Develop Reference

Force Entity Framework 6.1 to use exists instead of populating entire child object graph [duplicate]

What is the difference between returning IQueryable<T> vs. IEnumerable<T>, when should one be preferred over the other?
IQueryable<Customer> custs = from c in db.Customers
where c.City == "<City>"
select c;
IEnumerable<Customer> custs = from c in db.Customers
where c.City == "<City>"
select c;
Will both be deferred execution and when should one be preferred over the other?

Yes, both will give you deferred execution.
The difference is that IQueryable<T> is the interface that allows LINQ-to-SQL (LINQ.-to-anything really) to work. So if you further refine your query on an IQueryable<T>, that query will be executed in the database, if possible.
For the IEnumerable<T> case, it will be LINQ-to-object, meaning that all objects matching the original query will have to be loaded into memory from the database.
In code:
IQueryable<Customer> custs = ...;
// Later on...
var goldCustomers = custs.Where(c => c.IsGold);
That code will execute SQL to only select gold customers. The following code, on the other hand, will execute the original query in the database, then filtering out the non-gold customers in the memory:
IEnumerable<Customer> custs = ...;
// Later on...
var goldCustomers = custs.Where(c => c.IsGold);
This is quite an important difference, and working on IQueryable<T> can in many cases save you from returning too many rows from the database. Another prime example is doing paging: If you use Take and Skip on IQueryable, you will only get the number of rows requested; doing that on an IEnumerable<T> will cause all of your rows to be loaded in memory.

The top answer is good but it doesn't mention expression trees which explain "how" the two interfaces differ. Basically, there are two identical sets of LINQ extensions. Where(), Sum(), Count(), FirstOrDefault(), etc all have two versions: one that accepts functions and one that accepts expressions.
The IEnumerable version signature is: Where(Func<Customer, bool> predicate)
The IQueryable version signature is: Where(Expression<Func<Customer, bool>> predicate)
You've probably been using both of those without realizing it because both are called using identical syntax:
e.g. Where(x => x.City == "<City>") works on both IEnumerable and IQueryable
When using Where() on an IEnumerable collection, the compiler passes a compiled function to Where()
When using Where() on an IQueryable collection, the compiler passes an expression tree to Where(). An expression tree is like the reflection system but for code. The compiler converts your code into a data structure that describes what your code does in a format that's easily digestible.
Why bother with this expression tree thing? I just want Where() to filter my data.
The main reason is that both the EF and Linq2SQL ORMs can convert expression trees directly into SQL where your code will execute much faster.
Oh, that sounds like a free performance boost, should I use AsQueryable() all over the place in that case?
No, IQueryable is only useful if the underlying data provider can do something with it. Converting something like a regular List to IQueryable will not give you any benefit.

Yes, both use deferred execution. Let's illustrate the difference using the SQL Server profiler....
When we run the following code:
MarketDevEntities db = new MarketDevEntities();
IEnumerable<WebLog> first = db.WebLogs;
var second = first.Where(c => c.DurationSeconds > 10);
var third = second.Where(c => c.WebLogID > 100);
var result = third.Where(c => c.EmailAddress.Length > 11);
Console.Write(result.First().UserName);
In SQL Server profiler we find a command equal to:
"SELECT * FROM [dbo].[WebLog]"
It approximately takes 90 seconds to run that block of code against a WebLog table which has 1 million records.
So, all table records are loaded into memory as objects, and then with each .Where() it will be another filter in memory against these objects.
When we use IQueryable instead of IEnumerable in the above example (second line):
In SQL Server profiler we find a command equal to:
"SELECT TOP 1 * FROM [dbo].[WebLog] WHERE [DurationSeconds] > 10 AND [WebLogID] > 100 AND LEN([EmailAddress]) > 11"
It approximately takes four seconds to run this block of code using IQueryable.
IQueryable has a property called Expression which stores a tree expression which starts being created when we used the result in our example (which is called deferred execution), and at the end this expression will be converted to an SQL query to run on the database engine.

Both will give you deferred execution, yes.
As for which is preferred over the other, it depends on what your underlying datasource is.
Returning an IEnumerable will automatically force the runtime to use LINQ to Objects to query your collection.
Returning an IQueryable (which implements IEnumerable, by the way) provides the extra functionality to translate your query into something that might perform better on the underlying source (LINQ to SQL, LINQ to XML, etc.).

