I have a collection, for example:
**id1, id2, value**
1 9 12
2 9 6
3 11 8
4 11 87
I want to use LINQ and get the following result:
**value**
6
87
P.S.
id1 - select MAX;
id2 - group column;
I need an answer in the form of
var result = list.GroupBy(x=>x.id2).select(s=>s.value);
I hope for your help.
EDIT: Okay, now we've got a slightly clearer set of requirements (though still far from clearly written) the simplest approach would probably be:
var maxes = list.GroupBy(x => x.id2,
(key, xs) => xs.OrderByDescending(x => x.id1)
.First()
.value);
Unfortunately LINQ doesn't provide a simple way of getting "the element with the maximal value" (instead of the maximal value itself). I have a method in MoreLINQ which does this though, called MaxBy:
var maxes = list.GroupBy(x => x.id2,
(key, xs) => xs.MaxBy(x => x.id2).value);
Original answer (Grouping by id2, taking the maximum value)
I'm answering assuming you actually meant to group by id2 rather than id1, and you actually wanted the results of 12 and 87 rather than 6 and 87. In that case, you'd want:
var maxes = list.GroupBy(x => x.id2, (id, xs) => xs.Max(x => x.value));
Or (possibly simpler to understand):
var maxes = list.GroupBy(x => x.id2)
.Select(xs => xs.Max(x => x.value));
Or:
var maxes = list.GroupBy(x => x.id2, x => x.value)
.Select(values => values.Max());
Or:
var maxes = list.GroupBy(x => x.id2, // Key selector
x => x.value, // Element selector
(key, values) => values.Max()); // Result selector
Or even:
var maxes = list.GroupBy(x => x.id2)
.Select(xs => xs.Select(x => x.value).Max());
As you can see, GroupBy has lots of overloads :)
Or you could use a query expression:
var maxes = from x in list
group x.value by x.id2 into values
select values.Max();
You shouldn't restrict yourself to either query expressions or the extension method version - it's important to understand both, so you can use whatever's most appropriate.
Apparently OP wants the Value with maximum Id1 within Id2:
Sample data:
public class Row
{
public int Id1;
public int Id2;
public int Value;
}
List<Row> rows = new List<Row>(){
new Row(){Id1=1,Id2=9,Value=12},
new Row(){Id1=2,Id2=9,Value=6},
new Row(){Id1=3,Id2=11,Value=8},
new Row(){Id1=4,Id2=11,Value=87}
};
Solution:
List<int> res = rows.GroupBy(r => r.Id2)
.Select(g => g.OrderByDescending(i=>i.Id1).First().Value)
.ToList();
In case it helps others, I had a similar situation except multiple records needed to be returned instead of a single record.
Eg.
**id1, id2, value**
1 9 12
2 9 6 <-
2 9 7 <-
3 11 8
4 11 87 <-
4 11 88 <-
The following returns the above four records as two lists of two records (enumerable of enumerables):
var maxes = from x in list
group x by x.id2 into xs
select new {values = xs.Where(x => x.id1 == xs.Max(y => y.id1))};
or
var maxes = list.GroupBy(x => x.id2,
(key, xs) => new
{
values = xs.Where(x => x.id1 == xs.Max(y => y.id1))
});
Related
Hi I have a List so:
A 1
A 2
A 3
A 4
B 1
B 2
C 1
I want to select the letter that contains AT LEAST these 3 numbers: 1,2,3
So in this case would be selected the letter A.
Can you help me to write this as LINQ expression?
Thanks a lot!
First, make a collection of the numbers you require.
var required = new[] { 1, 2, 3 };
Then, group your pairings by letter.
var groupedPairings = pairings.GroupBy(p => Letter, p => Number);
Then, discard those pairings that don't have your three required items. (The logic here is "take the collection of required items, remove anything in the group, and make sure there is nothing left".)
