I've been searching here and Google, but I'm at a loss. I need to let users search a database for reports using a form. If a field on the form has a value, the app will get any reports with that field set to that value. If a field on a form is left blank, the app will ignore it. How can I do this? Ideally, I'd like to just write Where clauses as Strings and add together those that are not empty.
.Where("Id=1")
I've heard this is supposed to work, but I keep getting an error: "could not be resolved in the current scope of context Make sure all referenced variables are in scope...".
Another approach is to pull all the reports then filter it one where clause at a time. I'm hesitant to do this because 1. that's a huge chunk of data over the network and 2. that's a lot of processing on the user side. I'd like to take advantage of the server's processing capabilities. I've heard that it won't query until it's actually requested. So doing something like this
var qry = ctx.Reports
.Select(r => r);
does not actually run the query until I do:
qry.First()
But if I start doing:
qry = qry.Where(r => r.Id = 1).Select(r => r);
qry = qry.Where(r => r.reportDate = '2010/02/02').Select(r => r);
Would that run the query? Since I'm adding a where clause to it. I'd like a simple solution...in the worst case I'd use the Query Builder things...but I'd rather avoid that (seems complex).
Any advice? :)
Linq delays record fetching until a record must be fetched.
That means stacking Where clauses is only adding AND/OR clauses to the query, but still not executing.
Execution of the generated query will be done in the precise moment you try to get a record (First, Any etc), a list of records(ToList()), or enumerate them (foreach).
.Take(N) is not considered fetching records - but adding a (SELECT TOP N / LIMIT N) to the query
No, this will not run the query, you can structure your query this way, and it is actually preferable if it helps readability. You are taking advantage of lazy evaluation in this case.
The query will only run if you enumerate results from it by using i.e. foreach or you force eager evaluation of the query results, i.e. using .ToList() or otherwise force evaluation, i.e evaluate to a single result using i.e First() or Single().
Try checking out this dynamic Linq dll that was released a few years back - it still works just fine and looks to be exactly what you are looking for.
Related
I am very new to Mongo (this is actually day 1) and using the C# driver that is available for it. One thing that I want to know (as I am not sure how to word it in Google) is how does mongo handle executing queries when I want to grab a part of the collection.
What I mean by this is that I know that with NHibernate and EF Core, the query is first built and it will only fire when you cast it. So say like an IQueryable to IEnnumerable, .ToList(), etc.
Ex:
//Query is fired when I call .ToList, until that point it is just building it
context.GetLinqQuery<MyObject>().Where(x => x.a == 'blah').ToList();
However, with Mongo's examples it appears to me that if I want to grab a filtered result I will first need to get the collection, and then filter it down.
Ex:
var collection = _database.GetCollection<MyObject>("MyObject");
//Empty filter for ease of typing for example purposes
var filter = Builders<MyObject>.Filter.Empty;
var collection.Find(filter).ToList();
Am I missing something here, I do not think I saw any overload in the GetCollection method that will accept a filter. Does this mean that it will first load the whole collection into memory, then filter it? Or will it still be building the query and only execute it once I call either .Find or .ToList on it?
I ask this because at work we have had situations where improper positioning of .ToList() would result is seriously weak performance. Apologies if this is not the right place to ask.
References:
https://docs.mongodb.com/guides/server/read_queries/
The equivalent to your context.GetLinqQuery<MyObject>() would be to use AsQueryable:
collection.AsQueryable().Where(x => x.a == "blah").ToList();
The above query will be executed server side* and is equivalent to:
collection.Find(Builders<MyObject>.Filter.Eq(x => x.a, "blah")).ToEnumerable().ToList();
* The docs state that:
Only LINQ queries that can be translated to an equivalent MongoDB query are supported. If you write a LINQ query that can’t be translated you will get a runtime exception and the error message will indicate which part of the query wasn’t supported.
Our front end UI has a filtering system that, in the back end, operates over millions of rows. It uses a an IQueryable that is built up over the course of the logic, then executed all at once. Each individual UI component is ANDed together (for example, Dropdown1 and Dropdown2 will only return rows that have both of what is selected in common). This is not a problem. However, Dropdown3 has has two types of data in it, and the checked items need to be ORd together, then ANDed with the rest of the query.