A lot has been said previously, but back to the roots, in a more technical way:
IEnumerable is a collection of objects in memory that you can enumerate - an in-memory sequence that makes it possible to iterate through (makes it way easy for within foreach loop, though you can go with IEnumerator only). They reside in the memory as is.
IQueryable is an expression tree that will get translated into something else at some point with ability to enumerate over the final outcome. I guess this is what confuses most people.
They obviously have different connotations.
IQueryable represents an expression tree (a query, simply) that will be translated to something else by the underlying query provider as soon as release APIs are called, like LINQ aggregate functions (Sum, Count, etc.) or ToList[Array, Dictionary,...]. And IQueryable objects also implement IEnumerable, IEnumerable<T> so that if they represent a query the result of that query could be iterated. It means IQueryable don't have to be queries only. The right term is they are expression trees.
Now how those expressions are executed and what they turn to is all up to so called query providers (expression executors we can think them of).
In the Entity Framework world (which is that mystical underlying data source provider, or the query provider) IQueryable expressions are translated into native T-SQL queries. Nhibernate does similar things with them. You can write your own one following the concepts pretty well described in LINQ: Building an IQueryable Provider link, for example, and you might want to have a custom querying API for your product store provider service.
So basically, IQueryable objects are getting constructed all the way long until we explicitly release them and tell the system to rewrite them into SQL or whatever and send down the execution chain for onward processing.
As if to deferred execution it's a LINQ feature to hold up the expression tree scheme in the memory and send it into the execution only on demand, whenever certain APIs are called against the sequence (the same Count, ToList, etc.).
The proper usage of both heavily depends on the tasks you're facing for the specific case. For the well-known repository pattern I personally opt for returning IList, that is IEnumerable over Lists (indexers and the like). So it is my advice to use IQueryable only within repositories and IEnumerable anywhere else in the code. Not saying about the testability concerns that IQueryable breaks down and ruins the separation of concerns principle. If you return an expression from within repositories consumers may play with the persistence layer as they would wish.
A little addition to the mess :) (from a discussion in the comments))
None of them are objects in memory since they're not real types per se, they're markers of a type - if you want to go that deep. But it makes sense (and that's why even MSDN put it this way) to think of IEnumerables as in-memory collections whereas IQueryables as expression trees. The point is that the IQueryable interface inherits the IEnumerable interface so that if it represents a query, the results of that query can be enumerated. Enumeration causes the expression tree associated with an IQueryable object to be executed.
So, in fact, you can't really call any IEnumerable member without having the object in the memory. It will get in there if you do, anyways, if it's not empty. IQueryables are just queries, not the data.

In general terms I would recommend the following:
Return IQueryable<T> if you want to enable the developer using your method to refine the query you return before executing.
Return IEnumerable if you want to transport a set of Objects to enumerate over.
Imagine an IQueryable as that what it is - a "query" for data (which you can refine if you want to). An IEnumerable is a set of objects (which has already been received or was created) over which you can enumerate.

In general you want to preserve the original static type of the query until it matters.
For this reason, you can define your variable as 'var' instead of either IQueryable<> or IEnumerable<> and you will know that you are not changing the type.
If you start out with an IQueryable<>, you typically want to keep it as an IQueryable<> until there is some compelling reason to change it. The reason for this is that you want to give the query processor as much information as possible. For example, if you're only going to use 10 results (you've called Take(10)) then you want SQL Server to know about that so that it can optimize its query plans and send you only the data you'll use.
A compelling reason to change the type from IQueryable<> to IEnumerable<> might be that you are calling some extension function that the implementation of IQueryable<> in your particular object either cannot handle or handles inefficiently. In that case, you might wish to convert the type to IEnumerable<> (by assigning to a variable of type IEnumerable<> or by using the AsEnumerable extension method for example) so that the extension functions you call end up being the ones in the Enumerable class instead of the Queryable class.

