I have a datatable with a number of columns. Two of them are JobNum and ProcessNum. I want to see if I have duplicate records in the datatable.
Normally in SQL I would just do a
select count(jobnum) cntjobnum, JobNum, ProcessNum
from table
where jobnum = '1234' and processnum = '5678'
Is there a similar manner in C# (using a C# console app)?
I want to see if I have duplicate records in the datatable.
I don't think that your SQL statement will detect duplicate records, do you?
There is no LINQ method to detect if there are duplicates in an IEnumerable<...>. However, there are methods to detect the duplicates. If you only want to find whether there are duplicates or not, if is not very efficient to continue processing the other elements after you have found a duplicate. So the most efficient method would be to stop as soon as you have found a duplicate.
public static bool HasDuplicates<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
return HasDuplicates(source, null);
}
public static bool HasDuplicates<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source,
IEqualityComparer<T> comparer)
{
if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(...);
// if null comparer, use the default comparer:
if (comparer == null) comparer = EqualityComparer<T>.Default;
HashSet<T> set = new HashSet<T>(comparer);
foreach (T t in source)
{
if (set.Contains(t))
return true; // found a duplicate
else
set.Add(t);
}
return false; // no duplicates found
}
If you want to find all duplicates, consider to use GroupBy, and use the complete item as key.
IEnumerable<Product> products = ...
IEqualityComparer<Product> comparer = ... // or use default comparison
var duplicates = products.GroupBy(product => product, comparer)
// keep only the groups that have more than one element
.Where(group => group.Skip(1).Any())
// from the remaining groups, take the key (which is the product
.Select(group => group.Key);
(key, elementsWithThisKey) =>
Related
A linq query Where clause can apply a func to an item in the original set and return a bool to include or not include the item based on the item's characteristics. Great stuff:
var q = myColl.Where(o => o.EffectiveDate = LastThursday);
But what if I want to find a set of items where each item is related to the last item in some way? Like:
var q = myColl.Where(o => o.EffectiveDate = thePreviousItem.ExpirationDate);
How do you make a Where (or other linq function) "jump out" of the current item?
Here's what I tried, trying to be clever. I made every item an array just so I can use the Aggregate function:
public IQueryable<T> CurrentVersions
{
get => AllVersions
.Select(vo => new T[] { vo })
.Aggregate((voa1, voa2) => voa1[0].BusinessExpirationDate.Value == voa2[0].BusinessEffectiveDate.Value ? voa1.Concat(voa2).ToArray() : voa1)
.SelectMany(vo => vo);
}
but that doesn't compile on the SelectMany:
The type arguments for method Enumerable.SelectMany<TSource,
TResult>(IEnumerable<TSource>, Func<TSource, IEnumerable<TResult>>)
cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments
explicitly.
EDIT (SOLUTION)
As it turns out, I was on the right track, but was just confused about what SelectMany does. I didn't need it. I also needed to change IQueryable to IEnumerable because I'm using EF and you can't query after you let go of the DbContext. So, here is the actual solution.
public IEnumerable<T> CurrentVersions
{
get => AllVersions
.Select(vo => new T[] { vo })
.Aggregate((voa1, voa2) => voa1[0].BusinessExpirationDate.Value == voa2[0].BusinessEffectiveDate.Value ? voa1.Concat(voa2).ToArray() : voa1);
}
Linq queries are most effective when each item is processed in isolation. It doesn't work well when trying to relate items within the same collection, without having to process the same collection multiple times and standard linq operators.
The MoreLINQ library helps provide additional operators to fill in some of those gaps. I'm not sure what operators it provides that could be used in this instance, but I know it has a Pairwise() method that combines the current and previous items in the iteration.
