Im using entity framework 4 and linq/lamda expressions. Im sure its an easy one but im trying to query a collection with an array but get records which contain all the arrays values.
basically what im doing is this
var records = collection.where(x.classifications.Any(y=> Array.Contains(y.ClassificationID))).ToList()
This works in a sense that it returns records that contain any of the arrays values but how do i get only records that contain all of the values in the array.
Hope that makes sense
EDIT:
Im marking the comment below as the answer as I did have to use ALL in my query to get it to work, however I also had to re - write my query slightly. This is what i eventually had...
var records = collection.Where(x=> Array.All(c=> x.Classifications.Select(l=>l.ClassificationID).Contains(c)))
What about using All instead of Any?
var records = collection.Where(x => x.classifications.All(y => Array.Contains(y.ClassificationID)))
.ToList()
Related
Does anyone know if there's an easy way to negate a parse query? Something like this:
Parse.Query.not(query)
More specifically I want to do a relational query that gets everything except for the objects within the query. For example:
const relation = myParseObject.relation("myRelation");
const query = relation.query();
const negatedQuery = Parse.Query.not(query);
return await negatedQuery.find();
I know one solution would be to fetch the objects in the relation and then create a new query by looping through the objectIds using query.notEqualTo("objectId", fetchedObjectIds[i]), but this seems really circuitous...
Any help would be much appreciated!
doesNotMatchKeyInQuery is the solution as Davi Macedo pointed out in the comments.
For example, if I wanted to get all of the Comments that are not in an Article's relation, I would do the following:
const relationQuery = article.relation("comments").query();
const notInRelationQuery = new Parse.Query("Comment");
notInRelationQuery.doesNotMatchKeyInQuery("objectId", "objectId", relationQuery);
const notRelatedComments = await notInRelationQuery.find();
How I understand it is that the first argument is specifying the key in the objects that we are fetching. The second argument is specifying the key in the objects that are in the query that we're about to argue. And lastly we argue a query for the objects we don't want. So, it essentially finds the objects you don't want and then compares the values of the objects you do want to the values of the objects you don't want for the argued keys. It then returns all the objects you do want. I could probably write that more succinctly, but w/e.
This eloquent collection provides this result:
$id = Model::where('s_id', $s_id)->pluck('l_id');
print_r($id)
Illuminate\Support\Collection Object
(
[items:protected] => Array
(
[0] => 31242682774
)
)
How do I return only the "31242682774" value as a string and not a collection?
EDIT ANSWER:
All I had to do is:
$id = Model::where('s_id', $s_id)->pluck('l_id')->first();
Any better options?
If you only need a single value, not multiple values, pluck isn't what you want. There is a method called value on Query Builder that returns a single value:
Model::where('s_id', $s_id)->value('l_id');
Laravel 6.x Docs - Query Builder - Retrieving Results - Retrieving A Single Row / Column From A Table value
It compares to when it the process you wanna do it. On the query execution or after. The most common approach would probably be.
$id = Model::where('s_id', $s_id)->first()->l_id;
This will execute after, meaning the query builder will fetch all columns in the row. In general in Laravel you don't that often work with strings and or other abstractions than your model. Model::where('s_id', $s_id)->first() will return your model and select the l_id property on it.
The approach you chosen is the database way, you only select the l_id and return it as a collection and select the first item from there. This is thou a very performance efficient way of doing it since the database does all the work and is very quick at it.
$id = Model::where('s_id', $s_id)->pluck('l_id')->first();
The reason why it is a collection, it is mainly made for selecting multiple id's, so if you query returned multiple rows multiple ids would be returned. Here you can see an example of pluck in conditional queries, where it is most often used.
$teamIds = Team::where('type', 'admin')->pluck('id');
$adminUsers = User::where('team_id', $teamIds)->get();
Your solution is perfect for what you need, just trying to bring clarity on why and a example of how it is often used.
I have a legacy database that has data elements stored as a comma delimited list in a single database field. (I didn't design that, I'm just stuck with it.)
I have a list of strings that I would like to match to any of the individual values in the "array" in the DB field and am not sure how to do this in Linq.
