Develop Reference

Only include in where condition if date is not low date(01/01/0001)

I have a query that has a where condition to check and find addresses that were added after a certain date. The date field is not required so I want Date field in where condition to be only considered if it is not 1/1/0001.
dtmDate is the parameter that is being passed
Query
from b in _context.customer
join d in _context.Address on b.id equals d.Id
join e in _context.units on d.Id equals e.Id
where (req.dtmDate.Year != 1 && d.DateAdded >= req.dtmDate)
select new modelAddress
{
address= d.address
}
But this is not working. It is not returning any rows

I'd leverage the fact that LINQ queries are not executed when you write them, so you can add clauses conditionally after you've created a base query:
var query = from b in _context.customer
join d in _context.Address on b.id equals d.Id
join e in _context.units on d.Id equals e.Id;
if(req.dtmDate.Year != 1)
query = query.Where(d.DateAdded >= req.dtmDate);
var result = query.Select(
new modelAddress
{
address= d.address
}
);
I prefer this because I've previously run into issues, particularly with EF LINQ queries when the Where clause contains something that evaluates to true locally with in the code, rather than as something the DB will evaluate. It seems to work out better when "wildcarding" DB queries, to use a pattern of "if x is true then add-another-where-clause" rather than saying "where(local-value-of-x-equals-local-constant OR some-db-data-value-equals-y)"

If I understand you correctly, you have a DateTime object called req.dtmDate that may be set to a default value, and you want to return all items where the item's DateAdded field is greater than req.dtmDate, unless req.dtmDate is 1/1/0001, in which case all records should be returned.
If that's the case, I think you could just modify your existing code to:
where (req.dtmDate.Year == 1 || d.DateAdded >= req.dtmDate)

Operators "AND" "OR" SQL [closed]

Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Hello I'm trying to transform this code from SQL to C# using Linq
The SQL code is like this:
SELECT N.Name,N.Unit,N.Typee,ID,NOTE
FROM Table_A N join Table_B A on (N.ID = A.ID)
join NotasQL G on ((N.Not1 = G.CODE) or (N.Not2 = G.CODE) )
join Attributes X on (A.AppID= X.AppID)
This Code is running fine in SQL with the expected result, but when I'm trying to replicate this on C# I don't know how to do the OR part, this is what I have so far:
var Select = (from A in context.Table_A
from B in context.Table_B
from E in context.NotasQLs
from D in context.Attributes
where (String.Compare(A.ID, B.ID, true) == 0 &&
String.Compare(B.AppID, D.AppID, true) == 0
&&
(String.Compare(A.Not1, E.CODE, true) == 0 ||
String.Compare(A.Not2, E.CODE, true) == 0))
I'm having an application runtime expired because the query is not selecting nothing, if I remove the or condition runs but I need the OR.

For translating SQL to LINQ query comprehension:
Translate FROM subselects as separately declared variables.
Translate each clause in LINQ clause order, translating monadic and aggregate operators (DISTINCT, TOP, MIN, MAX etc) into functions applied to the whole LINQ query.
Use table aliases as range variables. Use column aliases as anonymous type field names.
Use anonymous types (new { ... }) for multiple columns.
JOIN conditions that aren't all equality tests with AND must be handled using where clauses outside the join, or with cross product (from ... from ...) and then where
JOIN conditions that are multiple ANDed equality tests between the two tables should be translated into anonymous objects
LEFT JOIN is simulated by using into joinvariable and doing another from from the joinvariable followed by .DefaultIfEmpty().
Replace COALESCE with the conditional operator (?:)and a null test.
Translate IN to .Contains() and NOT IN to !...Contains().
Translate x BETWEEN low AND high to low <= x && x <= high.
SELECT * must be replaced with select range_variable or for joins, an anonymous object containing all the range variables.
SELECT fields must be replaced with select new { ... } creating an anonymous object with all the desired fields or expressions.
Proper FULL OUTER JOIN must be handled with an extension method.
So for your query,
var ans = from N in Table_A
join A in Table_B on N.ID equals A.ID
from G in NotasQL
where G.CODE == N.Not1 || G.CODE == N.Not2
join X in Attributes on A.AppID equals X.AppID
select new {
N.Name,
N.Unit,
N.Typee,
N.ID, // ??? not sure table for this column
G.NOTE // ??? not sure table for this column
};