In general, for situations like this, if you needed to roll out your own, it would be far easier to write it using a generator to generate your sequence. Either as a general purpose extension method:
public static IEnumerable<TSource> WhereWithPrevious<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource, TSource, bool> predicate)
{
using (var iter = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!iter.MoveNext())
yield break;
var previous = iter.Current;
while (iter.MoveNext())
{
var current = iter.Current;
if (predicate(current, previous))
yield return current;
}
}
}
or one specifically for the problem you're trying to solve.
public static IEnumerable<MyType> GetVersions(IEnumerable<MyType> source)
{
using (var iter = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if (!iter.MoveNext())
yield break;
var previous = iter.Current;
while (iter.MoveNext())
{
var current = iter.Current;
if (current.EffectiveDate == previous.ExpirationDate)
yield return current;
}
}
}
An alternative approach which while standard practice in other languages but terribly inefficient here would be to zip the collection with itself offset by one.
var query = Collection.Skip(1).Zip(Collection, (c, p) => (current:c,previous:p))
.Where(x => x.current.EffectiveDate == x.previous.ExpirationDate)
...;
And with all of that said, using any of these options will most likely make your query incompatible with query providers. It's not something you would want expressed as a single query anyway.
I am using Entity Framework, working with lambda expressions, I have to select number of selected records from the grid (_numRecords) which includes sorting, remove duplicates based on a column (Distinct by a column). Following is the code:
private IEnumerable<ReadViewModel> generateLocalData(IQueryable<ReadViewModel> query, [DataSourceRequest] DataSourceRequest dsRequest, int exportXml)
{
if (exportXml > 0)
query = query.GroupBy(x => x.Id).Select(x => x.FirstOrDefault());
//query = query.OrderByDescending(x => x.EventDate).GroupBy(x => x.Id).Select(x => x.FirstOrDefault());
//query = query.DistinctBy(x => x.Id).AsQueryable<ReadViewModel>();
query = query.OrderByDescending(x => x.EventDate);
query = query.ApplySorting(dsRequest.Groups, dsRequest.Sorts);
query = query.Take(this._numRecords);
List<ReadViewModel> data;
data = query.ToList();
return data;
}
public static IEnumerable<TSource> DistinctBy<TSource, TKey>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector)
{
HashSet<TKey> knownKeys = new HashSet<TKey>();
foreach (TSource element in source)
{
if (knownKeys.Add(keySelector(element)))
{
yield return element;
}
}
}
There is data on the grid (which can have duplicate Id field) but when I export it to xml, it should be unique.
Problem is when Distinct is applied to lambda expression it destroys the sorting, and I am using Take() method so I need to use it before fetching data from DB.
I've used 2 approaches to acheive distinct: by GroupBy & Single/Select and DistinctBy from Extension methods. But I'm unable to make it work, using these methods, as sorting is destroyed.
private static IQueryable<T> DistinctBy<T, TKey>(this IQueryable<T> source, Expression<Func<T, TKey>> keySelector)
{
return source.GroupBy(keySelector).Select(grp => grp.First());
}
Group by the key you want to be distinct by, then take the first item from each group. You might need FirstOrDefault() with some providers that don't do well with First() within queries.
This is sub-optimal when used with linq-to-objects, but you have the optimal approach for that case in your question already.
I'm looking for an elegant way to execute a Contains() statement in a scalable way. Please allow me to give some background before I come to the actual question.
The IN statement
In Entity Framework and LINQ to SQL the Contains statement is translated as a SQL IN statement. For instance, from this statement:
var ids = Enumerable.Range(1,10);
var courses = Courses.Where(c => ids.Contains(c.CourseID)).ToList();
Entity Framework will generate
SELECT
[Extent1].[CourseID] AS [CourseID],
[Extent1].[Title] AS [Title],
[Extent1].[Credits] AS [Credits],
[Extent1].[DepartmentID] AS [DepartmentID]
FROM [dbo].[Course] AS [Extent1]
WHERE [Extent1].[CourseID] IN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Unfortunately, the In statement is not scalable. As per MSDN:
Including an extremely large number of values (many thousands) in an IN clause can consume resources and return errors 8623 or 8632
which has to do with running out of resources or exceeding expression limits.
