I have a datatable (say myNameDT) which has data like this
Expected result:
When sector is Price, if it has fund value and component OTHER THAN "Active Return Contribution, It should update the Fundvalue in respective sector of Component Active Return Contribution. same applied for Index Value. Note: After update it should delete the unnecessary rows.
The result should look like,
Need as LINQ only. I have tried something as naive LINQ developer which is not fruitful. Thank you
What you're looking for is not feasible in a single LINQ statement. This is imposed not by LINQ itself but by the concept of SQL that LINQ relies on to perform operations on data. One of the things LINQ does, it lets you chain operations on the same dataset by combining them in a single query, however SELECTs cannot be combined with UPDATEs or DELETEs.
Finally, if what you're looking for is only syntactic sugar - this is not possible. If you are looking for a way to organize a set of data operations in a single TRANSACTION, you may want to look at these questions that give a hint on how LINQ interprets transaction operations:
TransactionScope vs Transaction in LINQ to SQL
How to create a LINQ to SQL Transaction?
Related
I have the following query:
var query = db.Prog
.Where (a => a.Prog != "00000" && a.fn != "Koll")
.Select(a => new {a.Prog, a.MEfn})
.OrderByDescending(a => a.MEfn)
The query works fine but wondering if there are general rules on the order in which you write a Lambda linq query. Meaning, .Where comes before .Select, etc.
Can somebody enlighten me on the order in which LINQ needs to be written or best practices.
There isn't a best practice on the order in which you write a LINQ query, it will depend on if you want to do your filtering first, or your projection. For example in your case, you are projecting to an anonymous type which doesn't include the 'fn' property which your filter uses, so it wouldn't be available to use in a where clause if your select was first.
A better practice would be to give your properties less cryptic names. Also, 'fn' doesn't follow the PascalCase for property names, and if it's a field then it probably shouldn't be public.
Yours can be a good order.
Let's distinguish the case where db points to an SQL DB with a very good LINQ provider and the case db is an in-memory object. I guess it's the first.
In case you are using a LINQ to SQL provider, the statements are evaluated only when you materialize the query into an object, so the SQL optimizer (inside the DB) will take care of ordering of statements.
The vice versa occurs when your statements are run against in-memory collections or to materialized collections coming from LINQ to SQL. In that case they are executed sequentially, so you want to execute first those statements that reduce the number of results in the collection. Where is the best candidate!!!
The order that they should be in are completely dependent on the context of what you are doing. So if your OrderBy is simply formatting the data to be friendly to view, put it at the end after you have trimmed your collection, if your looking for the First value of a sorted collection then maybe you would need it before the collection is iterated to get the first.
I Just want to make sure I understand this correctly...
search is an object that contains a querystring.
Repo.Query returns an ObjectQuery<T>.
From my understanding the chained linq statements will filter the results after entity framework has returned all the rows satisfying the query. So really ALL the rows are being returned and THEN filtered in memory. So we are returning a bunch of data that we don't really want. There's about 10k rows being returned so this is kind of important. Just like to get my confusion cleared up.
var searchQuery = Repo.Query(search)
.Where(entity =>
entity.Prop1.ToUpper().Equals(prop1.ToUpper()) &&
entity.Prop2.ToUpper().Equals(prop2.ToUpper()))
.OrderBy(entity => Repo.SortExpression ?? entity.prop1);
Your Repo.Query(string query) function should return IQueryable<T>.
Then you can filter and order without getting all rows first.
IQueryable(Of T) Interface
hope this helps
If this is to SQL, this will most likely create a SQL query and filter on the server and not in memory.
As a matter of fact, the statement above wouldn't actually do anything.
It's only when you iterate over it that the query will be executed. This is why certain providers (like the EF to SQL one) can collapse expression trees into a SQL query.
Easiest way to check is to use LINQPAD or the SQL Profiler to see what query is actually is executed.
I have to Pull all customers whose ids are in the list
I have a list of CustomerID`s
List custidlist=new List{1,2,3....etc.}();
i have to write a linq query to get all customers whose id`s are in the above list
custidlist.
var customers=db.Customers.Where(c=> custidlist.Contains(c.customerid));
Using Contains is not good in performance issue.
Can we use COMPARE OPERATOR LIKE THIS
var customers=db.Customers.Where(c=> custidlist.Compare(c.customerid)); ????
I Heard Compare is best for Performance
Since this is Linq to SQL / Entities your Linq Contains query will be translated to a SQL statement roughly like:
select * from Customers where customerId in (1,2,3)
Not only is your other suggestion not supported, but also you cannot do any better than this SQL performance wise.
When you write a Contains query in Linq to SQL it iwll be fired as an in query in SQL and running your query on the databse should be the fastest..
one caveats to this though is to remember in query might have a limit on the number of entities I think its around 2000+ in sql server and the way around this would be to batch your query.
I am new to Linq please guide me on some basic things.
In read some articles on Linq. Some authers fill data in var from Linq query, some fills list of custom type objects and some fills data in IEnumerable and some do it in IQuryable. I could not get what is difference in these 4 and which one should be used in which situation.
I want to use Linq to SQL. What should I use?
Well, you can never declare that a method returns var - it's only valid for local variables. It basically means "compiler, please infer the static type of this variable based on the expression on the right hand side of the assignment operator".
Usually a LINQ to Objects query will return an IEnumerable<T> if it's returning a sequence of some kind, or just a single instance for things like First().
A LINQ to SQL or EF query will use IQueryable<T> if they want further query options to be able to build on the existing query, with the added bits being analyzed as part of the SQL building process. Alternatively, using IEnumerable<T> means any further processing is carried out client-side.
Rather than focusing on what return type to use, I suggest you read up on the core concepts of LINQ (and the language enhancements themselves, like var) - that way you'll get a better feel for why these options exist, and what their different use cases are.
I thought that the purpose of using Linq2Nibernate was to return IQueryable and build up an expression tree. I am not sure if this is correct or not.
Why would anyone use Linq2Nibernate if they are not going to return IQueryable?
What else would it be used for?
I would love some more input on this topic
Linq For Nhibernate
I'm planning to use NHibernate.Linq to replace my HQL and criteria API queries with LINQ expressions. In other words, I'll generate the query in code (as a LINQ expression) and then pass it to NHibernate.Linq and NHib to convert it into a database query.
FYI there is an alpha version available.
I have planed to start using Linq2Nibernate but haven't got round to i yet.
My reason for wanting to user Linq2Nibernate is the nice syntax when constructing criterions and later querying them out.
Here is a nice simple example.
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2007/03/16/Linq-for-NHibernate.aspx
I am using Linq2Nhibernate with my repository pattern that returns IQueryable objects.
As you know, IQueryable is only a query definition - doesn't touch database yet.
Then local requirements are added to the query and finally the object or list is materialized.
Seems to work excellent and prevents unnecessary db queries for partial data at higher abstract layers.
What's Linq2NHibernate? As there are several projects which tried to implement a linq provider for nhibernate but all stopped before reaching completion.
Any linq provider needs to return IQueryable, or better an IEnumerable as that's how linq works. It's convenient to return an IQueryable as you then can re-use existing code to pad additional operators to an already created query (as ctx.Employee which might return IQueryable is already a query)