There is a blog post with brief source code sample about how misuse of IEnumerable<T> can dramatically impact LINQ query performance: Entity Framework: IQueryable vs. IEnumerable.
If we dig deeper and look into the sources, we can see that there are obviously different extension methods are perfomed for IEnumerable<T>:
// Type: System.Linq.Enumerable
// Assembly: System.Core, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089
// Assembly location: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\System.Core.dll
public static class Enumerable
{
public static IEnumerable<TSource> Where<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource, bool> predicate)
{
return (IEnumerable<TSource>)
new Enumerable.WhereEnumerableIterator<TSource>(source, predicate);
}
}
and IQueryable<T>:
// Type: System.Linq.Queryable
// Assembly: System.Core, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089
// Assembly location: C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v4.0.30319\System.Core.dll
public static class Queryable
{
public static IQueryable<TSource> Where<TSource>(
this IQueryable<TSource> source,
Expression<Func<TSource, bool>> predicate)
{
return source.Provider.CreateQuery<TSource>(
Expression.Call(
null,
((MethodInfo) MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod()).MakeGenericMethod(
new Type[] { typeof(TSource) }),
new Expression[]
{ source.Expression, Expression.Quote(predicate) }));
}
}
The first one returns enumerable iterator, and the second one creates query through the query provider, specified in IQueryable source.

The main difference between “IEnumerable” and “IQueryable” is about where the filter logic is executed. One executes on the client side (in memory) and the other executes on the database.
For example, we can consider an example where we have 10,000 records for a user in our database and let's say only 900 out which are active users, so in this case if we use “IEnumerable” then first it loads all 10,000 records in memory and then applies the IsActive filter on it which eventually returns the 900 active users.
While on the other hand on the same case if we use “IQueryable” it will directly apply the IsActive filter on the database which directly from there will return the 900 active users.

I would like to clarify a few things due to seemingly conflicting responses (mostly surrounding IEnumerable).
(1) IQueryable extends the IEnumerable interface. (You can send an IQueryable to something which expects IEnumerable without error.)
(2) Both IQueryable and IEnumerable LINQ attempt lazy loading when iterating over the result set. (Note that implementation can be seen in interface extension methods for each type.)
In other words, IEnumerables are not exclusively "in-memory". IQueryables are not always executed on the database. IEnumerable must load things into memory (once retrieved, possibly lazily) because it has no abstract data provider. IQueryables rely on an abstract provider (like LINQ-to-SQL), although this could also be the .NET in-memory provider.
Sample use case
(a) Retrieve list of records as IQueryable from EF context. (No records are in-memory.)
(b) Pass the IQueryable to a view whose model is IEnumerable. (Valid. IQueryable extends IEnumerable.)
(c) Iterate over and access the data set's records, child entities and properties from the view. (May cause exceptions!)
Possible Issues
(1) The IEnumerable attempts lazy loading and your data context is expired. Exception thrown because provider is no longer available.
(2) Entity Framework entity proxies are enabled (the default), and you attempt to access a related (virtual) object with an expired data context. Same as (1).
(3) Multiple Active Result Sets (MARS). If you are iterating over the IEnumerable in a foreach( var record in resultSet ) block and simultaneously attempt to access record.childEntity.childProperty, you may end up with MARS due to lazy loading of both the data set and the relational entity. This will cause an exception if it is not enabled in your connection string.
Solution
I have found that enabling MARS in the connection string works unreliably. I suggest you avoid MARS unless it is well-understood and explicitly desired.
Execute the query and store results by invoking resultList = resultSet.ToList() This seems to be the most straightforward way of ensuring your entities are in-memory.
In cases where the you are accessing related entities, you may still require a data context. Either that, or you can disable entity proxies and explicitly Include related entities from your DbSet.

I recently ran into an issue with IEnumerable v. IQueryable. The algorithm being used first performed an IQueryable query to obtain a set of results. These were then passed to a foreach loop, with the items instantiated as an Entity Framework (EF) class. This EF class was then used in the from clause of a Linq to Entity query, causing the result to be IEnumerable.
I'm fairly new to EF and Linq for Entities, so it took a while to figure out what the bottleneck was. Using MiniProfiling, I found the query and then converted all of the individual operations to a single IQueryable Linq for Entities query. The IEnumerable took 15 seconds and the IQueryable took 0.5 seconds to execute. There were three tables involved and, after reading this, I believe that the IEnumerable query was actually forming a three table cross-product and filtering the results.
Try to use IQueryables as a rule-of-thumb and profile your work to make your changes measurable.