But before these errors occur, the IN statement becomes increasingly slow with growing numbers of items. I can't find documentation about its growth rate, but it performs well up to a few thousands of items, but beyond that it gets dramatically slow. (Based on SQL Server experiences).
Scalable
We can't always avoid this statement. A JOIN with the source data in stead would generally perform much better, but that's only possible when the source data is in the same context. Here I'm dealing with data coming from a client in a disconnected scenario. So I have been looking for a scalable solution. A satisfactory approach turned out to be cutting the operation into chunks:
var courses = ids.ToChunks(1000)
.Select(chunk => Courses.Where(c => chunk.Contains(c.CourseID)))
.SelectMany(x => x).ToList();
(where ToChunks is this little extension method).
This executes the query in chunks of 1000 that all perform well enough. With e.g. 5000 items, 5 queries will run that together are likely to be faster than one query with 5000 items.
But not DRY
But of course I don't want to scatter this construct all over my code. I am looking for an extension method by which any IQueryable<T> can be transformed into a chunky executing statement. Ideally something like this:
var courses = Courses.Where(c => ids.Contains(c.CourseID))
.AsChunky(1000)
.ToList();
But maybe this
var courses = Courses.ChunkyContains(c => c.CourseID, ids, 1000)
.ToList();
I've given the latter solution a first shot:
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> ChunkyContains<TEntity, TContains>(
this IQueryable<TEntity> query,
Expression<Func<TEntity,TContains>> match,
IEnumerable<TContains> containList,
int chunkSize = 500)
{
return containList.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select (chunk => query.Where(x => chunk.Contains(match)))
.SelectMany(x => x);
}
Obviously, the part x => chunk.Contains(match) doesn't compile. But I don't know how to manipulate the match expression into a Contains expression.
Maybe someone can help me make this solution work. And of course I'm open to other approaches to make this statement scalable.
I’ve solved this problem with a little different approach a view month ago. Maybe it’s a good solution for you too.
I didn’t want my solution to change the query itself. So a ids.ChunkContains(p.Id) or a special WhereContains method was unfeasible. Also should the solution be able to combine a Contains with another filter as well as using the same collection multiple times.
db.TestEntities.Where(p => (ids.Contains(p.Id) || ids.Contains(p.ParentId)) && p.Name.StartsWith("Test"))
So I tried to encapsulate the logic in a special ToList method that could rewrite the Expression for a specified collection to be queried in chunks.
var ids = Enumerable.Range(1, 11);
var result = db.TestEntities.Where(p => Ids.Contains(p.Id) && p.Name.StartsWith ("Test"))
.ToChunkedList(ids,4);
To rewrite the expression tree I discovered all Contains Method calls from local collections in the query with a view helping classes.
private class ContainsExpression
{
public ContainsExpression(MethodCallExpression methodCall)
{
this.MethodCall = methodCall;
}
public MethodCallExpression MethodCall { get; private set; }
public object GetValue()
{
var parent = MethodCall.Object ?? MethodCall.Arguments.FirstOrDefault();
return Expression.Lambda<Func<object>>(parent).Compile()();
}
public bool IsLocalList()
{
Expression parent = MethodCall.Object ?? MethodCall.Arguments.FirstOrDefault();
while (parent != null) {
if (parent is ConstantExpression)
return true;
var member = parent as MemberExpression;
if (member != null) {
parent = member.Expression;
} else {
parent = null;
}
}
return false;
}
}
private class FindExpressionVisitor<T> : ExpressionVisitor where T : Expression
{
public List<T> FoundItems { get; private set; }
public FindExpressionVisitor()
{
this.FoundItems = new List<T>();
}
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
var found = node as T;
if (found != null) {
this.FoundItems.Add(found);
}
return base.Visit(node);
}
}
public static List<T> ToChunkedList<T, TValue>(this IQueryable<T> query, IEnumerable<TValue> list, int chunkSize)
{
var finder = new FindExpressionVisitor<MethodCallExpression>();
finder.Visit(query.Expression);
var methodCalls = finder.FoundItems.Where(p => p.Method.Name == "Contains").Select(p => new ContainsExpression(p)).Where(p => p.IsLocalList()).ToList();
var localLists = methodCalls.Where(p => p.GetValue() == list).ToList();
If the local collection passed in the ToChunkedList method was found in the query expression, I replace the Contains call to the original list with a new call to a temporary list containing the ids for one batch.