LINQ to SQL join generates SQL which joins on IS NULL

I am not good at Linq expression, today I am running into one weird issue as the below of inner join statement,
var orders = (from q in dao.CurrentDBContext.New_OrderForm
join d in dao.CurrentDBContext.New_OrderGoodsDetail on q.billNum equals d.billNum
select new
{
q.billNum,
q.orderSource,
q.sourceOddNum
d.PPT
}
While I traced the linq statement, I am confused of that Entity Framework will convert the linq statement to the below sql statment
SELECT
[Extent1].[billNum] AS [billNum],
[Extent1].[orderSource] AS [orderSource],
[Extent1].[sourceOddNum] AS [sourceOddNum],
[Extent2].[PPT] AS [PPT]
FROM [dbo].[New_OrderForm] AS [Extent1]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[New_OrderGoodsDetail] AS [Extent2]
ON ([Extent1].[billNum] = [Extent2].[billNum]) OR
(([Extent1].[billNum] IS NULL) AND ([Extent2].[billNum] IS NULL))
Do you know why the below SQL segment did automatically append?
OR (([Extent1].[billNum] IS NULL) AND ([Extent2].[billNum] IS NULL)"
I don't expect that the above automatically append, since it did slow down SQL performance. Any suggestions?

Here is what you can do in case you cannot change the billNum columns to be non nullable.
First, set the option mentioned by #Giorgi
class CurrentDBContext
{
public CurrentDBContext()
{
Configuration.UseDatabaseNullSemantics = true;
// ...
}
}
Then change the LINQ query to not use join, but simple where like this
var orders = (from q in dao.CurrentDBContext.New_OrderForm
from d in dao.CurrentDBContext.New_OrderGoodsDetail
where q.billNum == d.billNum
select ...
The result will be the exact SQL query as the one you've shown (with JOIN!) without the OR part.

It seems that Linq translates q.billNum equals d.billNum is such a way that it also includes a valid match in case both q.billNum and d.billNum are NULL (in SQL NULL is never equal to NULL, hence the OR in your query).
Making both fields non-nullable would be the best solution, provided both fields can never be NULL.
If this is not the case, you could also try to add a where clause in your Linq statement to specifiy that both q.billNum and d.billNum cannot be NULL. With any luck, Linq will recognize that nullable values are not possible.
Note: If you are working with Oracle you should check for empty strings as well as NULL (empty string is equivalent to NULL). Empty strings should be fine as a valid value in SQL Server.
As the above did not help, you could try to write the query yourself. If I'm not mistaking it would be something along the following lines (assuming var is an List<Order> in your example code - the results of your query should match the class you are using):
StringBuilder query = new StringBuilder();
query.AppendLine("SELECT [Extent1].[billNum] AS [billNum],");
query.AppendLine(" [Extent1].[orderSource] AS [orderSource],");
query.AppendLine(" [Extent1].[sourceOddNum] AS [sourceOddNum],");
query.AppendLine(" [Extent2].[PPT] AS [PPT]");
query.AppendLine("FROM [dbo].[New_OrderForm] AS [Extent1]");
query.AppendLine("INNER JOIN [dbo].[New_OrderGoodsDetail] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[billNum] = [Extent2].[billNum]");
List<Order> orders = DbContext.Database.SqlQuery<Order>(query.ToString()).ToList();
I have used similar workarounds to get around performance issues in the past.

If you are using EF6 try setting
context.Configuration.UseDatabaseNullSemantics = true;
and it will not generate NULL checks for those columns.
According to documentation
For example (operand1 == operand2) will be translated as: (operand1 = operand2) if UseDatabaseNullSemantics is true, respectively (((operand1 = operand2) AND (NOT (operand1 IS NULL OR operand2 IS NULL))) OR ((operand1 IS NULL) AND (operand2 IS NULL))) if UseDatabaseNullSemantics is false.

Following on from #Giorgi's answer, the UseDatabaseNullSemantics flag will not work with the equals keyword - only the == operand. Thus in order to get round this and ensure the join on billNum is not part of the OR clause this approach should work (in conjunction with the UseDatabaseNullSemantics flag):
var orders = (from q in dao.CurrentDBContext.New_OrderForm
from d in dao.CurrentDBContext.New_OrderGoodsDetail
where q.billNum == d.billNum
select new
{
q.billNum,
q.orderSource,
q.sourceOddNum
d.PPT
}
This will generate the JOIN without the OR.

comparison operator not supported for type int[] - linq to sql

Here is the problematic line:
var originalSummaryCandidates =
(from a in masterDB.tbl_thirty_second_summaries_multi_variant_associations
join d in masterDB.tbl_thirty_second_summaries_multi_variants on a.ThirtySecSummaryId equals d.ThirtySecondSummaryId_this
where d.DrugId == drugId &&
variantGenotypeIds.Contains(new int[] {a.VariantId, a.GenotypeId})
select d.ThirtySecondSummaryId_this)
.Distinct()
.ToList();
variantGeotpeIds is of type List<int[]>. Both a.VariantId and a.GenotypeId are of type int.
I cannot figure out why it why it will not do the comparison. Is this a deferred execution issue? It doesn't seem like it should be...
Thanks in advance.

