I need help to convert the following query to Linq
SELECT c.Code, c.Name
from tblCodes as c
where c.code not in
(select Code from npConsultant where ConsultantName = 'X')
and c.Code < 'AA.0000'
When I try in Linqpad it doesn't seem to understand the into or defaultifempty. Maybe these are inproper methods for what I need to do
Simple answer is use the "let" keyword and generate a sub-query that supports your conditional set for the main entity.
var Objlist= from u in tblCodes
let ces = from ce in npConsultant
select ce.code
where !ces.Contains(u.code)
select u;
try something like that:
var query =
from c in Customers
where !(from n in npConsultant
where n.ConsultantName='X'
select n.Code)
.Contains(c.Code)
&& c.Code < 'AA.0000'
select c.Code, c.Name;
I just do not get how Code can be less than 'AA.0000' ....
Related
I am new to Linq. I am trying to query some data in MS SQL.
Here is my statement:
select * from booking
left outer join carpark
on booking.bookingId = carpark.bookingId
where userID = 5 and status = 'CL'
When I run this in MS SQL, I get the expected result. How can I do this in Linq?
Thank you for your help.
you need this:
var query = (from t1 in tb1
join t2 in tb2 on t1.pKey = t2.tb1pKey into JoinedList
from t2 in JoinedList.DefaultIfEmpty()
where t1.userID == 5 && t1.status == "CL"
select new
{
t1,
t2
})
.ToList();
You can try to do left join this way :
from t1 in tb1
from t2 in tb2.Where(o => o.tb1pKey == t1.pKey).DefaultIfEmpty()
where tb1.userId == 5 && tb1.status == "CL"
select t1;
Usually when people say they want a "left outer join," that's just because they've already converted what they really want into SQL in their head. Usually what they really want is all of the items from table A, and the ability to get the related items from table B if there are any.
Assuming you have your navigation properties set up correctly, this could be as easy as:
var tb1sWithTb2s = context.tb1
.Include(t => t.tb2s) // Include all the tb2 items for each of these.
.Where(t => t.userID == 5 and t.status = "CL");
hi friends please help me out to get out of this um new to linq with lambda
select cn from color,related
where cid in (select ciid from related where iid=2)
Without knowing how the relations are set up, the best I can do is free hand, something like;
(from c in db.color
from r in db.related
where c.cid == r.ciid && r.iid == 2
select c).Distinct();
or
from c in db.color
where (from r in db.related where r.iid==2 select r.ciid).Contains(c.cid)
select c;
Try Below expression
(from i in dbcontext.color
where (from j in dbcontext.color where j.iid==2 select j.ciid).contains(i.cid)
select i)
I have this LINQ query and I need to make a second Join to it:
var linqQuery = (from r in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("opportunity")
join c in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("contact") on ((EntityReference)r["new_contact"]).Id equals c["contactid"] into opp
from o in opp.DefaultIfEmpty()
where ((EntityReference)r["new_channelpartner"]).Id.Equals(lProfileProperty.PropertyValue) && ((OptionSetValue)r["new_leadstatus"]).Equals("100000002")
select new
But I need to also Join this:
from r in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("annotation")
join c in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("opportunity") on ((EntityReference)r["objectid"]).Id equals c["opportunityid"]
Sorry, I'm sure this is easy. I suck at LINQ though. Any help would be great.
Thanks!
It's not really clear what you mean, but I suggest you want:
var linqQuery = from r in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("opportunity")
where ...
join c in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("contact")
on ((EntityReference)r["new_contact"]).Id
equals c["contactid"] into opp
from o in opp.DefaultIfEmpty()
join r in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("annotation")
on c["opportunityid"]
equals ((EntityReference)r["objectid"]).Id
select new...
It's not clear why you have to cast to EntityReference everywhere and access fields via their names as strings, by the way. Are you sure you can't use something like:
var linqQuery = from opportunity in gServiceContext.Opportunities
where opportunity.ChannelPartner.Id == targetChannelPartner
&& opportunity.NewLeadStatus == 100000002
join contact in gServiceContext.Contacts
on opportunity.Id equals contact.Id into contacts
from contactOrNull in contacts.DefaultIfEmpty()
join annotation in gServiceContext.Annotations
on annotation.ObjectId equals opportunity.OpportunityId
select ...;
I want to achieve the following in Linq to Entities:
Get all Enquires that have no Application or the Application has a status != 4 (Completed)
select e.*
from Enquiry enq
left outer join Application app
on enq.enquiryid = app.enquiryid
where app.Status <> 4 or app.enquiryid is null
Has anyone done this before without using DefaultIfEmpty(), which is not supported by Linq to Entities?