Due to the large amount of rows it is operating over, it keeps timing out. Since there are some additional joins that need to happen, it is somewhat tricky. Here is my code, with the table names replaced:
//The end list has driver ids in it--but the data comes from two different places. Build a list of all the driver ids.
driverIds = db.CarDriversManyToManyTable.Where(
cd =>
filter.CarIds.Contains(cd.CarId) && //get driver IDs for each car ID listed in filter object
).Select(cd => cd.DriverId).Distinct().ToList();
driverIds = driverIds.Concat(
db.DriverShopManyToManyTable.Where(ds => filter.ShopIds.Contains(ds.ShopId)) //Get driver IDs for each Shop listed in filter object
.Select(ds => ds.DriverId)
.Distinct()).Distinct().ToList();
//Now we have a list solely of driver IDs
//The query operates over the Driver table. The query is built up like this for each item in the UI. Changing from Linq is not an option.
query = query.Where(d => driverIds.Contains(d.Id));
How can I streamline this query so that I don't have to retrieve thousands and thousands of IDs into memory, then feed them back into SQL?
There are several ways to produce a single SQL query. All they require to keep the parts of the query of type IQueryable<T>, i.e. do not use ToList, ToArray, AsEnumerable etc. methods that force them to be executed and evaluated in memory.
One way is to create Union query containing the filtered Ids (which will be unique by definition) and use join operator to apply it on the main query:
var driverIdFilter1 = db.CarDriversManyToManyTable
.Where(cd => filter.CarIds.Contains(cd.CarId))
.Select(cd => cd.DriverId);
var driverIdFilter2 = db.DriverShopManyToManyTable
.Where(ds => filter.ShopIds.Contains(ds.ShopId))
.Select(ds => ds.DriverId);
var driverIdFilter = driverIdFilter1.Union(driverIdFilter2);
query = query.Join(driverIdFilter, d => d.Id, id => id, (d, id) => d);
Another way could be using two OR-ed Any based conditions, which would translate to EXISTS(...) OR EXISTS(...) SQL query filter:
query = query.Where(d =>
db.CarDriversManyToManyTable.Any(cd => d.Id == cd.DriverId && filter.CarIds.Contains(cd.CarId))
||
db.DriverShopManyToManyTable.Any(ds => d.Id == ds.DriverId && filter.ShopIds.Contains(ds.ShopId))
);
You could try and see which one performs better.
The answer to this question is complex and has many facets that, individually, may or may not help in your particular case.
First of all, consider using pagination. .Skip(PageNum * PageSize).Take(PageSize) I doubt your user needs to see millions of rows at once in the front end. Show them only 100, or whatever other smaller number seems reasonable to you.
You've mentioned that you need to use joins to get the data you need. These joins can be done while forming your IQueryable (entity framework), rather than in-memory (linq to objects). Read up on join syntax in linq.
HOWEVER - performing explicit joins in LINQ is not the best practice, especially if you are designing the database yourself. If you are doing database first generation of your entities, consider placing foreign-key constraints on your tables. This will allow database-first entity generation to pick those up and provide you with Navigation Properties which will greatly simplify your code.
If you do not have any control or influence over the database design, however, then I recommend you construct your query in SQL first to see how it performs. Optimize it there until you get the desired performance, and then translate it into an entity framework linq query that uses explicit joins as a last resort.
To speed such queries up, you will likely need to perform indexing on all of the "key" columns that you are joining on. The best way to figure out what indexes you need to improve performance, take the SQL query generated by your EF linq and bring it on over to SQL Server Management Studio. From there, update the generated SQL to provide some predefined values for your #p parameters just to make an example. Once you've done this, right click on the query and either use display estimated execution plan or include actual execution plan. If indexing can improve your query performance, there is a pretty good chance that this feature will tell you about it and even provide you with scripts to create the indexes you need.
It looks to me that using the instance versions of the LINQ extensions is creating several collections before you're done. using the from statement versions should cut that down quite a bit:
driveIds = (from var record in db.CarDriversManyToManyTable
where filter.CarIds.Contains(record.CarId)
select record.DriverId).Concat
(from var record in db.DriverShopManyToManyTable
where filter.ShopIds.Contains(record.ShopId)
select record.DriverId).Distinct()
Also using the groupby extension would give better performance than querying each driver Id.
I have a Linq query that reads from a SQL table and 1 of the fields it returns are from a custom function (in C#).
Something like:
var q = from my in MyTable
select new
{
ID = my.ID,
Amount = GetAmount(ID)
};
If I do a q.Dump() in LinqPad, it shows the results, which tells me that it runs the custom function without trying to send it to SQL.