List<T>.Contains only takes a single parameter of type T. In your case, T is Int32 but you're passing in a Int32[].
If you want to check that both values are in the list, you have to break the calls apart:
where d.DrugId == drugId &&
variantGenotypeIds.Contains(a.VariantId) &&
variantGenotypeIds.Contains(a.GenotypeId)
EDIT
If variantGenotypeIds is actually a List<Int32[]>, then there's another issue. LINQ to SQL will try to convert your query into its SQL equivalent. In this case, there's no way to translate your query into SQL so LINQ to SQL will throw an Exception.
If you really need to query this way, you'll have to read the records into memory first and then query using LINQ to Objects (which may or may not be a big deal depending on how many rows you are reading):
var query =
from a in masterDB.tbl_thirty_second_summaries_multi_variant_associations
join d in masterDB.tbl_thirty_second_summaries_multi_variants
on a.ThirtySecSummaryId equals d.ThirtySecondSummaryId_this
where d.DrugId == drugId
select new { a, d }
var originalSummaryCandidates =
(from q in query.AsEnumerable()
where variantGenotypeIds.Contains(new [] { q.a.VariantId, q.a.GenotypeId})
select d.ThirtySecondSummaryId_this)
.Distinct()
.ToList();

Array comparison uses reference equality by default. It's possible that linq-to-sql just tries to translate that into SQL that compares the values, but you'd have to look at the generated SQL to be sure. Another option would be to use Any instead:
where d.DrugId == drugId &&
variantGenotypeIds.Any(v => v[0] == a.VariantId && v[1] == a.GenotypeId)
but I'm not sure if Linq-to-Sql will be able to translate that to the correct SQL either. Another option would be to project the List` to a > and then do a string comparison:
variantGenotypeStrings = variantGenotypeIds.Select(v => string.Format("{0}|{1}", v[0],v[1]);
var originalSummaryCandidates =
(from a in masterDB.tbl_thirty_second_summaries_multi_variant_associations
join d in masterDB.tbl_thirty_second_summaries_multi_variants on a.ThirtySecSummaryId equals d.ThirtySecondSummaryId_this
where d.DrugId == drugId &&
variantGenotypeStrings.Contains(string.Format("{0}|{1}", a.VariantId, a.GenotypeId))
select d.ThirtySecondSummaryId_this)
.Distinct()
.ToList();

How to do a subquery in LINQ?

Here's an example of the query I'm trying to convert to LINQ:
SELECT *
FROM Users
WHERE Users.lastname LIKE '%fra%'
AND Users.Id IN (
SELECT UserId
FROM CompanyRolesToUsers
WHERE CompanyRoleId in (2,3,4) )
There is a FK relationship between CompanyRolesToUsers and Users, but it's a many to many relationship and CompanyRolesToUsers is the junction table.
We already have most of our site built, and we already have most of the filtering working by building Expressions using a PredicateExtensions class.
The code for the straightforward filters looks something like this:
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxLastName.Text))
{
predicateAnd = predicateAnd.And(c => c.LastName.Contains(
TextBoxLastName.Text.Trim()));
}
e.Result = context.Users.Where(predicateAnd);
I'm trying to add a predicate for a subselect in another table. (CompanyRolesToUsers)
What I'd like to be able to add is something that does this:
int[] selectedRoles = GetSelectedRoles();
if( selectedRoles.Length > 0 )
{
//somehow only select the userid from here ???:
var subquery = from u in CompanyRolesToUsers
where u.RoleID in selectedRoles
select u.UserId;
//somehow transform this into an Expression ???:
var subExpression = Expression.Invoke(subquery);
//and add it on to the existing expressions ???:
predicateAnd = predicateAnd.And(subExpression);
}
Is there any way to do this? It's frustrating because I can write the stored procedure easily, but I'm new to this LINQ thing and I have a deadline. I haven't been able to find an example that matches up, but I'm sure it's there somewhere.

