I have problem with the NHibernate's second level cache. When I use query:
var items1 = Session.Query<Row>()
.Cacheable();
.Fetch(x => x.Field)
.OrderBy(x => x.Field.Value)
.ToList();
Everything is fine - the query is cached. But when I want to use Dynamic Linq (a link):
var items2 = Session.Query<Row>()
.Cacheable();
.Fetch(x => x.Field)
.OrderBy("Field.Value")
.ToList();
The query is not cached. Interesting thing is that, when I delete code line:
.Fetch(x => x.Field)
caching works again. So the problem is with using Fetch and dynamic linq OrderBy methods together.
EDIT:
When I try do debug NH code (QueryKey class), debugger tells me that these two queries do not have the same ResultTransformer (and deeper: a listTransformation private instance).
Any ideas?
Chris
Ok, I know what is the reason.
Dynamic Linq doesn't use Parameter Names in Linq Expressions. E.g. if I want to sort using lambda statemant, I write:
query.OrderBy(item => item.Name)
Above we see an item lambda parameter name.
When I use Dynamic linq:
query.OrderBy("Name")
in the result Queryable the lambda parameter in OrderBy mehod has no name (like item written above). We can illustrate the result like this:
query.OrderBy( => .Name)
And now, when NHibernate is decoding that Queryable expression and finds there an expression parameter that has no name, NH gives it a random name using GUID class. So every ordering using dynamic linq produces a Queryable Expression that has inconstant lambda parameter. This is the reason why NHibernate thinks that: query.OrderBy("Name") and query.OrderBy("Name") are not the same - they have another lamda parameters generated every time from scratch.
SOLUTION
If you want to fix it, you have to modify Dynamic Linq library.
In method ExpressionParser.ProcessParameters change line:
if (parameters.Length == 1 && String.IsNullOrEmpty(parameters[0].Name))
to:
if (parameters.Length == 1 && (parameters[0].Name == "it" || String.IsNullOrEmpty(parameters[0].Name)))
In method DynamicQueryable.OrderBy change line:
Expression.Parameter(source.ElementType, "")
to:
Expression.Parameter(source.ElementType, "it")
Now, query.OrderBy("Name") will produce query.OrderBy(it => it.Name).
Cheers!
Related
I have data query and want to create dynamic linq/lambda expression which i can run on entity collection. Not sure how to do this using Expression builder. Please provide some examples if possible.
For e.g I have query
Select person.name,person.surname from person where person.name= 'Joe'
and i have entity collection of all persons. But dont want to fire a query instead want to convert this query in to lambda and run on persons collection. This to avoid server calls.
linq/lambda expression like
from person in person where person.id ='Joe' select person.name;
It's better to use method syntax rather than query syntax
for example instead of from person in people where person.Name == "Test"
use People.Where(person => person.Name == "Test");
then you can add reference to Mono.CSharp.DLL and then use Evaluator class to compile and run C# codes on the fly easily, without loosing performance too much.
Then compile and run your LINQ queries by C# strings and invoke that string with Evaluator.
You can see this method in JavaScript codes too, with eval function.
Let me know if other information are needed
Good luck
LINQ
var xxx = from p in person
where p.Name equals "Joe"
select p;
Lamda
var lambda = Person.Where(m=> m.Name == "Joe");
For tutorials
MSDN 101 LINQ
MSDN
Lambda
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.
I have two Entity Framework 4 Linq queries I wrote that make use of a custom class method, one works and one does not:
The custom method is:
public static DateTime GetLastReadToDate(string fbaUsername, Discussion discussion)
{
return (discussion.DiscussionUserReads.Where(dur => dur.User.aspnet_User.UserName == fbaUsername).FirstOrDefault() ?? new DiscussionUserRead { ReadToDate = DateTime.Now.AddYears(-99) }).ReadToDate;
}
The linq query that works calls a from after a from, the equivalent of SelectMany():
from g in oc.Users.Where(u => u.aspnet_User.UserName == fbaUsername).First().Groups
from d in g.Discussions
select new
{
UnReadPostCount = d.Posts.Where(p => p.CreatedDate > DiscussionRepository.GetLastReadToDate(fbaUsername, p.Discussion)).Count()
};
The query that does not work is more like a regular select:
from d in oc.Discussions
where d.Group.Name == "Student"
select new
{
UnReadPostCount = d.Posts.Where(p => p.CreatedDate > DiscussionRepository.GetLastReadToDate(fbaUsername, p.Discussion)).Count(),
};
The error I get is:
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.DateTime GetLastReadToDate(System.String, Discussion)' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
My question is, why am I able to use my custom GetLastReadToDate() method in the first query and not the second? I suppose this has something to do with what gets executed on the db server and what gets executed on the client? These queries seem to use the GetLastReadToDate() method so similarly though, I'm wondering why would work for the first and not the second, and most importantly if there's a way to factor common query syntax like what's in the GetLastReadToDate() method into a separate location to be reused in several different other LINQ queries.
Please note all these queries are sharing the same object context.
I think your better of using a Model Defined Function here.
Define a scalar function in your database which returns a DateTime, pass through whatever you need, map it on your model, then use it in your LINQ query:
from g in oc.Users.Where(u => u.aspnet_User.UserName == fbaUsername).First().Groups
from d in g.Discussions
select new
{
UnReadPostCount = d.Posts.Where(p => p.CreatedDate > myFunkyModelFunction(fbaUsername, p.Discussion)).Count()
};
and most importantly if there's a way to factor common query syntax like what's in the GetLastReadToDate() method into a separate location to be reused in several different places LINQ queries.
A stored procedure would probably be one way to store that 'common query syntax"...EF, at least 4.0, works very nicely with SP's.