We can use both for the same way, and they are only different in the performance.
IQueryable only executes against the database in an efficient way. It means that it creates an entire select query and only gets the related records.
For example, we want to take the top 10 customers whose name start with ‘Nimal’. In this case the select query will be generated as select top 10 * from Customer where name like ‘Nimal%’.
But if we used IEnumerable, the query would be like select * from Customer where name like ‘Nimal%’ and the top ten will be filtered at the C# coding level (it gets all the customer records from the database and passes them into C#).

In addition to first 2 really good answers (by driis & by Jacob) :
IEnumerable
interface is in the System.Collections namespace.
The IEnumerable object represents a set of data in memory and can move on this data only forward. The query represented by the IEnumerable object is executed immediately and completely, so the application receives data quickly.
When the query is executed, IEnumerable loads all the data, and if we need to filter it, the filtering itself is done on the client side.
IQueryable interface is located in the System.Linq namespace.
The IQueryable object provides remote access to the database and allows you to navigate through the data either in a direct order from beginning to end, or in the reverse order. In the process of creating a query, the returned object is IQueryable, the query is optimized. As a result, less memory is consumed during its execution, less network bandwidth, but at the same time it can be processed slightly more slowly than a query that returns an IEnumerable object.
What to choose?
If you need the entire set of returned data, then it's better to use IEnumerable, which provides the maximum speed.
If you DO NOT need the entire set of returned data, but only some filtered data, then it's better to use IQueryable.

In addition to the above, it's interesting to note that you can get exceptions if you use IQueryable instead of IEnumerable:
The following works fine if products is an IEnumerable:
products.Skip(-4);
However if products is an IQueryable and it's trying to access records from a DB table, then you'll get this error:
The offset specified in a OFFSET clause may not be negative.
This is because the following query was constructed:
SELECT [p].[ProductId]
FROM [Products] AS [p]
ORDER BY (SELECT 1)
OFFSET #__p_0 ROWS
and OFFSET can't have a negative value.

How can I determine if a LINQ query is going to be LINQ to SQL vs. LINQ to Objects?

Usually the distinction between LINQ to SQL and LINQ to Objects isn't much of an issue, but how can I determine which is happening?
It would be useful to know when writing the code, but I fear one can only be sure at run time sometimes.

It's not micro optimization to make the distinction between Linq-To-Sql and Linq-To-Objects. The latter requires all data to be loaded into memory before you start filtering it. Of course, that can be a major issue.
Most LINQ methods are using deferred execution, which means that it's just building the query but it's not yet executed (like Select or Where). Few others are executing the query and materialize the result into an in-memory collection (like ToLIst or ToArray). If you use AsEnumerable you are also using Linq-To-Objects and no SQL is generated for the parts after it, which means that the data must be loaded into memory (yet still using deferred execution).
So consider the following two queries. The first selects and filters in the database:
var queryLondonCustomers = from cust in db.customers
where cust.City == "London"
select cust;
whereas the second selects all and filters via Linq-To-Objects:
var queryLondonCustomers = from cust in db.customers.AsEnumerable()
where cust.City == "London"
select cust;
The latter has one advantage: you can use any .NET method since it doesn't need to be translated to SQL (e.g. !String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(cust.City)).
If you just get something that is an IEnumerable<T>, you can't be sure if it's actually a query or already an in-memory object. Even the try-cast to IQueryable<T> will not tell you for sure what it actually is because of the AsQueryable-method. Maybe you could try-cast it to a collection type. If the cast succeeds you can be sure that it's already materialized but otherwise it doesn't tell you if it's using Linq-To-Sql or Linq-To-Objects:
bool isMaterialized = queryLondonCustomers as ICollection<Customer> != null;
Related: EF ICollection Vs List Vs IEnumerable Vs IQueryable

The first solution comes into my mind is checking the query provider.
If the query is materialized, which means the data is loaded into memory, EnumerableQuery(T) is used. Otherwise, a special query provider is used, for example, System.Data.Entity.Internal.Linq.DbQueryProvider for entityframework.
var materialized = query
.AsQueryable()
.Provider
.GetType()
.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(EnumerableQuery<>);
However the above are ideal cases because someone can implement a custom query provider behaves like EnumerableQuery.