My list:
List<string> items= new List<string>();
items.Add("Item1");
items.Add("Item2");
The DB field "Products" would contain data something like:
"Item1,Item3,Item4"
"Item3,Item5,Item6"
"Item2,Item7,Item6"
"Item1,Item2"
"Item1"
My first pass at the Linq query was:
var results = (from o in Order
.Where(p=> items.Contains(p.Products)
But I know that won't work. because it will only return the records that contain only "Item1" or "Item2". So with the example data above it would return 0 records. I need to have it return two records.
Any suggestions?
There is a simple clever trick for searching comma-separated lists. First, add an extra , to the beginning and end of the target value (the product list), and the search value. Then search for that exact string. So for example, you would search ,Item1,Item3,Item4, for ,Item1,. The purpose of this is to prevent false positives, i.e., Item12,Item3 finding a match for Item1, while allowing items at the beginning/end of the list to be properly found.
Then, you can use the LINQ .Any method to check that any item in your list is a match to the product list, like the following:
var results = (from o in Order
.Where(o => items.Any(i => (","+o.Products+",").Contains(","+i+",")))
One way would be to parse the list in the Products field:
var results = (from o in Order
.Where(o => items.Any(i => o.Products.Split(',').Contains(i))
But that would parse the string multiple times for each record. You could try pulling back ALL of the records, parsing each record once, then doing the comparison:
var results = from o in Order
let prods = o.Products.Split(',')
where items.Any(i => prods.Contains(i))
select o;
I have a data table containing multiple columns and one column that stores somewhat complex text patterns - I need to parse the field to determine if a particular sub strings exist in specific positions within the larger string pattern and then if the record should be filtered out as a result.
I can't see a way to perform the parse other than by writing a C# parsing function with String.Split method calls, foreach, etc. But if I try to parse like this:
var myFilteredTable = _db.MyTable.Where(t => t.Column1 == 'Filter1'
&& ParseIsMyItemInColumn2(t) );
I get "has no supported translation to SQL" errors.
The other option I thought of was to build the initial result without the Parse:
var myFilteredTable = _db.MyTable.Where(t => t.Column1 == 'Filter1' );
and iterate through the IQueryable resultset, testing each row with the parse function, to filter out the unwanted rows, but IQueryable does not have Remove function to strip out unwanted rows nor Add function to allow me to build up a new resultset.
So how can I filter in linq when I also need to write a Parse function?
Well the "initial filter in the database then do the rest locally" is easy:
var filtered = _db.MyTable.Where(t => t.Column1 == "Filter1")
.AsEnumerable() // Do the rest locally
.Where(t => ParseIsMyItemInColumn2(t));
AsEnumerable is a simple pass through method, but because the result is typed as IEnumerable<T> rather than IQueryable<T>, the subsequent LINQ operations use the LINQ to Objects methods in Enumerable rather than the ones in Queryable.
Obviously if a lot of items match the first filter but fail the second, that won't be terribly efficient...
Unfortunately, if the "parse function" is not something that can be translated to SQL, you will need to pull the results and use LINQ to Objects:
var myFilteredTable = _db.MyTable.Where(t => t.Column1 == 'Filter1')
.AsEnumerable().Where(ParseIsMyItemInColumn2);
Note that this will stream all of the results into memory, and then perform your parse.
How would I modify the following code:
var result = from p in Cache.Model.Products
from f in p.Flavours
where f.FlavourID == "012541-5-5-5-651"
select p;
So that f.FlavourID is supplied a range of ID's as a supposed to just one value as shown in the above example?
Given the following ERD Model:
Products* => ProdCombinations <= *Flavours
ProdCombinations is a junction/link table and simply has one composite key in there.
Of the top of my head
string [] ids = new[]{"012541-5-5-5-651", "012541-5-5-5-652", "012541-5-5-5-653"};
var result = from p in Cache.Model.Products
from f in p.Flavours
where ids.Contains(f.FlavourID)
select p;
There are some limitations, but an array of ids has worked for me before. I've only actually tried with SQL Server backend, and my IDs were integers.
As I understand it, Linq needs to translate your query into SQL, and it's only possible sometimes. For example it's not possible with IEnumerable<SomeClass>, which produces a runtime error, but possible with a collection of simple types.