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.
I have a Ling Query for calculate percentage.
var total = db.Schema_Details.Where(x => x.RID == sName).Select(x => new{
Rid = x.RID,
Amount = Convert.ToDouble(x.Lum_Sum_Amount),
Allocation = Convert.ToDouble(x.Allocation),
total = ((x.Allocation / 100) * x.Lum_Sum_Amount)}).ToList();
But exception occurred.
How can I solve this?
Since you use the identifier db, I assume db is a DbContext. This means that your linq statements will be executed in SQL on the database server side and not in your memory (SQL or something similar, depending on the type of DB your are using).
You can see this if you check the type of your statement in the debugger: is it an IQueryable or an IEnumerable? IQueryables are executed by the database server, IEnumerable are usually executed in your memory. Usually your database server can execute your linq statements faster and more efficient than you, so it is best to make sure your linq statements are IQueryable.
However, the disadvantage is, that you database server does not know any of your classes, functions, nor .NET. So in IQueryables you can only use fairly simple calculations.
If you really need to call some local functions somewhere halfway your linq statement, add AsEnumerable()to your statement:
var myLinqResult = db. ... // something IQueryable
.Where(item => ... ) // simple statement: still IQueryable
.Select(item => ...) // still simple, still IQueryable
// now you want to call one of your own functions:
.AsEnumerable()
.Select(item => myOwnLocalFunctions(item));
See stackoverflow: Difference between IQueryable and IEnumerable
The local function you want to perform is Convert.ToDouble. IQueryable does not know the Convert class, and thus can't perform your function as IQueryable. AsEnumerable will solve this problem.
However, in this case I would not advise to use AsEnumerable. When executing linq statements on a database try to avoid using local classes and function calls as much as possible. Instead of Convert.ToDoubleuse (double)x.Sum_Amount. Your linq-to-sql translator (or similar database language converter) will know how to translate this as IQueryable.
There are some calculations of which there are SQL equivalents, like DateTime calculations, or string reverse. It would be a shame if you had to do things like DateTime.AddDays(1) in local memory while there are perfect SQL equivalents for it. This would especially be a problem if you need to Join, Select or GroupBy after your local functions. Your database server can do these things far more efficiently than you. Luckily there are some IQueryable extension functions for them. They can be found in System.Data.Entity.DbFunctions
[Note After Answer: I am actually querying in memory-objects and that's why ToTraceString doesn't work. I added this to save the reader potential time from reading my long post].
I'm using a ToTraceString command when trying to inspect how my LINQ queries end up looking. However, today my query got a bit complicated, involving a join and all of the sudden, I get this error when I try to Trace my String:
Unable to cast object of type 'd__7a`1[EGSLanguageProviderShared.DTODataType]' to type 'System.Data.Objects.ObjectQuery'.
My Query, and subsequent invocation of ToTraceString is as follows (note that System.Data.Entity has to be referenced in order for this to work). Both objects I'm querying (langDTs and langInstructionsAVDTs) are Entity Framework (.Net 3.5) objects from the same database. My Where Clause (== av.InstructionAVKey) uses a simple Value Collection Class, nothing to see there.
IEnumerable<DTODataType> dts =
(from langDT in langDTs
join langIAVDT in langInstructionsAVDTs
on langDT.DataTypeKey equals langIAVDT.DataTypeKey
where langIAVDT.InstructionAVKey == av.InstructionAVKey
select langDT).Distinct();
var sql = ((System.Data.Objects.ObjectQuery)dts).ToTraceString();
Any ideas on how I could see the LINQ translation of this Join? ::- ). I noticed that System.Data.Objects has more types of queries, but I can't get any of the ones which seem more relevant to this case, to work.
LATER EDIT:
As you recommended, I tried changing the IEnumerable to an IQueryable but that resulted in a type incompatibility compilation error ::- /.
After doing an explicit cast, I got the same error, but at Runtime (Unable to cast object of type '<DistinctIterator>d__7a1[EGSLanguageProviderShared.DTODataType]' to type 'System.Linq.IQueryable1[EGSLanguageProviderShared.DTODataType]'.`)
Additional code: my objects langDTs and langInstructionsAVDTs are:
List<DTOInstructionActiveValueDataType> langInstructionsAVDTs = CurrentLPInstructionManager.GetInstructionsActiveValuesDataTypes((from avKey in langInstructionsAVs select avKey.InstructionAVKey).Distinct().ToArray());
List<DTODataType> langDTs = _LPDataTypeManager.GetDataTypes((from dt in langInstructionsAVDTs orderby dt.DataTypeKey select dt.DataTypeKey).Distinct().ToArray());
So these objects are indeed queried immediately because they are Lists ::- ). As for DTODataType and DTOInstructionActiveValueDataType, they are simple Value Collection Classes, just public Properties, that's all.
EVEN LATER EDIT
Might be of interest that at their root, the objects I'm using are indeed declared as ObjectQuery back in the deepest layer (Entity Framework):
public global::System.Data.Objects.ObjectQuery<instructions> instructions
However, as I bring the data from over the Data Access Layer, I am converting them to Data Transfer Objects (the DTO-prefixed classes you keep seeing), which are simple Value Collection Classes (a property-by-property map of the Entity Objects which I use in order to keep the Data Model completely separated from the View and also to execute any data post-processing in the Presentation side).
