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
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.
How to use string extension method in linq query:
public NewsType GetNewsType(string name)
{
var newsType = db.NewsTypes.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name.ToFriendlyUrl() ==
name.ToFriendlyUrl());
return newsType;
}
Above query x.Name.ToFriendlyUrl() is not allowed at the minute. Is anyone know how to achieve with it.
Extension methods are indeed allowed in LINQ queries, moreover the LINQ methods themselves are implemented as extension methods.
It's quite another issue however, to use extension methods (or most other methods) in LINQ-to-SQL or LINQ-to-Entities queries. Those queries are not actually run in the C# code, but they are treated like expressions that are translated to SQL. I.e.
db.News.Where(x => x.Published).Select(x => x.Name)
is translated to the SQL Statement
Select Name
From News
Where Published = 1
and it's results are returned to the C# code.
Since there is not way to transfer the ToFriendlyUrl() method to SQL, your code throws an error.
You have basically, two solutions/workarounds. One is to transform the call to a form could be translated into SQL, e.g. if the ToFriendlyUrl() method was just:
public static string ToFriendlyURL(this string value)
{
return value.ToLower();
}
you can inline that code in the LINQ call, and that would work. If however, the methods is more complex, than your only solution is to just fetch the data from the base and then process it on the C# side:
var newsTypeQuery = db.NewsTypes.Where(x => // other conditions, if any);
var newsTypes = newsTypes.ToList(); //forces execution of the query
// the result is now a C# list
var newsType = newsTypes.FirstOrDefault(x =>
x.Name.ToFriendlyUrl() == name.ToFriendlyUrl());
Assuming the NewsTypes is an IQueryable this is a result of Entity Framework not being able to convert you extension method into SQL (how should it?). Unless you can rewrite your predicate into something that Entity Framework can translate into SQL you will have to perform the query client side:
public NewsType GetNewsType(string name)
{
var newsType = db.NewsTypes.AsEnumerable().FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name.ToFriendlyUrl() == name.ToFriendlyUrl());
return newsType;
}
Notice how AsEnumerable() has been added before FirstOrDefault. Unfortunately this may pull all the rows returned by NewsTypes from the server to client and thus may be quite costly.
This
var newsType = db.NewsTypes.FirstOrDefault(
x => x.Name.ToFriendlyUrl() == name.ToFriendlyUrl());
can't be done in Entity Framework. ToFriendlyUrl is an extension method. It's something that is in the "client" computer. The query will be executed on the SQL server. The SQL server doesn't have a ToFriendlyUrl function.
The "standard" solution is to save in a second column named FriendlyName a precalculated version of the ToFriendlyUrl(), so your query becomes:
var friendlyName = name.ToFriendlyUrl();
var newsType = db.NewsTypes.FirstOrDefault(
x => x.FriendlyName == friendlyName);
Instead try like this
public NewsType GetNewsType(string name)
{
var newsType = db.NewsTypes.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == name).ToFriendlyUrl();
return newsType;
}
I'm currently working in a project that involves the encryption of a few columns in an existing database. There is quite a lot of code already written against the current schema, a lot of which is in the form of custom linq-to-sql queries. The number of queries is in the neighbourhood of a 5 figure number, so modifying and re-testing each and everyone of them would be way too expensive.
An alternative we found is to keep the DB schema the same --only altering the columns length slightly, which mean we don't need to change our current entity class definitions-- and instead, changing the expression trees on-the-fly, before they reach the l2sql IQueryProvider, and apply a decryption function on the columns I need. I do this by wrapping the pertinent Table<TEntity> properties of my DataContext with a custom IQueryable<TEntity> implementation, which allows me to preview every single query in the system.
