At my job our main application was written long ago before n-tier was really a thing, ergo - it has tons and tons of business logic begin handled in stored procs and such.
So we have finally decided to bite the bullet and make it not suck so bad. I have been tasked with converting a 900+ line sql script to a .NET exe, which I am doing in C#/Linq. Problem is...for the last 5-6 years at another job, I had been doing Linq exclusively, so my SQL has gotten somewhat rusty, and some of thing I am converting I have never tried to do before in Linq, so I'm hitting some roadblocks.
Anyway, enough whining.
I'm having trouble with the following sql statement, I think due to the fact that he is joining on a temp table and a derived table. Here's the SQL:
insert into #processedBatchesPurgeList
select d.pricebatchdetailid
from pricebatchheader h (nolock)
join pricebatchstatus pbs (nolock) on h.pricebatchstatusid = pbs.pricebatchstatusid
join pricebatchdetail d (nolock) on h.pricebatchheaderid = d.pricebatchheaderid
join
( -- Grab most recent REG.
select
item_key
,store_no
,pricebatchdetailid = max(pricebatchdetailid)
from pricebatchdetail _pbd (nolock)
join pricechgtype pct (nolock) on _pbd.pricechgtypeid = pct.pricechgtypeid
where
lower(rtrim(ltrim(pct.pricechgtypedesc))) = 'reg'
and expired = 0
group by item_key, store_no
) dreg
on d.item_key = dreg.item_key
and d.store_no = dreg.store_no
where
d.pricebatchdetailid < dreg.pricebatchdetailid -- Make sure PBD is not most recent REG.
and h.processeddate < #processedBatchesPurgeDateLimit
and lower(rtrim(ltrim(pbs.pricebatchstatusdesc))) = 'processed' -- Pushed/processed batches only.
So that's raising an overall question first: how to handle temp tables in Linq? This script uses about 10 of them. I currently have them as List. The problem is, if I try to .Join() on one in a query, I get the "Local sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL implementations of query operators except the Contains operator." error.
I was able to get the join to the derived table to work using 2 queries, just so a single one wouldn't get nightmarishly long:
var dreg = (from _pbd in db.PriceBatchDetails.Where(pbd => pbd.Expired == false && pbd.PriceChgType.PriceChgTypeDesc.ToLower().Trim() == "reg")
group _pbd by new { _pbd.Item_Key, _pbd.Store_No } into _pbds
select new
{
Item_Key = _pbds.Key.Item_Key,
Store_No = _pbds.Key.Store_No,
PriceBatchDetailID = _pbds.Max(pbdet => pbdet.PriceBatchDetailID)
});
var query = (from h in db.PriceBatchHeaders.Where(pbh => pbh.ProcessedDate < processedBatchesPurgeDateLimit)
join pbs in db.PriceBatchStatus on h.PriceBatchStatusID equals pbs.PriceBatchStatusID
join d in db.PriceBatchDetails on h.PriceBatchHeaderID equals d.PriceBatchHeaderID
join dr in dreg on new { d.Item_Key, d.Store_No } equals new { dr.Item_Key, dr.Store_No }
where d.PriceBatchDetailID < dr.PriceBatchDetailID
&& pbs.PriceBatchStatusDesc.ToLower().Trim() == "processed"
select d.PriceBatchDetailID);
So that query gives the expected results, which I am holding in a List, but then I need to join the results of that query to another one selected from the database, which is leading me back to the aforementioned "Local sequence cannot be used..." error.
That query is this:
insert into #pbhArchiveFullListSaved
select h.pricebatchheaderid
from pricebatchheader h (nolock)
join pricebatchdetail d (nolock)
on h.pricebatchheaderid = d.pricebatchheaderid
join #processedBatchesPurgeList dlist
on d.pricebatchdetailid = dlist.pricebatchdetailid -- PBH list is restricted to PBD purge list rows that have PBH references.
group by h.pricebatchheaderid
The join there on #processedBatchesPurgeList is the problem I am running into.
So uh...help? I have never written SQL like this, and certainly never tried to convert it to Linq.
As pointed out by the comments above, this is no longer being rewritten as Linq.
Was hoping to get a performance improvement along with achieving better SOX compliance, which was the whole reason for the rewrite in the first place.
I'm happy with just satisfying the SOX compliance issues.
Thanks, everyone.
Related
I have the following LINQ query (using EF Core 6 and MS SQL Server):
var resultSet = dbContext.Systems
.Include(system => system.Project)
.Include(system => system.Template.Type)
.Select(system => new
{
System = system,
TemplateText = system.Template.TemplateTexts.FirstOrDefault(templateText => templateText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier),
TypeText = system.Template.Type.TypeTexts.FirstOrDefault(typeText => typeText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier)
})
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.System.Id == request.Id);
The requirement is to retrieve the system matching the requested ID and load its project, template and template's type info. The template has multiple TemplateTexts (one for each translated language) but I only want to load the one matching the requested locale, same deal with the TypeTexts elements of the template's type.