I had the same question, for different reasons.
Judging purely on your title & initial description (which is why google search brought me here).
Pre compilation, given an instance that implements IQueryable, there's no way to know the implementation behind the interface.
At runtime, you need to check the instance's Provider property like #Danny Chen mentioned.
public enum LinqProvider
{
Linq2SQL, Linq2Objects
}
public static class LinqProviderExtensions
{
public static LinqProvider LinqProvider(this IQueryable query)
{
if (query.Provider.GetType().IsGenericType && query.Provider.GetType().GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(EnumerableQuery<>))
return LinqProvider.Linq2Objects;
if (typeof(ICollection<>).MakeGenericType(query.ElementType).IsAssignableFrom(query.GetType()))
return LinqProvider.Linq2Objects;
return LinqProvider.Linq2SQL;
}
}
In our case, we are adding additional filters dynamically, but ran into issues with different handling of case-sensitivity/nullreference handling on different providers.
Hence, at runtime we had to tweak the filters that we add based on the type of provider, and ended up adding this extension method:

Using EF core in net core 6
To see if the provider is an EF provider, use the following code:
if (queryable.Provider is Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query.Internal.EntityQueryProvider)
{
// Queryable is backed by EF and is not an in-memory/client-side queryable.
}
One could get the opposite by testing the provider against System.Linq.EnumerableQuery (base type of EnumerableQuery<T> - so you don't have to test generics).
This is useful if you have methods like EF.Functions.Like(...) which can only be executed in the database - and you want to branch to something else in case of client-side execution.

IQueryable & select new

Here is a function that returns an IQueryable of Note objects.
private IQueryable<Note> SqlGetNotes()
{
//only notes belonging to memoboard
var notes = from n in _db.Notes select n;
return notes;
}
In the below code, I am calling the above function and creating my own objects with just list of note ids.
var noteItems = (from n in SqlGetNotes()
select new
{
Id = n.NoteId,
}).ToList();
My question is, will the above query first load all the columns of the Note object, or just the NoteId column?
I have a doubt because in SqlGetNotes I am using 'select n' and then I use 'select new'.
I want to write the IQueryable such a way that only the Id column is read from the database.

Your first query, is just a query, it hasn't returned anything yet. You need to iterate your query to get the results, using ToList, ToArray etc.
You iterated your query in second code snippet, where you actually requested the field NoteId and iterated your query using ToList.
Thus, your SQL query generated would only select NoteId and not all the columns. You can use a SQL profiler to see the actual generated query from LINQ expression.

Have you observed the profiler behavior by putting breakpoints before and after calling .ToList()?
From MSDN:
The IQueryable interface inherits the IEnumerable interface so that if it represents a query, the results of that query can be enumerated. Enumeration causes the expression tree associated with an IQueryable object to be executed. The definition of "executing an expression tree" is specific to a query provider. For example, it may involve translating the expression tree to an appropriate query language for the underlying data source.
This would mean that as long as I have an IQueryable object, I can do other things with it like doing a .Select() for projection (like what you are doing with select new) or .Where() to apply filtering, if needed, without executing the backend query yet. But only until it is enumerated (e.g. ToList() calls the List<> constructor which will use the IQueryable object's GetEnumerator() to fill the container), will it actually call the data source and execute the SQL query.

Rules for LINQ to SQL across method boundaries

To keep my code cleaner I often try to break down parts of my data access code in LINQ to SQL into private sub-methods, just like with plain-old business logic code. Let me give a very simplistic example:
public IEnumerable<Item> GetItemsFromRepository()
{
var setA = from a in this.dataContext.TableA
where /* criteria */
select a.Prop;
return DoSubquery(setA);
}
private IEnumerable<Item> DoSubQuery(IEnumerable<DateTimeOffset> set)
{
return from item in set
where /* criteria */
select item;
}
I'm sure no one's imagination would be stretched by imagining more complex examples with deeper nesting or using results of sets to filter other queries.
My basic question is this: I've seen some significant performance differences and even exceptions being thrown by just simply reorganizing LINQ to SQL code in private methods. Can anyone explain the rules for these behaviors so that I can make informed decisions about how to write efficient, clean data access code?
Some questions I've had:
1) When does passage of System.Linq.Table instace to a method cause query execution?
2) When does using a System.Linq.Table in another query cause execution?
3) Are there limits to what types of operations (Take, First, Last, order by, etc.) can be applied to System.Linq.Table passed a parameters into a method?

