I am trying to query data in CRM 2011 and I need to join an ActivityParty. I can't seem to find any good documentation on it. Has anyone done this before. This is my query so far:
var linqQuery = (from r in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("campaignresponse")
join c in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("contact") on ((EntityReference)r["customer"]).Id equals c["contactid"] into opp
join a in gServiceContext,CreateQuery("lead") on ((EntityReference)r["customer"]).Id equals c["leadid"] into opp
from o in opp.DefaultIfEmpty()
where ((EntityReference)r["new_distributorid"]).Id.Equals(lProfileProperty.PropertyValue) && ((OptionSetValue)r["new_distributorstatus"]).Equals("100000002")
select new
{ }
So if you look at the query what I am trying to do is join the contact Entity and the lead Entity to CamapaignResponse via the customer field and the customer field is an ActivityParty field. Any ideas on how to do this? Thanks!
I'm having a hard time figuring out how your query is supposed to work, but I can tell you that you'll have an easier time if you generate Linq entities using the SDK. Then, instead of
from r in gServiceContext.CreateQuery("campaignresponse") where ...
you can just write
gServiceContext.CampaignResponseSet
.Where(cr => cr.property == value)
.Select(cr => new {cr, cr.childObject});
and so forth. You'll get strong typing and IntelliSense, too.
Related
I am new to entity framework. I am using a linq query that will fetch many records (upto millions) from database. There are many filter parameters in where condition and on each request the parameters may change. So i wanted to know whether compiled queries will be effective in this case or will it be a new query on each request. Here is my query:
List<FarmerDetailsReport> fdr =
(from fp in mstfp join pd in personalDetails on fp.personDetails.Id equals pd.Id
join ic in identityCertificate on fp.identityCertificate.Id equals ic.Id
join pid in pacsInsuranceData on fp.pacsInsuranceData.Id equals pid.Id into temp
from pid in temp.DefaultIfEmpty()
join bd in bankDetails on fp.bankDetails.Id equals bd.Id
join cd in contactDetails on fp.contactDetails.Id equals cd.Id
join id in incomeDetails on fp.incomeDetails.Id equals id.Id into tmp
from id in tmp.DefaultIfEmpty()
join ua in userAttributes on fp.UserId equals ua.EmailID
where ((ua.CompanyName == companyName ) && (cd.District == model.DistrictForProfileMIS ) && (cd.Block == model.BlockForProfileMIS) && (bd.bankName == model.BankForProfileMIS ) && Status == "Active")
select new FarmerDetailsReport { .......... }).ToList();
Short answer:
Yes...... well, maybe.
Long answer:
This is hard to answer as you have no control over the actual SQL that gets generated.
We had perf problems with some queries like this as the optimizer would optimize for a certain wet of filter cases (like short circuits of clauses) then when a new query was made with a massive change in parameters it would take AGES.
What we did in the end:
Don't use a big LINQ query, create a stored proc or view where you have more control over the SQL generated.
Used things like OPTION(RECOMPILE) ... looks this up it was very useful.
Have a few overloads of the query for different parameters so that the DB can optimize them separately.
Obviously this is just what we did, it might not be perfect for you. I STRONGLY suggest getting the generated SQL for each different parametrized version and going over it with your DBA (if you have one) or your team and google if you don't.
I'm trying to write a LINQ expression that will join two tables and return data in a format similar to what is possible using MySql's GROUP_CONCAT. I tried searching around on Google and SO, but all the results I found used MSSQL or were only using one table. The expression I have written now looks like this:
from d in division
join o in office on d.Id = o.DivisionId
select new
{
id = d.Id,
cell = new string[] { d.DivisionName, o.OfficeName }
}
As expected, this returns a list of every division and what offices correspond to that division. The only problem is that since most divisions will have more than one office, I get a division back for each office in said division. Essentially I'm seeing results like this:
Division1: Office1
Division1: Office2
Division1: Office3
Division2: Office1
When I want to see:
Division1: Office1, Office2, Office3
Division2: Office1
I remember doing something a while ago with MySql that used GROUP_CONCAT, but I can't figure out what the equivalent of that would be using LINQ. I tried writing a method which had an IEnumerable<Office> parameter and built a string using the Aggregate extension method, but the way I have my LINQ expression written now, each Office is passed in rather than an IEnumerable<Office>. Is there a better way to approach this problem than what I'm doing now? I'm rather new to LINQ expressions, so I apologize if this is trivial.