if (localLists.Any()) {
var result = new List<T>();
var valueList = new List<TValue>();
var containsMethod = typeof(Enumerable).GetMethods(BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)
.Single(p => p.Name == "Contains" && p.GetParameters().Count() == 2)
.MakeGenericMethod(typeof(TValue));
var queryExpression = query.Expression;
foreach (var item in localLists) {
var parameter = new List<Expression>();
parameter.Add(Expression.Constant(valueList));
if (item.MethodCall.Object == null) {
parameter.AddRange(item.MethodCall.Arguments.Skip(1));
} else {
parameter.AddRange(item.MethodCall.Arguments);
}
var call = Expression.Call(containsMethod, parameter.ToArray());
var replacer = new ExpressionReplacer(item.MethodCall,call);
queryExpression = replacer.Visit(queryExpression);
}
var chunkQuery = query.Provider.CreateQuery<T>(queryExpression);
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Ceiling((decimal)list.Count() / chunkSize); i++) {
valueList.Clear();
valueList.AddRange(list.Skip(i * chunkSize).Take(chunkSize));
result.AddRange(chunkQuery.ToList());
}
return result;
}
// if the collection was not found return query.ToList()
return query.ToList();
Expression Replacer:
private class ExpressionReplacer : ExpressionVisitor {
private Expression find, replace;
public ExpressionReplacer(Expression find, Expression replace)
{
this.find = find;
this.replace = replace;
}
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
if (node == this.find)
return this.replace;
return base.Visit(node);
}
}
Please allow me to provide an alternative to the Chunky approach.
The technique involving Contains in your predicate works well for:
A constant list of values (no volatile).
A small list of values.
Contains will do great if your local data has those two characteristics because these small set of values will be hardcoded in the final SQL query.
The problem begins when your list of values has entropy (non-constant). As of this writing, Entity Framework (Classic and Core) do not try to parameterize these values in any way, this forces SQL Server to generate a query plan every time it sees a new combination of values in your query. This operation is expensive and gets aggravated by the overall complexity of your query (e.g. many tables, a lot of values in the list, etc.).
The Chunky approach still suffers from this SQL Server query plan cache pollution problem, because it does not parametrizes the query, it just moves the cost of creating a big execution plan into smaller ones that are more easy to compute (and discard) by SQL Server, furthermore, every chunk adds an additional round-trip to the database, which increases the time needed to resolve the query.
An Efficient Solution for EF Core
🎉 NEW! QueryableValues EF6 Edition has arrived!
For EF Core keep reading below.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a way of composing local data in your query in a way that's SQL Server friendly? Enter QueryableValues.
I designed this library with these two main goals:
It MUST solve the SQL Server's query plan cache pollution problem ✅
It MUST be fast! ⚡
It has a flexible API that allows you to compose local data provided by an IEnumerable<T> and you get back an IQueryable<T>; just use it as if it were another entity of your DbContext (really), e.g.:
// Sample values.
IEnumerable<int> values = Enumerable.Range(1, 1000);
// Using a Join (query syntax).
var query1 =
from e in dbContext.MyEntities
join v in dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values) on e.Id equals v
select new
{
e.Id,
e.Name
};
// Using Contains (method syntax)
var query2 = dbContext.MyEntities
.Where(e => dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values).Contains(e.Id))
.Select(e => new
{
e.Id,
e.Name
});
You can also compose complex types!