The most important rule in terms of LINQ-to-SQL would be: don't return IEnumerable<T> unless you must - as the semantic is unclear. There are two schools of thought beyond that:
if you return IQueryable<T>, it is composable, meaning the where from later queries is combined to make a single TSQL, but as a down-side, it is hard to fully test
otherwise, return List<T> or similar, so it is clear that everything beyond that point is LINQ-to-Objects
Currently, you are doing something in the middle: collapsing it to LINQ-to-Objects (via IEnumerable<T>), but without it being obvious - and keeping the connection open in the middle (again, only a problem because it isn't obvious)

Remove the implicit cast:
public IQueryable<Item> GetItemsFromRepository()
{
var setA = from a in this.dataContext.TableA
where /* criteria */
select a.Prop;
return DoSubquery(setA);
}
private IQueryable<Item> DoSubQuery(IQueryable<DateTimeOffset> set)
{
return from item in set
where /* criteria */
select item;
}
The implicit cast from IQueryable<Item> to IEnumerable<Item> is essentially the same as calling AsEnumerable() on your IQueryable<Item>. There are of course times when you want that, but you should leave things as IQueryable by default, so that the entire query can be performed on the database, rather than merely the GetItemsFromRepository() bit with the rest being done in memory.
The secondary questions:
1) When does passage of System.Linq.Table instace to a method cause query execution?
When something needs a final result, such as Max(), ToList(), etc. that is neither a queryable object, nor a loaded-as-it-goes enumerable.
Note though, that while AsEnumerable() does not cause query execution, it does mean that when execution does happen only that before the AsEnumerable() will be performed against the source datasource, this will then produce an on-demand in-memory datasource against which the rest will be performed.
2) When does using a System.Linq.Table in another query cause
execution?
The same as above. Table<T> implements IQueryable<T>. If you e.g. join two of them together, that won't yet cause anything to be executed.
3) Are there limits to what types of operations (Take,
First, Last, order by, etc.) can be applied to System.Linq.Table
passed a parameters into a method?
Those that are definted by IQueryable<T>.
Edit: Some clarification on the differences and similarities between IEnumerable and IQueryable.
Just about anything you can do on an IQueryable you can do on an IEnumerable and vice-versa, but how it's performed will be different.
Any given IQueryable implementation can be used in linq queries and will have all the linqy extension methods like Take(), Select(), GroupBy and so on.
Just how this is done, depends on the implementation. For example, System.Linq.Data.Table implements those methods by the query being turned into an SQL query, the results of which are turned into a objects on a as-loaded basis. So if mySource is a table then:
var filtered = from item in mySource
where item.ID < 23
select new{item.ID, item.Name};
foreach(var i in filtered)
Console.WriteLine(i.Name);
Gets turned into SQL like:
select id, name from mySourceTable where id < 23
And then an enumerator is created from that such that on each call to MoveNext() another row is read from the results, and a new anonymous object created from it.
On the other hand, if mySource where a List or a HashSet, or anything else that implements IEnumerable<T> but doesn't have its own query engine, then the linq-to-objects code will turn it into something like:
foreach(var item in mySource)
if(item.ID < 23)
yield return new {item.ID, item.Name};
Which is about as efficiently as that code could be done in memory. The results will be the same, but the way to get them, would be different:
Now, since all IQueryable<T> can be converted into the equivalent IEnumerable<T> we could, if we wanted to, take the first mySource (where execution happens in a database) and do the following instead:
var filtered = from item in mySource.AsEnumerable()
where item.ID < 23
select new{item.ID, item.Name};
Here, while there is still nothing executed against the database until we iterate through the results or call something that examines all of those results, once we do so, it's as if we split the execution into two separate steps:
var asEnum = mySource.AsEnumerable();
var filtered = from item in asEnum
where item.ID < 23
select new{item.ID, item.Name};
The implemenatation of the first line would be to execute the SQL SELECT * FROM mySourceTable, and the execution of the rest would be like the linq-to-objects example above.
It's not hard to see how, if the database contained 10 items with an id < 23, and 50,000 items with an id higher, this is now much, much less performant.
As well as offering the explicity AsEnumerable() method, all IQueryable<T> can be implicitly cast to IEnumerable<T>. This lets us do foreach on them and use them with any other existing code that handles IEnumerable<T>, but if we accidentally do it at in inappropriate time, we can make queries much slower, and this is what was happening when your DoSubQuery was defined to take an IEnumerable<DateTimeOffset> and return an IEnumerable<Item>; it implicitly called AsEnumerable() on your IQueryable<DateTimeOffset> and your IQueryable<Item> and caused what could have been performed on the database to be performed in-memory.
For this reason, 99% of the time, we want to keep dealing in IQueryable until the very last moment.
As an example of the opposite though, just to point out that AsEnumerable() and the casts to IEnumerable<T> aren't there out of madness, we should consider two things. The first is that IEnumerable<T> lets us do things that can't be done otherwise, such as joining two completely different sources that don't know about each other (e.g. two different databases, a database and an XML file, etc.)
Another is that sometimes IEnumerable<T> is actually more efficient too. Consider:
IQueryable<IGrouping<string, int>> groupingQuery = from item in mySource select item.ID group by item.Name;
var list1 = groupingQuery.Select(grp => new {Name=grp.Key, Count=grp.Count()}).ToList();//fine
foreach(var grp in groupingQuery)//disaster!
Console.WriteLine(grp.Count());
Here groupingQuery is set up as a queryable that does some grouping, but which hasn't been executed in anyway. When we create list1, then first we create a new IQueryable based on that, and the query engine does it's best to work out what the best SQL for it is, and comes up with something like:
select name, count(id) from mySourceTable group by name
Which is pretty efficiently performed. Then the rows are turned into objects, which are then put into a list.
On the other hand, with the second query, there isn't as natural a SQL conversion for a group by that doesn't perform aggregate methods on all of the non-grouped items, so the best the query engine can come up with is to first do:
select distinct name from mySourceTable,
And then for every name it receives, to do:
select id from mySourceTable where name = '{name found in last query goes here}'
And so on, should this mean 2 SQL queries, or 200,000.
In this case, we're much better working on mySource.AsEnumerable() because here it is more efficient to grab the whole table into memory first. (Even better still would be to work on mySource.Select(item => new {item.ID, item.Name}).AsEnumerable() because then we still only retrieve the columns we care about from the database, and switch to in-memory at that point).
The last bit is worth remembering because it breaks our rule that we should stay with IQueryable<T> as long as possible. It isn't something to worry about much, but it is worth keeping an eye on if you do grouping and find yourself with a very slow query.