You want a group join, e.g.
from d in division
join o in office on d.Id = o.DivisionId into offices
select new
{
id = d.Id,
divisionName = d.DivisionName,
officeNames = offices.Select(o => o.OfficeName)
}
Here is the expression
x => x.stf_Category.CategoryID == categoryId
x refers to an Product Entity that contains a Category. I am trying to load all Products that match given categoryId.
In the db the Product table contains a Foreign Key reference to Category (via CategoryId).
Question: I think I am doing it wrong. Is there something else one has to do in EF4 to create a LINQ expression of this type?
Are there any good examples of EF4 Linq expressions out there? Specifically something that queries on the basis of related entities such as my problem ?
Thanks !
You're looking for the Include method.
var query = db.Products.Include("Categories");
This is commonly referred to as eager loading.
Entity Framework will 'infer' the JOIN constraint based on the mapping you have specified.
The "magic string" needs to match the Entity Set name on your EDMX.
Check out this post for more info.
EDIT
I'm a little confused as to whether you want the Products and Categories, or just the Products which have a specific Category ID.
If the latter, this is the way to go:
var query = from p in db.products
join c in db.categories
on p.CategoryId equals c.CategoryId
where c.CategoryId == someCategoryId
select p;
Keep in mind though, the above query is exactly the same result as your original query.
If p is a product, then p.Categories will look at the Navigational Property of your Product entity on the EDMX, in which case it will be your Category FK.
As long as you setup your Navigational properties right, p.Categories is fine.
If you are using EF4 and the association between Category and Product classes has been picked up and defined in your Model, then all products with a specific categoryID can be selected as simple as:
x => x.CategoryID == categoryID
You don't need to join nor an eager loading for that.
Let's say I have an Order table which has a FirstSalesPersonId field and a SecondSalesPersonId field. Both of these are foreign keys that reference the SalesPerson table. For any given order, either one or two salespersons may be credited with the order. In other words, FirstSalesPersonId can never be NULL, but SecondSalesPersonId can be NULL.
When I drop my Order and SalesPerson tables onto the "Linq to SQL Classes" design surface, the class builder spots the two FK relationships from the Order table to the SalesPerson table, and so the generated Order class has a SalesPerson field and a SalesPerson1 field (which I can rename to SalesPerson1 and SalesPerson2 to avoid confusion).
Because I always want to have the salesperson data available whenever I process an order, I am using DataLoadOptions.LoadWith to specify that the two salesperson fields are populated when the order instance is populated, as follows:
dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Order>(o => o.SalesPerson1);
dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Order>(o => o.SalesPerson2);
The problem I'm having is that Linq to SQL is using something like the following SQL to load an order:
SELECT ...
FROM Order O
INNER JOIN SalesPerson SP1 ON SP1.salesPersonId = O.firstSalesPersonId
INNER JOIN SalesPerson SP2 ON SP2.salesPersonId = O.secondSalesPersonId
This would make sense if there were always two salesperson records, but because there is sometimes no second salesperson (secondSalesPersonId is NULL), the INNER JOIN causes the query to return no records in that case.
What I effectively want here is to change the second INNER JOIN into a LEFT OUTER JOIN. Is there a way to do that through the UI for the class generator? If not, how else can I achieve this?
(Note that because I'm using the generated classes almost exclusively, I'd rather not have something tacked on the side for this one case if I can avoid it).
Edit: per my comment reply, the SecondSalesPersonId field is nullable (in the DB, and in the generated classes).
The default behaviour actually is a LEFT JOIN, assuming you've set up the model correctly.