Here's a subquery for you!
List<int> IdsToFind = new List<int>() {2, 3, 4};
db.Users
.Where(u => SqlMethods.Like(u.LastName, "%fra%"))
.Where(u =>
db.CompanyRolesToUsers
.Where(crtu => IdsToFind.Contains(crtu.CompanyRoleId))
.Select(crtu => crtu.UserId)
.Contains(u.Id)
)
Regarding this portion of the question:
predicateAnd = predicateAnd.And(c => c.LastName.Contains(
TextBoxLastName.Text.Trim()));
I strongly recommend extracting the string from the textbox before authoring the query.
string searchString = TextBoxLastName.Text.Trim();
predicateAnd = predicateAnd.And(c => c.LastName.Contains( searchString));
You want to maintain good control over what gets sent to the database. In the original code, one possible reading is that an untrimmed string gets sent into the database for trimming - which is not good work for the database to be doing.

There is no subquery needed with this statement, which is better written as
select u.*
from Users u, CompanyRolesToUsers c
where u.Id = c.UserId --join just specified here, perfectly fine
and u.lastname like '%fra%'
and c.CompanyRoleId in (2,3,4)
or
select u.*
from Users u inner join CompanyRolesToUsers c
on u.Id = c.UserId --explicit "join" statement, no diff from above, just preference
where u.lastname like '%fra%'
and c.CompanyRoleId in (2,3,4)
That being said, in LINQ it would be
from u in Users
from c in CompanyRolesToUsers
where u.Id == c.UserId &&
u.LastName.Contains("fra") &&
selectedRoles.Contains(c.CompanyRoleId)
select u
or
from u in Users
join c in CompanyRolesToUsers
on u.Id equals c.UserId
where u.LastName.Contains("fra") &&
selectedRoles.Contains(c.CompanyRoleId)
select u
Which again, are both respectable ways to represent this. I prefer the explicit "join" syntax in both cases myself, but there it is...

This is how I've been doing subqueries in LINQ, I think this should get what you want. You can replace the explicit CompanyRoleId == 2... with another subquery for the different roles you want or join it as well.
from u in Users
join c in (
from crt in CompanyRolesToUsers
where CompanyRoleId == 2
|| CompanyRoleId == 3
|| CompanyRoleId == 4) on u.UserId equals c.UserId
where u.lastname.Contains("fra")
select u;

You could do something like this for your case - (syntax may be a bit off). Also look at this link
subQuery = (from crtu in CompanyRolesToUsers where crtu.RoleId==2 || crtu.RoleId==3 select crtu.UserId).ToArrayList();
finalQuery = from u in Users where u.LastName.Contains('fra') && subQuery.Contains(u.Id) select u;

Ok, here's a basic join query that gets the correct records:
int[] selectedRolesArr = GetSelectedRoles();
if( selectedRolesArr != null && selectedRolesArr.Length > 0 )
{
//this join version requires the use of distinct to prevent muliple records
//being returned for users with more than one company role.
IQueryable retVal = (from u in context.Users
join c in context.CompanyRolesToUsers
on u.Id equals c.UserId
where u.LastName.Contains( "fra" ) &&
selectedRolesArr.Contains( c.CompanyRoleId )
select u).Distinct();
}
But here's the code that most easily integrates with the algorithm that we already had in place:
int[] selectedRolesArr = GetSelectedRoles();
if ( useAnd )
{
predicateAnd = predicateAnd.And( u => (from c in context.CompanyRolesToUsers
where selectedRolesArr.Contains(c.CompanyRoleId)
select c.UserId).Contains(u.Id));
}
else
{
predicateOr = predicateOr.Or( u => (from c in context.CompanyRolesToUsers
where selectedRolesArr.Contains(c.CompanyRoleId)
select c.UserId).Contains(u.Id) );
}
which is thanks to a poster at the LINQtoSQL forum

Here's a version of the SQL that returns the correct records:
select distinct u.*
from Users u, CompanyRolesToUsers c
where u.Id = c.UserId --join just specified here, perfectly fine
and u.firstname like '%amy%'
and c.CompanyRoleId in (2,3,4)
Also, note that (2,3,4) is a list selected from a checkbox list by the web app user, and I forgot to mention that I just hardcoded that for simplicity. Really it's an array of CompanyRoleId values, so it could be (1) or (2,5) or (1,2,3,4,6,7,99).
Also the other thing that I should specify more clearly, is that the PredicateExtensions are used to dynamically add predicate clauses to the Where for the query, depending on which form fields the web app user has filled in. So the tricky part for me is how to transform the working query into a LINQ Expression that I can attach to the dynamic list of expressions.
I'll give some of the sample LINQ queries a shot and see if I can integrate them with our code, and then get post my results. Thanks!
marcel