In my current implementation, say I've got this query:
var mydate = new DateTime(2013, 1, 1);
var context = new DataContextFactory.GetClientsContext();
Expression<Func<string>> foo = context.MyClients.First(
c => c.BirthDay < mydate).EncryptedColumn;
but when I catch the query, I change it to read:
Expression<Func<string>> foo = context.Decrypt(
context.MyClients.First(c => c.BirthDay < mydate).EncryptedColumn);
I do this using the ExpressionVisitor class. In the VisitMember method, I check and see whether the current MemberExpression refers to an encrypted column. If it does, I substitute the expression for a method call:
private const string FuncName = "Decrypt";
protected override Expression VisitMember(MemberExpression ma)
{
if (datactx != null && IsEncryptedColumnReference(ma))
return MakeCallExpression(ma);
}
return base.VisitMember(ma);
}
private static bool IsEncryptedColumnReference(MemberExpression ma)
{
return ma.Member.Name == "EncryptedColumn"
&& ma.Member.DeclaringType == typeof(MyClient);
}
private Expression MakeCallExpression(MemberExpression ma)
{
const BindingFlags flags = BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public;
var mi = typeof(MyDataContext).GetMethod(FuncName, flags);
return Expression.Call(datactx, mi, ma);
}
datactx is an instance variable with a reference to the expression pointing at the current datacontext (which I look up in a previous pass).
My problem is that if I have a query such as:
var qbeClient = new MyClient { EncryptedColumn = "FooBar" };
Expression<Func<MyClient>> dbquery = () => context.MyClients.First(
c => c.EncryptedColumn == qbeClient.EncryptedColumn);
I want it to be turned into:
Expression<Func<MyClient>> dbquery = () => context.MyClients.First(c =>
context.Decrypt(c.EncryptedColumn) == qbeClient.EncryptedColumn);
instead, what I'm getting is this:
Expression<Func<MyClient>> dbquery = () => context.MyClients.First(c =>
context.Decrypt(c.EncryptedColumn) == context.Decrypt(qbeClient.EncryptedColumn));
Which I don't want, because when I've got an in-memory object, the data is already unencrypted (besides, I don't want a nasty db function call against my objects!)
So, that's basically my question: Having a MemberExpression instance, how can I determine whether it refers to an in-memory object or a row in the database?
Thanks in advance
Edit:
#Shlomo's code actually solves the case I posted, but now one of my previous tests got broken:
var context = new DataContextFactory.GetClientsContext();
Expression<Func<string>> expr = context.MyClients.First().EncryptedColumn;
Expression<Func<string>> expected = context.Decrypt(
context.MyClients.First().EncryptedColumn);
var actual = MyVisitor.Visit(expr);
Assert.AreEqual(expected.ToString(), actual.ToString());
In this case, the reference to EncryptedColumn isn't a parameter, but it should definitely be taken into account by the visitor!
A MemberExpression representing a DB row will be a descendent of a ParameterExpression. In-Memory objects will not, they'll most likely come from some form of a FieldExpression.
In your case, something like this will work for most cases (adding one method to your code, and revising your VisitMember method:
private bool IsFromParameter(MemberExpression ma)
{
if(ma.Expression.NodeType == ExpressionType.Parameter)
return true;
if(ma.Expression is MemberExpression)
return IsFromParameter(ma.Expression as MemberExpression);
return false;
}
protected override Expression VisitMember(MemberExpression ma)
{
if (datactx != null && IsEncryptedColumnReference(ma) && IsFromParameter(ma))
return MakeCallExpression(ma);
}
return base.VisitMember(ma);
}
Is it possible ...??? I have 4 DropDownLists on my main page and the
user may select from any, all or some of
the DropDownLists. I am capturing their selection (or non-selection) using a SESSION
variable. What I would like to be able to do is pass the session
variable values to my Data Access Layer and build a WHERE clause
(maybe using StringBuilder) and then place that variable SOMEHOW into
my query expression. Is that possible??? Sorry, I'm a newbie. Thanks ~susan~
public class DLgetRestaurants
{
FVTCEntities db = new FVTCEntities();
public List<RESTAURANT> getRestaurants(string cuisineName, string priceName, string cityName)
[Build a string based on the values passed to the function]
{
var cuisineID = db.CUISINEs.First(s => s.CUISINE_NAME == cuisineName).CUISINE_ID;
List<RESTAURANT> result = (from RESTAURANT in db.RESTAURANTs.Include("CITY").Include("CUISINE").Include("Price")
where **[USE STRINGBUIDER EXPRSSION HERE]**
select RESTAURANT).ToList();
return result;
}
}
You can compose Where conditions which are linked by a logical AND relatively easy in LINQ extension method syntax:
var query = db.RESTAURANTs.Include("CITY").Include("CUISINE").Include("Price");
if (userHasSelectedInDDL1)
query = query.Where(r => r.PropertyForDDL1 == ValueFromDDL1);
if (userHasSelectedInDDL2)
query = query.Where(r => r.PropertyForDDL2 == ValueFromDDL2);
if (userHasSelectedInDDL3)
query = query.Where(r => r.PropertyForDDL3 == ValueFromDDL3);
if (userHasSelectedInDDL4)
query = query.Where(r => r.PropertyForDDL4 == ValueFromDDL4);
List<RESTAURANT> result = query.ToList();
For a much more flexible solution to build queries dynamically the Dynamic LINQ Library recommended by boca is probably the better choice.