It goes without saying that the provided IEnumerable<T> is only enumerated at the time that your query is materialized (not before), preserving the same behavior of EF Core in this regard.
How Does It Works?
Internally QueryableValues creates a parameterized query and provides your values in a serialized format that is natively understood by SQL Server. This allows your query to be resolved with a single round-trip to the database and avoids creating a new query plan on subsequent executions due to the parameterized nature of it.
Useful Links
Nuget Package
GitHub Repository
Benchmarks
SQL Server Cache Pollution Problem
QueryableValues is distributed under the MIT license
Linqkit to the rescue! Might be a better way that does it directly, but this seems to work fine and makes it pretty clear what's being done. The addition being AsExpandable(), which lets you use the Invoke extension.
using LinqKit;
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> ChunkyContains<TEntity, TContains>(
this IQueryable<TEntity> query,
Expression<Func<TEntity,TContains>> match,
IEnumerable<TContains> containList,
int chunkSize = 500)
{
return containList
.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select (chunk => query.AsExpandable()
.Where(x => chunk.Contains(match.Invoke(x))))
.SelectMany(x => x);
}
You might also want to do this:
containsList.Distinct()
.ToChunks(chunkSize)
...or something similar so you don't get duplicate results if something this occurs:
query.ChunkyContains(x => x.Id, new List<int> { 1, 1 }, 1);
Another way would be to build the predicate this way (of course, some parts should be improved, just giving the idea).
public static Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> ContainsPredicate<TEntity, TContains>(this IEnumerable<TContains> chunk, Expression<Func<TEntity, TContains>> match)
{
return Expression.Lambda<Func<TEntity, bool>>(Expression.Call(
typeof (Enumerable),
"Contains",
new[]
{
typeof (TContains)
},
Expression.Constant(chunk, typeof(IEnumerable<TContains>)), match.Body),
match.Parameters);
}
which you could call in your ChunkContains method
return containList.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select(chunk => query.Where(ContainsPredicate(chunk, match)))
.SelectMany(x => x);
Using a stored procedure with a table valued parameter could also work well. You in effect write a joint In the stored procedure between your table / view and the table valued parameter.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/data/adonet/sql/table-valued-parameters
I have a function inside a class that will run a Linq to Entities query (or any type of Linq query actually), and it's gonna return 2 columns in the resultset. I would like to return an object to whoever is calling my function that will allow Intellisense to know what I have returned.
Let me explain. If I have a function like this:
public static IQueryable GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
var query =
(from t in oEntityModel.Table1
from u in t.Table2
where t.Status == true &&
u.Status == true
select new
{
t.Column1,
u.Column2
})
return query;
}
What can (should) I put instead of IQueryable so that whoever calls my GetInfo function, will get Intellisense from the resultset, and show that it has a Column1 and Column2?
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
if (linqresult.Column1 == 1)
{
foreach (var oItem in linqresult)
{
.. do stuff...
}
}
Tks
You cannot return an anonymous type from a function, they are strictly "inline" classes. When you return it, the foreach loop will only be able to interpret the result as an plain object. I guess you could use reflection to query the property names and values, however it seems much more straight forward to define a data transfer type to hold the results.
See this question, and this blog post.
So you could create a simple struct or class:
public class MyDataResult
{
public object Column1 { get; set; }
public object Column2 { get; set; }
}
Then modify your query in the function:
public static IQueryable<MyDataResult> GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
var query =
(from t in oEntityModel.Table1
from u in t.Table2
where t.Status == true &&
u.Status == true
select new MyDataResult
{
Column1 = t.Column1,
Column2 = u.Column2
})
return query;
}
Something like that should work. Note that I used "object" for the properties in MyDataResult. I don't know the types of the columns you are returning, you should use the actual types in order to get full intellisense.