Linq to entities : Unions + Distinct

I don't know how I can do several union with a distinct.
When I use .Distinct with an IEqualityComparer an exception in threw :
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.Linq.IQueryable'
My code is
var union = query.Union(query1).Union(query2);
union = union.Distinct(new EqualityComparerTransaction());

LINQ to Entities does not support the overload of Distinct which takes an IEqualityComparer. When you think about it, it really can't, because LINQ to Entities queries will be converted to SQL, and you cannot convert an interface reference to SQL.
Therefore, you must either:
Use the overload of Distinct which does not take any compare, or
Bring both lists into object space and do the Distinct in LINQ to Objects, like this:
var union = query.Union(query1).Union(query2);
union = union.AsEnumerable().Distinct(new EqualityComparerTransaction());
Naturally, the risk here is that you might bring too many records back from the DB server. You could also use both of these techniques in order to do a portion of the comparison on the server and another portion in object space.

The question answered but I just want to share my experience.
Not sure but I think the error message goes with saying Distinct method not supported with this argument I think.
In fact we just want Linq to SQL , a queryable expression that says if this properties same get one of them.
But when we use a class such as EqualityComparerTransaction it can't be translated to sql normally.
There is an another method GetDistict < T >(string propertyName) But sadly it doesn't work as we expected. This method also goes to DB(what else our source) and get some data and evaluate distinct.
If GetDistinct(string propertyName) extention method were do sql convertion operation It could be. But there is no way.
Sadly the single way of doing that is coding your own distinct extention for LINQ_TO_SQL.I don't think it will be easy! So Enumarating data on the server side seems easiest for now.