Here's a slightly anonymized example that I just tested on one of my own databases:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (TestDataContext context = new TestDataContext())
{
DataLoadOptions dlo = new DataLoadOptions();
dlo.LoadWith<Place>(p => p.Address);
context.LoadOptions = dlo;
var places = context.Places.Where(p => p.ID >= 100 && p.ID <= 200);
foreach (var place in places)
{
Console.WriteLine(p.ID, p.AddressID);
}
}
}
}
This is just a simple test that prints out a list of places and their address IDs. Here is the query text that appears in the profiler:
SELECT [t0].[ID], [t0].[Name], [t0].[AddressID], ...
FROM [dbo].[Places] AS [t0]
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT 1 AS [test], [t1].[AddressID],
[t1].[StreetLine1], [t1].[StreetLine2],
[t1].[City], [t1].[Region], [t1].[Country], [t1].[PostalCode]
FROM [dbo].[Addresses] AS [t1]
) AS [t2] ON [t2].[AddressID] = [t0].[AddressID]
WHERE ([t0].[PlaceID] >= #p0) AND ([t0].[PlaceID] <= #p1)
This isn't exactly a very pretty query (your guess is as good as mine as to what that 1 as [test] is all about), but it's definitively a LEFT JOIN and doesn't exhibit the problem you seem to be having. And this is just using the generated classes, I haven't made any changes.
Note that I also tested this on a dual relationship (i.e. a single Place having two Address references, one nullable, one not), and I get the exact same results. The first (non-nullable) gets turned into an INNER JOIN, and the second gets turned into a LEFT JOIN.
It has to be something in your model, like changing the nullability of the second reference. I know you say it's configured as nullable, but maybe you need to double-check? If it's definitely nullable then I suggest you post your full schema and DBML so somebody can try to reproduce the behaviour that you're seeing.
If you make the secondSalesPersonId field in the database table nullable, LINQ-to-SQL should properly construct the Association object so that the resulting SQL statement will do the LEFT OUTER JOIN.
UPDATE:
Since the field is nullable, your problem may be in explicitly declaring dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<>(). I'm running a similar situation in my current project where I have an Order, but the order goes through multiple stages. Each stage corresponds to a separate table with data related to that stage. I simply retrieve the Order, and the appropriate data follows along, if it exists. I don't use the dataLoadOptions at all, and it does what I need it to do. For example, if the Order has a purchase order record, but no invoice record, Order.PurchaseOrder will contain the purchase order data and Order.Invoice will be null. My query looks something like this:
DC.Orders.Where(a => a.Order_ID == id).SingleOrDefault();
I try not to micromanage LINQ-to-SQL...it does 95% of what I need straight out of the box.
UPDATE 2:
I found this post that discusses the use of DefaultIfEmpty() in order to populated child entities with null if they don't exist. I tried it out with LINQPad on my database and converted that example to lambda syntax (since that's what I use):
ParentTable.GroupJoin
(
ChildTable,
p => p.ParentTable_ID,
c => c.ChildTable_ID,
(p, aggregate) => new { p = p, aggregate = aggregate }
)
.SelectMany (a => a.aggregate.DefaultIfEmpty (),
(a, c) => new
{
ParentTableEntity = a.p,
ChildTableEntity = c
}
)
From what I can figure out from this statement, the GroupJoin expression relates the parent and child tables, while the SelectMany expression aggregates the related child records. The key appears to be the use of the DefaultIfEmpty, which forces the inclusion of the parent entity record even if there are no related child records. (Thanks for compelling me to dig into this further...I think I may have found some useful stuff to help with a pretty huge report I've got on my pipeline...)
UPDATE 3:
If the goal is to keep it simple, then it looks like you're going to have to reference those salesperson fields directly in your Select() expression. The reason you're having to use LoadWith<>() in the first place is because the tables are not being referenced anywhere in your query statement, so the LINQ engine won't automatically pull that information in.
As an example, given this structure:
MailingList ListCompany
=========== ===========
List_ID (PK) ListCompany_ID (PK)
ListCompany_ID (FK) FullName (string)
I want to get the name of the company associated with a particular mailing list:
MailingLists.Where(a => a.List_ID == 2).Select(a => a.ListCompany.FullName)
If that association has NOT been made, meaning that the ListCompany_ID field in the MailingList table for that record is equal to null, this is the resulting SQL generated by the LINQ engine:
SELECT [t1].[FullName]
FROM [MailingLists] AS [t0]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [ListCompanies] AS [t1] ON [t1].[ListCompany_ID] = [t0].[ListCompany_ID]
WHERE [t0].[List_ID] = #p0
I am in the process of writing something that will use Linq to combine results from my database, via Linq2Sql and an in-memory list of objects in order to find out which of my in-memory objects match something on the database.