You are returning a collection of anonymous types, they will be casted to objects, so when you try to iterate over them, altough they will be your objects (and they will contain your properties) at compile time they will be casted to objects:
foreach (var x in ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel))
{
//x is an Object
}
You can read more about it here.
If you want to have intellisense, I suggest you create a custom class they will hold your properties and return not an anonymous type (using new {}) but object of your class (new MyClass(prop1, prop2)). You also need to change signature of your method, so it returns IQueryable<YourClass> and not just plain non-generic IQueryable.
As others have said, creating a new type to hold the two columns is usually the best option.
But if, for some reason, you don't want to do that and you are using .Net 4.0, you can use Tuple:
public static IQueryable<Tuple<Column1Type, Column2Type>>
GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
return from …
select Tuple.Create(t.Column1, u.Column2);
}
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
foreach (var oItem in linqresult)
Console.WriteLIne(oItem.Item1, oItem.Item2);
When you return your resultset AsQueryable, the app is already able to give you intellisense, however in your example, you must specify either .FirstOrDefault if you know your collection will only have a single row, or iterate over your collection to get the items from it, like so:
This is what you're doing:
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
if (linqresult.Column1 == 1)
{
..do stuff...
}
This is how you should do it:
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
foreach(var item in linqresult)
{
if (item.Column1 == 1)
{
..do stuff...
}
}
You must iterate over linqresult because when you query with link, it returns a result set, even if it just has one column. As with any collection, your data columns aren't available on the whole result set, only with individual items.
If you want to strongly typed enumerate a non-generic IEnumerable (IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() instead of IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator<T>()) you can use the Cast<>() extension, like so
var myquery = GetQueryable();
for (var item in myquery.Cast<MyDataType>())
{
// use item.Column1 directly and strongly typed with intellisense
}
I have Business Object Collection
I'd like to filter rows using linq, but noticed it returns IEnumerable what can not be cast then to my BOC
E.g I cannot do that
BOC <Client> bocCLients = (BOC <Client>)
from C in ClientsColl where C.ClientId == 100 select C
I've resolved that by looping by linq results and adding returned object to my original collection.
I wonder if there is simpler way?
var bocCLients = ClientsColl.Where(c => c.ClientId == 100).ToList();
Or
var bocCLients = new BOC<Client>(ClientsColl.Where(c => c.ClientId == 100));
Edit
Or maybe an AddRange extension
public static void AddRange<T>(this ICollection<T> colSource, IEnumerable<T> collection)
{
if (colSource is List<T>)
((List<T>)colSource).AddRange(collection); //If List use build in optimized AddRange function
else
{
foreach (var item in collection)
colSource.Add(item);
}
}
This looks like a perfect opportunity to create an extension method. From looking at your question, it appears that ClientsColl already contains objects of type Client. In this case, your solution of a foreach loop is ideal. However, you can encapsulate that solution into an extension method and make it reusable and easy to read.
Here's an example of how it would look like:
public static BOC<T> ToBOC<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sourceCollection)
{
var boc = new BOC<T>();
foreach (T item in sourceCollection)
{
boc.Add(item);
}
return boc;
}
Using this extension method, you would just write your query as follows:
BOC<Client> bocClients =
(
from C in ClientsColl
where C.ClientID == 100
select C
).ToBOC();
EDIT:
To follow up on the idea of the more generic extension method to ICollection, but keeping in line the original question which was to perform a sort of Cast to a specific type of collection, and now having the new information that BOC implements ICollection, here is a more generic extension method and usage to perform the job:
public static TCollection ToICollection<T, TCollection>(this IEnumerable<T> sourceCollection)
where TCollection : ICollection<T>, new()
{
TCollection col = new TCollection();
foreach (T item in sourceCollection)
{
col.Add(item);
}
return col;
}
And usage:
BOC<Client> bocClients2 =
(
from C in ClientsColl
where C.ClientID == 100
select C
).ToICollection<Client, BOC<Client>>();
Does this look more useful? Let me know what you think.