I'm trying to add a filter to an IQueryable query like this:
IQueryable<Enquiry> query = Context.EnquirySet;
query = (from e in query
where e.Applications.DefaultIfEmpty()
.Where(app=>app.Status != 4).Count() >= 1
select e);
Thanks
Mark
In EF 4.0+, LEFT JOIN syntax is a little different and presents a crazy quirk:
var query = from c1 in db.Category
join c2 in db.Category on c1.CategoryID equals c2.ParentCategoryID
into ChildCategory
from cc in ChildCategory.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new CategoryObject
{
CategoryID = c1.CategoryID,
ChildName = cc.CategoryName
}
If you capture the execution of this query in SQL Server Profiler, you will see that it does indeed perform a LEFT OUTER JOIN. HOWEVER, if you have multiple LEFT JOIN ("Group Join") clauses in your Linq-to-Entity query, I have found that the self-join clause MAY actually execute as in INNER JOIN - EVEN IF THE ABOVE SYNTAX IS USED!
The resolution to that? As crazy and, according to MS, wrong as it sounds, I resolved this by changing the order of the join clauses. If the self-referencing LEFT JOIN clause was the 1st Linq Group Join, SQL Profiler reported an INNER JOIN. If the self-referencing LEFT JOIN clause was the LAST Linq Group Join, SQL Profiler reported an LEFT JOIN.
Do this:
IQueryable<Enquiry> query = Context.EnquirySet;
query = (from e in query
where (!e.Applications.Any())
|| e.Applications.Any(app => app.Status != 4)
select e);
I don't find LINQ's handling of the problem of what would be an "outer join" in SQL "goofy" at all. The key to understanding it is to think in terms of an object graph with nullable properties rather than a tabular result set.
Any() maps to EXISTS in SQL, so it's far more efficient than Count() in some cases.
Thanks guys for your help. I went for this option in the end but your solutions have helped broaden my knowledge.
IQueryable<Enquiry> query = Context.EnquirySet;
query = query.Except(from e in query
from a in e.Applications
where a.Status == 4
select e);
Because of Linq's goofy (read non-standard) way of handling outers, you have to use DefaultIfEmpty().
What you'll do is run your Linq-To-Entities query into two IEnumerables, then LEFT Join them using DefaultIfEmpty(). It may look something like:
IQueryable enq = Enquiry.Select();
IQueryable app = Application.Select();
var x = from e in enq
join a in app on e.enquiryid equals a.enquiryid
into ae
where e.Status != 4
from appEnq in ae.DefaultIfEmpty()
select e.*;
Just because you can't do it with Linq-To-Entities doesn't mean you can't do it with raw Linq.
(Note: before anyone downvotes me ... yes, I know there are more elegant ways to do this. I'm just trying to make it understandable. It's the concept that's important, right?)
Another thing to consider, if you directly reference any properties in your where clause from a left-joined group (using the into syntax) without checking for null, Entity Framework will still convert your LEFT JOIN into an INNER JOIN.
To avoid this, filter on the "from x in leftJoinedExtent" part of your query like so:
var y = from parent in thing
join child in subthing on parent.ID equals child.ParentID into childTemp
from childLJ in childTemp.Where(c => c.Visible == true).DefaultIfEmpty()
where parent.ID == 123
select new {
ParentID = parent.ID,
ChildID = childLJ.ID
};
ChildID in the anonymous type will be a nullable type and the query this generates will be a LEFT JOIN.
If I use a join, the Include() method is no longer working, eg:
from e in dc.Entities.Include("Properties")
join i in dc.Items on e.ID equals i.Member.ID
where (i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select e
e.Properties is not loaded
Without the join, the Include() works
Lee
UPDATE: Actually I recently added another Tip that covers this, and provides an alternate probably better solution. The idea is to delay the use of Include() until the end of the query, see this for more information: Tip 22 - How to make include really include
There is known limitation in the Entity Framework when using Include().
Certain operations are just not supported with Include.
Looks like you may have run into one on those limitations, to work around this you should try something like this:
var results =
from e in dc.Entities //Notice no include
join i in dc.Items on e.ID equals i.Member.ID
where (i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select new {Entity = e, Properties = e.Properties};
This will bring back the Properties, and if the relationship between entity and Properties is a one to many (but not a many to many) you will find that each resulting anonymous type has the same values in:
anonType.Entity.Properties
anonType.Properties
This is a side-effect of a feature in the Entity Framework called relationship fixup.
See this Tip 1 in my EF Tips series for more information.
