSERT INTO #destinations
VALUES (414),(416)
SELECT *
FROM GroupOrder grp (NOLOCK)
JOIN DestinationGroupItem destItem (NOLOCK)
ON destItem.GroupOrderId = grp.GroupOrderId
JOIN #destinations dests
ON destItem.DestinationId = dests.destinationId
WHERE OrderId = 5662
I am using entity framework and I am having a hard time getting this query into Linq. (The only reason I wrote the query above was to help me conceptualize what I was looking for.)
I have an IQueryable of GroupOrder entities and a List of integers that are my destinations.
After looking at this I realize that I can probably just do two joins (like my SQL query) and get to what I want.
But it seems a bit odd to do that because a GroupOrder object already has a list of DestinationGroupItem objects on it.
I am a bit confused how to use the Navigation property on the GroupOrder when I have an IQueryable listing of GroupOrders.
Also, if possible, I would like to do this in one trip to the database. (I think I could do a few foreach loops to get this done, but it would not be as efficient as a single IQueryable run to the database.)
NOTE: I prefer fluent linq syntax over the query linq syntax. But beggars can't be choosers so I will take whatever I can get.
If you already have the DestinationGroupItem as a Navigation-property, then you already have your SQL-JOIN equivalent - example. Load the related entities with Include. Use List's Contains extension method to see if the desired DestinationId(s) is(are) hit:
var destinations = new List<int> { 414, 416 };
var query = from order in GroupOrder.Include(o => o.DestinationGroupItem) // this is the join via the navigation property
where order.OrderId == 5662 && destinations.Contain(order.DestinationGroupItem.DestinationId)
select order;
// OR
var query = dataContext.GroupOrder
.Include(o => o.DestinationGroupItem)
.Where(order => order.OrderId == 5662 && destinations.Contain(order.DestinationGroupItem.DestinationId));
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.
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.