The LINQ query above does that in one query and it gets converted to the following SQL query (I edited the SELECT statements to use * instead of the long list of columns generated):
SELECT [t1].*, [t2].*, [t5].*
FROM (
SELECT TOP(1) [p].*, [t].*, [t0].*
FROM [ParkerSystems] AS [p]
LEFT JOIN [Templates] AS [t] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [t].[Id]
LEFT JOIN [Types] AS [t0] ON [t].[TypeId] = [t0].[Id]
LEFT JOIN [Projects] AS [p0] ON [p].[Project_ProjectId] = [p0].[ProjectId]
WHERE [p].[SystemId] = #__request_Id_1
) AS [t1]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [t3].*
FROM (
SELECT [t4].*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY [t4].[ReferenceId] ORDER BY [t4].[Id]) AS [row]
FROM [TemplateTexts] AS [t4]
WHERE [t4].[Language] = #__locale_LanguageIdentifier_0
) AS [t3]
WHERE [t3].[row] <= 1
) AS [t2] ON [t1].[Id] = [t2].[ReferenceId]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [t6].*
FROM (
SELECT [t7].*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY [t7].[ReferenceId] ORDER BY [t7].[Id]) AS [row]
FROM [TypeTexts] AS [t7]
WHERE [t7].[Language] = #__locale_LanguageIdentifier_0
) AS [t6]
WHERE [t6].[row] <= 1
) AS [t5] ON [t1].[Id0] = [t5].[ReferenceId]
which is not bad, it's not a super complicated query, but I feel like my requirement can be solved with a much simpler SQL query:
SELECT *
FROM [Systems] AS [p]
JOIN [Templates] AS [t] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [t].[Id]
JOIN [TemplateTexts] AS [tt] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [tt].[ReferenceId]
JOIN [Types] AS [ty] ON [t].[TypeId] = [ty].[Id]
JOIN [TemplateTexts] AS [tyt] ON [ty].[Id] = [tyt].[ReferenceId]
WHERE [p].[SystemId] = #systemId and tt.[Language] = 2 and tyt.[Language] = 2
My question is: is there a different/simpler LINQ expression (either in Method syntax or Query syntax) that produces the same result (get all info in one go) because ideally I'd like to not have to have an anonymous object where the filtered sub-collections are aggregated. For even more brownie points, it'd be great if the generated SQL would be simpler/closer to what I think would be a simple query.
Is there a different/simpler LINQ expression (...) that produces the same result
Yes (maybe) and no.
No, because you're querying dbContext.Systems, therefore EF will return all systems that match your filter, also when they don't have TemplateTexts etc. That's why it has to generate outer joins. EF is not aware of your apparent intention to skip systems without these nested data or of any guarantee that these systems don't occur in the database. (Which you seem to assume, seeing the second query).
That accounts for the left joins to subqueries.
These subqueries are generated because of FirstOrDefault. In SQL it always requires some sort of subquery to get "first" records of one-to-many relationships. This ROW_NUMBER() OVER construction is actually quite efficient. Your second query doesn't have any notion of "first" records. It'll probably return different data.
Yes (maybe) because you also Include data. I'm not sure why. Some people seem to think Include is necessary to make subsequent projections (.Select) work, but it isn't. If that's your reason to use Includes then you can remove them and thus remove the first couple of joins.
OTOH you also Include system.Project which is not in the projection, so you seem to have added the Includes deliberately. And in this case they have effect, because the entire entity system is in the projection, otherwise EF would ignore them.
If you need the Includes then again, EF has to generate outer joins for the reason mentioned above.
EF decides to handle the Includes and projections separately, while hand-crafted SQL, aided by prior knowledge of the data could do that more efficiently. There's no way to affect that behavior though.
This LINQ query is close to your SQL, but I'm afraid of correctness of the result:
var resultSet =
(from system in dbContext.Systems
from templateText in system.Template.TemplateTexts
where templateText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier
from typeText in system.Template.Type.TypeTexts
where typeText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier
select new
{
System = system,
TemplateText = templateText
TypeText = typeText
})
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.System.Id == request.Id);
My project needs to let users build their own dynamic queries. From what I've read, Expression Trees are the way to go. However the syntax is rather complicated.
I envision having a GUI where users would be able to check tables, select columns, specify parameters,etc and then build a string such as:
var myQuery =
from P in context.Projects
join UA in context.UserAttributes on P.ProjectID equals UA.ProjectID
join UBA in context.UserBooleanAttributes on UA.UserAttributeID equals UBA.UserAttributeID
join U in context.Users on UBA.UserID equals U.UserID
where P.ProjectID == 1
where UBA.Value == true
where (UA.UserAttributeID == 1 || UA.UserAttributeID == 2)
select new { uba = U };
And store that in a queries table. To process the query, I was hoping there is some library out there that will magically do something like:
var result = magic(str);
foreach(var user in result)
Foo(user.Email);
In this example I know that all my queries would return Users, but for other queries I would probably have to use reflection or in another column specify the expected type in results.
I found one project called LinqTextQueryBuilder which looks interesting, but I wanted to see if there are other alternatives.
My site generate a lot of queries to database, for each user generates 6 queries. I tried to fine the source of that but my knowlegde was not enough to find. If anyone could help me how to fine the source of that queries?