var groupsWithRequired = groupedPairings
.Where(g => !required.Except(g).Any());
Now, if you just want the letters, you can simply do
var lettersWithRequired = groupsWithRequired.Select(g => g.Key);
or if you want a dictionary mapping from the letter to its collection of numbers, you can do
var dictionary = groupsWithRequired.ToDictionary(g => g.Key, g => g.ToArray());
var numbersForA = dictionary["A"]; // = {1, 2, 3, 4}
You could try this, although I don't feel it's the best answer:
var items = new List<Item>{
new Item{Name="A", Value=1},
new Item{Name="A", Value=2},
new Item{Name="A", Value=3},
new Item{Name="A", Value=3},
new Item{Name="A", Value=4},
new Item{Name="B", Value=1},
new Item{Name="B", Value=2},
new Item{Name="C", Value=1},
};
var values = new List<int>{1,2,3};
var query = items.GroupBy (i => i.Name)
.Where (i => i.Select (x => x.Value)
.Intersect(values).Count() == values.Count)
.Select (i => i.Key);
Where
class Item{
public string Name{get;set;}
public int Value{get;set;}
}
I need to return all records (items) that has a part (X) so I can use that in a group or .GroupBy afterwards
Using this summary data:
ItemName PartName
1 A
1 B
2 A
3 C
So Item1 has two parts (A,B), etc...
I need a LINQ query that will
- find all items that have part A (i.e items 1 and 2)
- return all rows for all these items
1 A
1 B
2 A
Notice that the end result returned the row (1 B) because Item1 has PartA and so I need to get back all rows for Item1.
I was looking at something like:
let items = from data in summary where data.PartName == A select new { data.ItemName } // to get all the items I need
But then, now that I have that list I need to use it to get all the rows for all items listed, and I can't seem to figure it out ...
Actual Source Code (for reference):
NOTE:
Recipe = ITEM
Ingredient = PART
(I was just trying to make it simpler)
ViewFullRecipeGrouping = (
from data in ViewRecipeSummary
group data by data.RecipeName into recipeGroup
let fullIngredientGroups = recipeGroup.GroupBy(x => x.IngredientName)
select new ViewFullRecipe()
{
RecipeName = recipeGroup.Key,
RecipeIngredients = (
from ingredientGroup in fullIngredientGroups
select new GroupIngredient()
{
IngredientName = ingredientGroup.Key
}
).ToList(),
ViewGroupRecipes = (
from data in ViewRecipeSummary
// this is where I am looking to add the new logic to define something I can then use within the next select statement that has the right data based on the information I got earlier in this query.
let a = ViewRecipeSummary.GroupBy(x => x.RecipeName)
.Where(g => g.Any(x => x.IngredientName == recipeGroup.Key))
.Select(g => new ViewRecipe()
{
RecipeName = g.Key,
IngredientName = g.Select(x => x.IngredientName)
})
select new GroupRecipe()
{
// use the new stuff here
}).ToList(),
}).ToList();
Any help would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
I believe this does what you want:
var data = /* enumerable containing rows in your table */;
var part = "X";
var items = new HashSet<int>(data
.Where(x => x.PartName == part)
.Select(x => x.ItemName));
var query = data.Where(x => items.Contains(x.ItemName));
If I understand your comment at the end, I believe this also does what you want:
var query = data
.GroupBy(x => x.ItemName)
.Where(g => g.Any(x => x.PartName == part))
.Select(g => new
{
ItemName = g.Key,
PartNames = g.Select(x => x.PartName)
});
I have a list of objects. E.g. List<coin> where they contain a string(denom) and int(year).
If the list contains:
"Quarter", 1954
"Quarter", 1990
"Penny", 1925
"Nickel", 1900
"Nickel", 2000
How can I get a resultant list where it contains the unique values with just the most recent year? E.g.:
"Quarter", 1990
"Penny", 1925
"Nickel", 2000
You can do this by grouping by name, then either ordering and taking the first result, or by using something like MaxBy from MoreLINQ:
var query = coins.GroupBy(x => x.Name)
.Select(g => g.MaxBy(x => x.Year));
or
var query = coins.GroupBy(x => x.Name)
.Select(g => g.OrderByDescending(x => x.Year).First());
You can do this using group by like:
var query = from coin in myList
group coin by coin.Name into grouped
select new
{
Name = grouped.Key
Year = grouped.Max(x => x.Year)
};
For another sample like this, check out "max - grouped" in the 101 Linq examples: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vcsharp/aa336747#maxGrouped
var coins = new Coin[] { ... };
var recentCoins =
from coin in coins
group coin by coin.Denom into g
select new
{
Denom = g.Key,
MostRecentYear = g.Max(c => c.Year)
};
I have the following LINQ conditional where clause query that produces a result of weights:
From this, I'd like to take the result set and join on another table, tblPurchases
var result = weights.Join(getsuppliersproducts.tblPurchases,
w => new { w.MemberId, w.MemberName, w.LocationId, w.UnitId },
p => new { p.MemberId, p.MemberName, p.LocationId, p.UnitId },
(w, p) => p);
In this second table, I have two columns I would like to perform an aggreagte function on, a sum on PurchaseQuantity and a count of UnitID.