I have done this in the past using the Dynamic Linq Library.
I have a piece of code which combines an in-memory list with some data held in a database. This works just fine in my unit tests (using a mocked Linq2SqlRepository which uses List).
public IRepository<OrderItem> orderItems { get; set; }
private List<OrderHeld> _releasedOrders = null;
private List<OrderHeld> releasedOrders
{
get
{
if (_releasedOrders == null)
{
_releasedOrders = new List<nOrderHeld>();
}
return _releasedOrders;
}
}
.....
public int GetReleasedCount(OrderItem orderItem)
{
int? total =
(
from item in orderItems.All
join releasedOrder in releasedOrders
on item.OrderID equals releasedOrder.OrderID
where item.ProductID == orderItem.ProductID
select new
{
item.Quantity,
}
).Sum(x => (int?)x.Quantity);
return total.HasValue ? total.Value : 0;
}
I am getting an error I don't really understand when I run it against a database.
Exception information:
Exception type: System.NotSupportedException
Exception message: Local sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL
implementation of query operators
except the Contains() operator.
What am I doing wrong?
I'm guessing it's to do with the fact that orderItems is on the database and releasedItems is in memory.
EDIT
I have changed my code based on the answers given (thanks all)
public int GetReleasedCount(OrderItem orderItem)
{
var releasedOrderIDs = releasedOrders.Select(x => x.OrderID);
int? total =
(
from item in orderItems.All
where releasedOrderIDs.Contains(item.OrderID)
&& item.ProductID == orderItem.ProductID
select new
{
item.Quantity,
}
).Sum(x => (int?)x.Quantity);
return total.HasValue ? total.Value : 0;
}
I'm guessing it's to do with the fact
that orderItems is on the database
and releasedItems is in memory.
You are correct, you can't join a table to a List using LINQ.
Take a look at this link:
http://flatlinerdoa.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!17124D03A9A052B0!455.entry
He suggests using the Contains() method but you'll have to play around with it to see if it will work for your needs.
It looks like you need to formulate the db query first, because it can't create the correct SQL representation of the expression tree for objects that are in memory. It might be down to the join, so is it possible to get a value from the in-memory query that can be used as a simple primitive? For example using Contains() as the error suggests.
You unit tests work because your comparing a memory list to a memory list.
For memory list to database, you will either need to use the memoryVariable.Contains(...) or make the db call first and return a list(), so you can compare memory list to memory list as before. The 2nd option would return too much data, so your forced down the Contains() route.
public int GetReleasedCount(OrderItem orderItem)
{
int? total =
(
from item in orderItems.All
where item.ProductID == orderItem.ProductID
&& releasedOrders.Contains(item.OrderID)
select new
{
item.Quantity,
}
).Sum(x => (int?)x.Quantity);
return total.HasValue ? total.Value : 0;
}