Now I want to union this to another query, with:
var q1 = (from p in AnotherQuery.Union(q)...
and the I get the error that Method has no supported translation to SQL.
So, my logic tells me that I need to dump q in memory and then try to union to that. I've tried doing that with ToList() and creating a secondary query that populates itself from the List, but that leads to a long list of different errors. Am I on the right track, by trying to get q in memory and union on that, or are there better ways of doing this?
You can't use any custom functions in a LINQ query that gets translated - only the functions supported by the given LINQ provider. If you want your query to happen on the server, you need to stick with the supported functions (even if it sometimes means having to inline code that would otherwise be reused).
The difference between your two queries boils down to when (and where) the projection happens. In your first case, the data from MyTable is returned from the DB - in your sample, just the ID. Then, the projection happens on top of this - the GetAmount method is called in your application for each of ID.
On the other hand, there's no such way for this to happen in your second query, since you're not using GetAmount in the final projection.
You either need to replace the custom function with inlined query the provider understands, or refactor all your queries to use the supported functions in addition with whatever you need to do in-memory. There's no point in giving you any sample code, since it depends entirely on your actual query, and what you're really trying to query for.
I have a simple count query using LINQ and EF:
var count = (from I in db.mytable
where xyz
select I).Count();
the code above shows the query being locked in the database.
while the execute sql executes right away:
var count = db.SqlQuery<int>("select count(*) from mytable where xyz").FirstOrDefault();
the code above returns immediately.
I few have suggested to remove the .ToList() which I did and not difference. One thing is that this only happens on the PROD server. The QA server executes pretty fast as expected. But the prod server shows that it gets suspended. I suspect this could be a data storage limitation or server related. But wanted to make sure I am not doing something stupid in the code.
UPDATE:
One thing I noticed is the first time it execute is takes longer the first time. When I set next statement to run it again, it executes immediately. Is there a compile of the query the first time?
Because you are calling ToList in the first query and that causes fetching all records from DB and do the counting in memory. Instead of ToList you can just call Count() to get the same behaviour:
var count = (from I in db.mytable
where xyz
select I).Count();
You must not call .ToList() method, because you start retrieve all objects from database.
Just call .Count()
var count = (from I in db.mytable
where xyz
select I).Count();
Count can take a predicate. I'm not sure if it will speed up your code any but you can write the count as such.
var count = db.mytable.Count(x => predicate);
Where predicate is whatever you are testing for in your where clause.
Simple fiddling in LINQPad shows that this will generate similar, if not exactly the same, SQL as above. This is about the simplest way, in terseness of code, that I know how to do it.
If you need much higher speeds than what EF provides, yet stay in the confines of EF without using inline SQL you could make a stored procedure and call it from EF.
I'm in the midst of trying to replace a the Criteria queries I'm using for a multi-field search page with LINQ queries using the new LINQ provider. However, I'm running into a problem getting record counts so that I can implement paging. I'm trying to achieve a result
equivalent to that produced by a CountDistinct projection from the Criteria API using LINQ. Is there a way to do this?
The Distinct() method provided by LINQ doesn't seem to behave the way I would expect, and appending ".Distinct().Count()" to the end of a LINQ query grouped by the field I want a distinct count of (an integer ID column) seems to return a non-distinct count of those values.
I can provide the code I'm using if needed, but since there are so many fields, it's
pretty long, so I didn't want to crowd the post if it wasn't needed.
Thanks!
I figured out a way to do this, though it may not be optimal in all situations. Just doing a .Distinct() on the LINQ query does, in fact, produce a "distinct" in the resulting SQL query when used without .Count(). If I cause the query to be enumerated by using .Distinct().ToList() and then use the .Count() method on the resulting in-memory collection, I get the result I want.
This is not exactly equivalent to what I was originally doing with the Criteria query, since the counting is actually being done in the application code, and the entire list of IDs must be sent from the DB to the application. In my case, though, given the small number of distinct IDs, I think it will work, and won't be too much of a performance bottleneck.
I do hope, however, that a true CountDistinct() LINQ operation will be implemented in the future.
You could try selecting the column you want a distinct count of first. It would look something like: Select(p => p.id).Distinct().Count(). As it stands, you're distincting the entire object, which will compare the reference of the object and not the actual values.