I've come up with the query in both expression and query syntax.
Expression Syntax
var query = order.Items.Join(productNonCriticalityList,
i => i.ProductID,
p => p.ProductID,
(i, p) => i);
Query Syntax
var query =
from p in productNonCriticalityList
join i in order.Items
on p.ProductID equals i.ProductID
select i;
I realise that we have all the code completion goodness with expression syntax, and I do actually use that more. Mainly because it's easier to create re-usable chunks of filter code that can be chained together to form more complex filters.
But for a join the latter seems far more readable to me, but maybe that is because I am used to writing T-SQL.
So, am I missing a trick or is it just a matter of getting used to it?
I agree with the other responders that the exact question you're asking is simply a matter of preference. Personaly, I mix the two forms depending upon which is clearer for the specific query that I'm writing.
If I have one comment though, I would say that the query looks like it might load all of the items from the order. That might be fine for a single order one time, but if you're looping through lots of orders, it might be more efficient to load all of the items for all of the in one go (you might want to additionally filter by date or customer, or whatever though). If you do that, you might get better results by switching the query around:
var productIds = (from p in productNonCriticalityList
orderby p.productID
select p.ProductID).Distinct();
var orderItems = from i in dc.OrderItems
where productIds.Contains(i.ProductID)
&& // Additional filtering here.
select i;
It's a bit backwards at first glance, but it could save you from loading in all the order items and also from sending lots of queries. It works because the where productIds.Contains(...) call can be converted to where i.ProductID in (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) in SQL. Of course, you'd have to judge it based on the expected number of order items, and the number of product IDs.
It really all comes down to preference. Some people just hate the idea of query like syntax in their code. I for one appreciate the query syntax, it is declarative and quite readable. Like you said though, the chainability of the first example is a nice thing to have. I guess for my money I would keep it query until I felt I needed to begin chaining the call.
I used to feel the same way. Now I find query syntax easier to read and write, particularly when things get complicated. As much as it irked me to type it the first time, 'let' does wonderful things in ways that would not be readable in Expression Syntax.
I prefer the Query syntax when its complex and Expression syntax when its a simple query.
If a DBA were to read the C# code to see what SQL we are using, they would understand and digest the Query syntax easier.
Taking a simple example:
Query
var col = from o in orders
orderby o.Cost ascending
select o;
Expression
var col2 = orders.OrderBy(o => o.Cost);
To me, the Expression syntax is an easier choice to understand here.
Another example:
Query
var col9 = from o in orders
orderby o.CustomerID, o.Cost descending
select o;
Expression
var col6 = orders.OrderBy(o => o.CustomerID).
ThenByDescending(o => o.Cost);
Both are easy to read and understand, however if the query was
//returns same results as above
var col5 = from o in orders
orderby o.Cost descending
orderby o.CustomerID
select o;
//NOTE the ordering of the orderby's
That looks a little confusing to be as the fields are in a different order and it appears a little backwards.
For Joins
Query
var col = from c in customers
join o in orders on
c.CustomerID equals o.CustomerID
select new
{
c.CustomerID,
c.Name,
o.OrderID,
o.Cost
};
Expression:
var col2 = customers.Join(orders,
c => c.CustomerID,o => o.CustomerID,
(c, o) => new
{
c.CustomerID,
c.Name,
o.OrderID,
o.Cost
}
);
I find that Query is better.
My summary would be use whatever looks easiest and fastest to understand given the query at hand. There is no golden rule of which to use. However, if there are a lot of joins, I'd go with Query syntax.
Well, both statements are equivalent. So you could youse them both, depending on the surrounging code and what is more readable. In my project I make the decision which syntax to use dependent on those two conditions.
Personally I would write the expression syntax in one line, but this is a matter of taste.