I have an application that manages documents called Notes. Like a blog, Notes can be searched for matches against one or more Tags, which are contained in a Note.Tags collection property. A Tag has Name and ID properties, and matches are made against the ID. A user can specify multiple tags to match against, in which case a Note must contain all Tags specified to match.
I have a very complex LINQ query to perform a Note search, with extension methods and looping. Quite frankly, it has a real code smell to it. I want to rewrite the query with something much simpler. I know that if I made the Tag a simple string, I could use something like this:
var matchingNotes = from n in myNotes
where n.Tags.All(tag => searchTags.Contains(tag))
Can I do something that simple if my model uses a Tag object with an ID? What would the query look like. Could it be written in fluent syntax? what would that look like?
I believe you can find notes that have the relevant tags in a single LINQ expression:
IQueryable<Note> query = ... // top part of query
query = query.Where(note => searchTags.All(st =>
note.Tags.Any(notetag => notetag.Id == st.Id)));
Unfortunately there is no “fluent syntax” equivalent for All and Any, so the best you can do there is
query = from note in query
where searchTags.All(st =>
note.Tags.Any(notetag => notetag.Id == st.Id))
select note;
which is not that much better either.
For starters see my comment; I suspect the query is wrong anyway! I would simplifiy it, by simply enforcing separately that each tag exists:
IQueryable<Note> query = ... // top part of query
foreach(var tagId in searchTagIds) {
var tmpId = tagId; // modified closures...
query = query.Where(note => note.Tags.Any(t => t.Id == tmpId));
}
This should have the net effect of enforcing all the tags specified are present and accounted for.
Timwi's solution works in most dialects of LINQ, but not in Linq to Entities. I did find a single-statement LINQ query that works, courtesy of ReSharper. Basically, I wrote a foreach block to do the search, and ReSharper offered to convert the block to a LINQ statement--I had no idea it could do this.
I let ReSharper perform the conversion, and here is what it gave me:
return searchTags.Aggregate<Tag, IQueryable<Note>>(DataStore.ObjectContext.Notes, (current, tag) => current.Where(n => n.Tags.Any(t => t.Id == tag.Id)).OrderBy(n => n.Title));
I read my Notes collection from a database, using Entity Framework 4. DataStore is the custom class I use to manage my EF4 connection; it holds the EF4 ObjectContext as a property.
I'm trying to do a query like so...
query.Where(x => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(x.PropertyName));
but it fails...
so for now I have implemented the following, which works...
query.Where(x => (x.PropertyName ?? string.Empty) != string.Empty);
is there a better (more native?) way that LINQ handles this?
EDIT
apologize! didn't include the provider... This is using LINQ to SQL
http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=367077
Problem Statement
It's possible to write LINQ to SQL that gets all rows that have either null or an empty string in a given field, but it's not possible to use string.IsNullOrEmpty to do it, even though many other string methods map to LINQ to SQL.
Proposed Solution
Allow string.IsNullOrEmpty in a LINQ to SQL where clause so that these two queries have the same result:
var fieldNullOrEmpty =
from item in db.SomeTable
where item.SomeField == null || item.SomeField.Equals(string.Empty)
select item;
var fieldNullOrEmpty2 =
from item in db.SomeTable
where string.IsNullOrEmpty(item.SomeField)
select item;
Other Reading:
1. DevArt
2. Dervalp.com
3. StackOverflow Post
This won't fail on Linq2Objects, but it will fail for Linq2SQL, so I am assuming that you are talking about the SQL provider or something similar.
The reason has to do with the way that the SQL provider handles your lambda expression. It doesn't take it as a function Func<P,T>, but an expression Expression<Func<P,T>>. It takes that expression tree and translates it so an actual SQL statement, which it sends off to the server.
The translator knows how to handle basic operators, but it doesn't know how to handle methods on objects. It doesn't know that IsNullOrEmpty(x) translates to return x == null || x == string.empty. That has to be done explicitly for the translation to SQL to take place.
This will work fine with Linq to Objects. However, some LINQ providers have difficulty running CLR methods as part of the query. This is expecially true of some database providers.
The problem is that the DB providers try to move and compile the LINQ query as a database query, to prevent pulling all of the objects across the wire. This is a good thing, but does occasionally restrict the flexibility in your predicates.
Unfortunately, without checking the provider documentation, it's difficult to always know exactly what will or will not be supported directly in the provider. It looks like your provider allows comparisons, but not the string check. I'd guess that, in your case, this is probably about as good of an approach as you can get. (It's really not that different from the IsNullOrEmpty check, other than creating the "string.Empty" instance for comparison, but that's minor.)
... 12 years ago :) But still, some one may found it helpful:
Often it is good to check white spaces too
query.Where(x => !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(x.PropertyName));
it will converted to sql as:
WHERE [x].[PropertyName] IS NOT NULL AND ((LTRIM(RTRIM([x].[PropertyName])) <> N'') OR [x].[PropertyName] IS NULL)
or other way:
query.Where(x => string.Compare(x.PropertyName," ") > 0);
will be converted to sql as:
WHERE [x].[PropertyName] > N' '
If you want to go change the type of the collection from nullable type IEnumerable<T?> to non-null type IEnumerable<T> you can use .OfType<T>().
.OfType<T>() will remove null values and return a list of the type T.
Example: If you have a list of nullable strings: List<string?> you can change the type of the list to string by using OfType<string() as in the below example:
List<string?> nullableStrings = new List<string?> { "test1", null, "test2" };
List<string> strings = nullableStrings.OfType<string>().ToList();
// strings now only contains { "test1", "test2" }
This will result in a list of strings only containing test1 and test2.