I used:
Joomla 2.5.8
Main Components: CB, Kunena, SH404SEF, K2, Komento, UddeIM PMS
Main Modules: Gavick News PRO4
Block spam IP
Block bots
The queries which are generate for each user:
SELECT *
FROM `_users`
WHERE `id` = 15
SELECT `g`.`id`,`g`.`title`
FROM `_usergroups` AS g
INNER JOIN `_user_usergroup_map` AS m ON m.group_id = g.id
WHERE `m`.`user_id` = 15
SELECT b.id
FROM _user_usergroup_map AS map
LEFT JOIN _usergroups AS a ON a.id = map.group_id
LEFT JOIN _usergroups AS b ON b.lft <= a.lft
AND b.rgt >= a.rgt
WHERE map.user_id = 15
SELECT a.rules
FROM _assets AS a
WHERE (a.id = 1)
GROUP BY a.id, a.rules, a.lft
SELECT id
FROM _assets
WHERE parent_id = 0
SELECT b.rules
FROM _assets AS a
LEFT JOIN _assets AS b ON b.lft <= a.lft
AND b.rgt >= a.rgt
WHERE (a.id = 1 OR a.parent_id = 0)
GROUP BY b.id, b.rules, b.lft
ORDER BY b.lft
well of course there are going to be a fair amount of queries per use, as you are using extensions such as CB and Kunena, that include queries for each user. Unless you get a message from your host saying too much memory is being used or there is too much traffic, you should be fine.
Joomla is a CMS and therefore these sort of things need to be expected when there are a fair amount of users.
Actually we just fixed a bug in the rules field that was generating an excessive number of queries. It will be fixed in 3.0.4 which is due out next week and whenever another 2.5 release comes out. In the meantime you can fix it yourself.
https://github.com/joomla/joomla-platform/pull/1792
But that's not what you are asking about. The number of queries isn't really the issue (it's totally reasonable) the question is how fast are they.
I had tried to join two table conditionally but it is giving me syntax error. I tried to find solution in the net but i cannot find how to do conditional join with condition. The only other alternative is to get the value first from one table and make a query again.
I just want to confirm if there is any other way to do conditional join with linq.
Here is my code, I am trying to find all position that is equal or lower than me. Basically I want to get my peers and subordinates.
from e in entity.M_Employee
join p in entity.M_Position on e.PostionId >= p.PositionId
select p;
You can't do that with a LINQ joins - LINQ only supports equijoins. However, you can do this:
var query = from e in entity.M_Employee
from p in entity.M_Position
where e.PostionId >= p.PositionId
select p;
Or a slightly alternative but equivalent approach:
var query = entity.M_Employee
.SelectMany(e => entity.M_Position
.Where(p => e.PostionId >= p.PositionId));
Following:
from e in entity.M_Employee
from p in entity.M_Position.Where(p => e.PostionId >= p.PositionId)
select p;
will produce exactly the same SQL you are after (INNER JOIN Position P ON E..PostionId >= P.PositionId).
var currentDetails = from c in customers
group c by new { c.Name, c.Authed } into g
where g.Key.Authed == "True"
select g.OrderByDescending(t => t.EffectiveDate).First();
var currentAndUnauthorised = (from c in customers
join cd in currentDetails
on c.Name equals cd.Name
where c.EffectiveDate >= cd.EffectiveDate
select c).OrderBy(o => o.CoverId).ThenBy(o => o.EffectiveDate);
If you have a table of historic detail changes including authorisation status and effective date. The first query finds each customers current details and the second query adds all subsequent unauthorised detail changes in the table.
Hope this is helpful as it took me some time and help to get too.
This is my query:
Dim vendorId = 1, categoryId = 1
Dim styles = From style In My.Context.Styles.Include("Vendor") _
Where style.Vendor.VendorId = vendorId _
AndAlso (From si In style.StyleItems _
Where si.Item.Group.Category.CategoryId = _
categoryId).Count > 0 _
Distinct
I have the feeling that I can improve the performance, cuz the above query is (correct me if I am wrong) performs 2 round-trips to the server; 1 time by the Count and then when it's executed.
I want to send this Count thing to the DB so it should be only one round trip to the server.
Even it's not the exact thing, this is actually what I need:
SELECT DISTINCT Style.*
FROM Style INNER JOIN
Vendor ON Style.VendorId = Vendor.VendorId INNER JOIN
StyleItem ON Style.StyleId = StyleItem.StyleId INNER JOIN
Item ON StyleItem.ItemId = Item.ItemId INNER JOIN
[Group] ON Item.GroupId = [Group].GroupId INNER JOIN
Category ON [Group].CategoryId = Category.CategoryId
WHERE (Style.VendorId = #vendorid) AND (Category.CategoryId = #CategoryId)
I wish I could use this SPROC (i.e. function import etc.), but I need to Include("Vendor"), which constraints me to do it with Linq.
Any kind of suggestion will be really welcommed!
It is probably not doing two trips to the database. It will get optimized before it is executed, and nothing gets executed until you try the read the data.
Normally I check the SQL that is created using SQL Profiler. I have also found LinqPad to be very usefull.