Instead of typing your variable as IEnumerable<DTODataType> try IQueryable<DTODataType>, or even var.
I'm guessing somewhere in there your query is getting executed, and the results being stored as IEnumerable, and therefore no longer able to be cast as ObjectQuery
EDIT
Can you please expand your code snippet to show were both langDTs and langInstructionsAVDTs come from?
Based on your subsequent edit, it's clear that you are simply querying and joining in memory collections. That's why you can't cast to ObjectQuery, and that's also why you can't declare the query to be of type IQueryable<T>.
In other words there's no way to do a dump of the SQL being issued, because no SQL is being issued. Once you converted your data over to your in-memory collection of DTOs, you became disconnected from your database, and all your queries became linq-to-objects queries with no corresponding T-SQL being generated.
Given the following LINQ to SQL query:
var test = from i in Imports
where i.IsActive
select i;
The interpreted SQL statement is:
SELECT [t0].[id] AS [Id] .... FROM [Imports] AS [t0] WHERE [t0].[isActive] = 1
Say I wanted to perform some action in the select that cannot be converted to SQL. Its my understanding that the conventional way to accomplish this is to do AsEnumerable() thus converting it to a workable object.
Given this updated code:
var test = from i in Imports.AsEnumerable()
where i.IsActive
select new
{
// Make some method call
};
And updated SQL:
SELECT [t0].[id] AS [Id] ... FROM [Imports] AS [t0]
Notice the lack of a where clause in the executed SQL statement.
Does this mean the entire "Imports" table is cached into memory?
Would this slow performance at all if the table contained a large amount of records?
Help me to understand what is actually happening behind the scenes here.
The reason for AsEnumerable is to
AsEnumerable(TSource)(IEnumerable(TSource))
can be used to choose between query
implementations when a sequence
implements IEnumerable(T) but also has
a different set of public query
methods available
So when you were calling the Where method before, you were calling a different Where method from the IEnumerable.Where. That Where statement was for LINQ to convert to SQL, the new Where is the IEnumerable one that takes an IEnumerable, enumerates it and yields the matching items. Which explains why you see the different SQL being generated. The table will be taken in full from the database before the Where extension will be applied in your second version of the code. This could create a serious bottle neck, because the entire table has to be in memory, or worse the entire table would have to travel between servers. Allow SQL server to execute the Where and do what it does best.
At the point where the enumeration is enumerated through, the database will then be queried, and the entire resultset retrieved.
A part-and-part solution can be the way. Consider
var res = (
from result in SomeSource
where DatabaseConvertableCriterion(result)
&& NonDatabaseConvertableCriterion(result)
select new {result.A, result.B}
);
Let's say also that NonDatabaseConvertableCriterion requires field C from result. Because NonDatabaseConvertableCriterion does what its name suggests, this has to be performed as an enumeration. However, consider:
var partWay =
(
from result in SomeSource
where DatabaseConvertableCriterion(result)
select new {result.A, result.B, result.C}
);
var res =
(
from result in partWay.AsEnumerable()
where NonDatabaseConvertableCriterion select new {result.A, result.B}
);
In this case, when res is enumerated, queried or otherwise used, as much work as possible will be passed to the database, which will return enough to continue the job. Assuming that it is indeed really impossible to rewrite so that all the work can be sent to the database, this may be a suitable compromise.
There are three implementations of AsEnumerable.
DataTableExtensions.AsEnumerable
Extends a DataTable to give it an IEnumerable interface so you can use Linq against the DataTable.
Enumerable.AsEnumerable<TSource> and ParallelEnumerable.AsEnumerable<TSource>
The AsEnumerable<TSource>(IEnumerable<TSource>) method has no effect
other than to change the compile-time type of source from a type that
implements IEnumerable<T> to IEnumerable<T> itself.
AsEnumerable<TSource>(IEnumerable<TSource>) can be used to choose
between query implementations when a sequence implements
IEnumerable<T> but also has a different set of public query methods
available. For example, given a generic class Table that implements
IEnumerable<T> and has its own methods such as Where, Select, and
SelectMany, a call to Where would invoke the public Where method of
Table. A Table type that represents a database table could have a
Where method that takes the predicate argument as an expression tree
and converts the tree to SQL for remote execution. If remote execution
is not desired, for example because the predicate invokes a local
method, the AsEnumerable<TSource> method can be used to hide the
custom methods and instead make the standard query operators
available.
In other words.
If I have an
IQueryable<X> sequence = ...;
from a LinqProvider, like Entity Framework, and I do,
sequence.Where(x => SomeUnusualPredicate(x));
that query will be composed and run on the server. This will fail at runtime because the EntityFramework doesn't know how to convert SomeUnusualPredicate into SQL.
If I want that to run the statement with Linq to Objects instead, I do,
sequence.AsEnumerable().Where(x => SomeUnusualPredicate(x));
now the server will return all the data and the Enumerable.Where from Linq to Objects will be used instead of the Query Provider's implementation.
It won't matter that Entity Framework doesn't know how to interpret SomeUnusualPredicate, my function will be used directly. (However, this may be an inefficient approach since all rows will be returned from the server.)
I believe the AsEnumerable just tells the compiler which extension methods to use (in this case the ones defined for IEnumerable instead of those for IQueryable).
The execution of the query is still deferred until you call ToArray or enumerate on it.