I have the following query which filters the batches according to whether the items in the batches have a certain issue no. I would like to know if there is more concise way doing this which would look cleaner.
neptuneBatches =
neptuneBatches.Where(
b => b.Items.Any(
i => i.ItemOrganisations.Any(
s => s.Issues.Any(
x => x.Code == filter.IssueNo))));
Related
Below is the NEST query and aggregations:
Func<QueryContainerDescriptor<ConferenceWrapper>, QueryContainer> query =
q =>
q.Term(p => p.type, "conference")
// && q.Term(p => p.conference.isWaitingAreaCall, true)
&& q.Range(d => d.Field("conference.lengthSeconds").GreaterThanOrEquals(minSeconds))
&& q.DateRange(qd => qd.Field("conference.firstCallerStart").GreaterThanOrEquals(from.ToUniversalTime().ToString("yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ss.fffZ")))
&& q.DateRange(qd => qd.Field("conference.firstCallerStart").LessThanOrEquals(to.ToUniversalTime().ToString("yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ss.fffZ")));
Func<AggregationContainerDescriptor<ConferenceWrapper>, IAggregationContainer> waitingArea =
a => a
.Terms("both", t => t
.Field(p => p.conference.orgNetworkId) // seems ignore this field
.Field(p => p.conference.isWaitingAreaCall)
// .Field(new Field( p => p.conference.orgNetworkId + "-ggg-" + p.conference.networkId)
.Size(300)
.Aggregations(a2 => a2.Sum("sum-length", d2 => d2.Field("conference.lengthSeconds"))));
I have called .Field(p => p.conference.orgNetworkId) followed by .Field(p => p.conference.isWaitingAreaCall) But it seems the NEST client tries to ignore the first field expression.
Is is possible to have multiple fields to be the terms group by?
Elasticsearch doesn't support a terms aggregation on multiple fields directly; the calls to .Field(...) within NEST are assignative rather than additive, so the last call will overwrite any previously set values.
In order to aggregate on multiple fields, you can either
Create a composite field at index time that incorporates the values that you wish to aggregate on
or
Use a Script to generate the terms on which to aggregate at query time, by combining the two field values.
The performance of the first option will be better than the second.
I have this query that does what I want which is to return true if any of the materials is comparable in the material groups list.
mgroup.MaterialGroups.Select(x => x.Materials
.Any(m => Convert.ToBoolean(m.Comparable)))
.Any(x => x.Equals(true))
What I would like to add to this query is to also include this one.
mgroup.Materials.Any(m => Convert.ToBoolean(m.Comparable));
How can I combine mgroup and it's materialgroups together in the query so I can select both of their Materials? Thanks.
EDIT - After fighting with LINQ for awhile I broke down and just combined as
mgroup.Materials.Any(m => Convert.ToBoolean(m.Comparable) ||
mgroup.MaterialGroups.Select(x => x.Materials
.Any(c => Convert.ToBoolean(c.Comparable)))
.Any(x => x.Equals(true)))
It works as expected but it's horribly long and it's embedded in an Asp.net MVC view to makes things even worse. If anyone can simplify this that would be amazing.
P.S.- If you are wondering why I added the extra .Any(x => x.Equals(true) at the end it's because without it the query returns an IEnumerable of bools instead of bool.
IEnumerable<Material> allMaterials =
mgroup.Materials.Concat(
mgroup.MaterialGroups.SelectMany(group => group.Materials));
bool result = allMaterials.Any(m => Convert.ToBoolean(m.Comparable));
I want to hydrate a collection of entities by passing in a List of Ids and also preserve the order.
Another SO answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/15187081/1059911 suggested this approach to hydrating the entities which works great
var entities = db.MyEntities.Where(e => myListOfIds.Contains(e.ID)).ToList();
however the order of entities in the collection is different from the order of Ids
Is there a way to preserve the order?
May be that helps:
var entities = db.MyEntities
.Where(e => myListOfIds.Contains(e.ID))
.OrderBy(e => myListOfIds.IndexOf(e.ID)).ToList();
EDIT
JohnnyHK clarified that this will not work with LINQ to Entities. For this to work you need to order IEnumerable instead of IQueryable, since IQueryProvider don't know how to deal with local list IndexOf method when it sends query to server. But after AsEnumerable() OrderBy method deals with local data. So you can do this:
var entities = db.MyEntities
.Where(e => myListOfIds.Contains(e.ID))
.AsEnumerable()
.OrderBy(e => myListOfIds.IndexOf(e.ID)).ToList();
Entity Framework contains a subset of all of the LINQ commands so you won't have all the commands that LINQ to Objects has.
The following approach should give you your list of MyEntities in the same order as supplied by myListOfIds:
var entities = myListOfIds.Join(db.MyEntities, m => m, e => e.ID, (m,e) => e)
.ToList();
I have a linq query that returns a list of employees and a job title.
I need to sort it by job title but have the ones that do not have any employees in the output list first.
Example sorted:
- Driver List{0}
- Attendant List{71}
- Pilot List{19}
The driver is first because it has nothing in the list and then it is sorted by title.
I am just curious what do you think would be my best option to accomplish that?
Thanks
Something like:
var query = employees.OrderBy(x => x.Subordinates.Any() ? 1 : 0)
.ThenBy(x => x.JobTitle);
You could also use the fact that false sorts earlier than true:
var query = employees.OrderBy(x => !x.Subordinates.Any())
.ThenBy(x => x.JobTitle);
... but that's a little bit less obvious, IMO.
Something like:
Jobs.OrderBy(j => j.Eployees.Count()).ThenBy(j => j.Name);
Currently, I have the following LINQ queries. How can I merge the two queries into one. Basically, write a LINQ query to bring back the results I'd get from
IEnumerable<int> deltaList = people2010.Except(allPeople);
except in a single query.
var people2010 = Contacts.Where(x => x.Contractors
.Any(d => d.ContractorsStatusTrackings
.Any(date => date.StatusDate.Year >= 2010)))
.Select(x => x.ContactID);
var allPeople = Contacts.Where(x => x.Contractors
.Any(m => m.ContactID == x.ContactID))
.Select(x=> x.ContactID);
Thanks!
Why can you not just do Except as you are doing? Don't forget that your people2010 and allPeople variables are just queries - they're not the data. Why not just use them as they are?
If that's not acceptable for some reason, please give us more information - such as whether this is in LINQ to Object, LINQ to SQL etc, and what's wrong with just using Except.
It sounds like you're just looking for a more elegant way to write your query. I believe that this is a more elegant way to write your combined queries:
var deltaList =
from contact in Contacts
let contractors = contact.Contractors
where contractors.Any(ctor => ctor.ContractorStatusTrackings
.Any(date => date.StatusDate.Year >= 2010))
&& !contractors.Any(m => m.ContactID == contact.ContactID)
select contact.ContactID