Try this:
var query = (ObjectQuery<Entities>)(from e in dc.Entities
join i in dc.Items on e.ID equals i.Member.ID
where (i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select e)
return query.Include("Properties")
So what is the name of the navigation property on "Entity" which relates to "Item.Member" (i.e., is the other end of the navigation). You should be using this instead of the join. For example, if "entity" add a property called Member with the cardinality of 1 and Member had a property called Items with a cardinality of many, you could do this:
from e in dc.Entities.Include("Properties")
where e.Member.Items.Any(i => i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select e
I'm guessing at the properties of your model here, but this should give you the general idea. In most cases, using join in LINQ to Entities is wrong, because it suggests that either your navigational properties are not set up correctly, or you are not using them.
So, I realise I am late to the party here, however I thought I'd add my findings. This should really be a comment on Alex James's post, but as I don't have the reputation it'll have to go here.
So my answer is: it doesn't seem to work at all as you would intend. Alex James gives two interesting solutions, however if you try them and check the SQL, it's horrible.
The example I was working on is:
var theRelease = from release in context.Releases
where release.Name == "Hello World"
select release;
var allProductionVersions = from prodVer in context.ProductionVersions
where prodVer.Status == 1
select prodVer;
var combined = (from release in theRelease
join p in allProductionVersions on release.Id equals p.ReleaseID
select release).Include(release => release.ProductionVersions);
var allProductionsForChosenRelease = combined.ToList();
This follows the simpler of the two examples. Without the include it produces the perfectly respectable sql:
SELECT
[Extent1].[Id] AS [Id],
[Extent1].[Name] AS [Name]
FROM [dbo].[Releases] AS [Extent1]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[Id] = [Extent2].[ReleaseID]
WHERE ('Hello World' = [Extent1].[Name]) AND (1 = [Extent2].[Status])
But with, OMG:
SELECT
[Project1].[Id1] AS [Id],
[Project1].[Id] AS [Id1],
[Project1].[Name] AS [Name],
[Project1].[C1] AS [C1],
[Project1].[Id2] AS [Id2],
[Project1].[Status] AS [Status],
[Project1].[ReleaseID] AS [ReleaseID]
FROM ( SELECT
[Extent1].[Id] AS [Id],
[Extent1].[Name] AS [Name],
[Extent2].[Id] AS [Id1],
[Extent3].[Id] AS [Id2],
[Extent3].[Status] AS [Status],
[Extent3].[ReleaseID] AS [ReleaseID],
CASE WHEN ([Extent3].[Id] IS NULL) THEN CAST(NULL AS int) ELSE 1 END AS [C1]
FROM [dbo].[Releases] AS [Extent1]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[Id] = [Extent2].[ReleaseID]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [Extent3] ON [Extent1].[Id] = [Extent3].[ReleaseID]
WHERE ('Hello World' = [Extent1].[Name]) AND (1 = [Extent2].[Status])
) AS [Project1]
ORDER BY [Project1].[Id1] ASC, [Project1].[Id] ASC, [Project1].[C1] ASC
Total garbage. The key point to note here is the fact that it returns the outer joined version of the table which has not been limited by status=1.
This results in the WRONG data being returned:
Id Id1 Name C1 Id2 Status ReleaseID
2 1 Hello World 1 1 2 1
2 1 Hello World 1 2 1 1
Note that the status of 2 is being returned there, despite our restriction. It simply does not work.
If I have gone wrong somewhere, I would be delighted to find out, as this is making a mockery of Linq. I love the idea, but the execution doesn't seem to be usable at the moment.
Out of curiosity, I tried the LinqToSQL dbml rather than the LinqToEntities edmx that produced the mess above:
SELECT [t0].[Id], [t0].[Name], [t2].[Id] AS [Id2], [t2].[Status], [t2].[ReleaseID], (
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [t3]
WHERE [t3].[ReleaseID] = [t0].[Id]
) AS [value]
FROM [dbo].[Releases] AS [t0]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [t1] ON [t0].[Id] = [t1].[ReleaseID]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [dbo].[ProductionVersions] AS [t2] ON [t2].[ReleaseID] = [t0].[Id]
WHERE ([t0].[Name] = #p0) AND ([t1].[Status] = #p1)
ORDER BY [t0].[Id], [t1].[Id], [t2].[Id]
Slightly more compact - weird count clause, but overall same total FAIL.
Has anybody actually ever used this stuff in a real business application? I'm really starting to wonder...
Please tell me I've missed something obvious, as I really want to like Linq!
Try the more verbose way to do more or less the same thing obtain the same results, but with more datacalls:
var mydata = from e in dc.Entities
join i in dc.Items
on e.ID equals i.Member.ID
where (i.Collection.ID == collectionID)
select e;
foreach (Entity ent in mydata) {
if(!ent.Properties.IsLoaded) { ent.Properties.Load(); }
}
Do you still get the same (unexpected) result?
EDIT: Changed the first sentence, as it was incorrect. Thanks for the pointer comment!