So in its raw format, tblPurchases would look like so:
MemberID LocationID UnitId SupplierID SupplierStatus Purchases
1 1 ab Sup1 Live 10
1 1 abc Sup1 Live 10
1 1 abcd Sup2 Dead 50
From my results data set, I would like the output to look like so:
MemberID LocationID SupplierID SupplierStatus UnitIdCount Total Purchases
1 1 Sup1 Live 2 50
Also, with these amendments, can I still return this to a List?
How do I implement this using LINQ? I have tried, and failed miserably.
(To those who have seen my previous posts, I'm trying to cover all angles so I can fully understand the concept of what is going on in both SQL and LINQ)
That query will return an IEnumerable where each of the Purchases matches the MemberId, MemberName, LocationId and UnitId in the original Weights query. You can only easily do one aggregate at a time, so
var result = weights.Join(getsuppliersproducts.tblPurchases,
w => new { w.MemberId, w.MemberName, w.LocationId, w.UnitId },
p => new { p.MemberId, p.MemberName, p.LocationId, p.UnitId },
(w, p) => p).ToList();
Int32 count = result.Count();
Double quantity = result.Sum(p => p.PurchaseQuantity);
Is that what you're trying to do?
EDIT, after your reply of I would like to reutrn a list of tblPurchases with two new columns, the sum of Purchase Quantity and count of unit ID.
This gives a flat output:
var query = Weights.GroupJoin(
Purchases,
w => new {w.MemberId, w.LocationId},
p => new {p.MemberId, p.LocationId},
(w,p) => new {w.MemberId, w.LocationId, Count = p.Count(), Sum = p.Sum(x => x.Purchases)} );
Note that at the point we do the (w, p) => new {} that w is a single Weight and p is a list of Purchases matching that weight, so you can still keep all of teh (hierarchical) data:
var query = Weights.GroupJoin(
Purchases,
w => new {w.MemberId, w.LocationId},
p => new {p.MemberId, p.LocationId},
(w,p) => new {w.MemberId, w.LocationId, Count = p.Count(), Sum = p.Sum(x => x.Purchases), Purchases = p} );
HI there I am hoping for some help with a query I have.
I have this query
var group =
from r in CustomerItem
group r by r.StoreItemID into g
select new { StoreItemID = g.Key,
ItemCount = g.Count(),
ItemAmount = Customer.Sum(cr => cr.ItemAmount),
RedeemedAmount = Customer.Sum(x => x.RedeemedAmount)
};
I am returning my results to a list so I can bind it listbox.
I have a property called EntryType which is an int. There are 2 available numbers 1 or 2
Lets say I had 3 items that my query is working with
2 of them had the EntryType = 1 and the 3rd had EntryType2. The first records had a ItemAmount of 55.00 and the 3rd had a ItemAmount of 50.00
How can I group using something simlar to above but minus the ItemAmount of 50.00 from the grouped amount to return 60.00?
Any help would be great!!
It's not really clear what the question is - are you just trying to ignore all items with an entry type of 2? To put it another way, you only want to keep entries with an entry type of 1? If so, just add a where clause:
var group = from r in CustomerItem
where r.EntryType == 1
group r by r.StoreItemID into g
select new {
StoreItemID = g.Key, ItemCount = g.Count(),
ItemAmount = Customer.Sum(cr => cr.ItemAmount),
RedeemedAmount = Customer.Sum(x => x.RedeemedAmount)
};
Change ItemAmount = ... to:
ItemAmount =
g.Where(x => x.EntryType == 1).Sum(cr => cr.ItemAmount) -
g.Where(x => x.EntryType == 2).Sum(cr => cr.ItemAmount),
I changed Customer to g because this seems to be an error, but it's not clear to me from your question what you mean here, so maybe this change is not what you want.
A slightly more concise method is to use test the entry type in the sum and use the ternary operator to choose whether to add the positive or negative value:
ItemAmount = g.Sum(cr => cr.EntryType == 1 ? cr.ItemAmount : -cr.ItemAmount),
This gives the value of 60.00 as you required.