I'm trying to convert few MS Access Queries into Oracle. Following is one of the query from MS Access.
UPDATE [RESULT] INNER JOIN [MASTER]
ON ([RESULT].[LAST_NAME] = [MASTER].[LAST_NAME])
AND ([RESULT].[FIRST_NAME] = [MASTER].[FIRST_NAME])
AND ([RESULT].[DOCUMENT_NUMBER] = [MASTER].[DOCUMENT_NUMBER])
AND ([RESULT].[BATCH_ID] = [MASTER].[LEAD_ID])
SET [MASTER].[CLOSURE_REASON] = "Closed For Name and Document Number Match",
[MASTER].[RESULT_ID] = [RESULT].[ID],
[MASTER].[RESULT_PID] = [RESULT].[PID]
WHERE (([MASTER].[CLOSURE_REASON] Is Null)
AND ([MASTER].[REC_CODE] = "A1")
AND ([RESULT].[EVENT_DATE] = [MASTER].[EVENT_DATE])
AND ([RESULT].[EVENT_TYPE] = "Open")
AND ([MASTER].[DOCUMENT_NUMBER] Is Not Null)
AND ([MASTER].[DOCUMENT_NUMBER)] "null"));
First I received ORA-01779: cannot modify a column which maps to a non key-preserved table Error. I followed different examples (including MERGE) from your site and modified my original query. Now, I receive ORA-30926: unable to get a stable set of rows in the source tables Error.
Most of the examples showed only one join between the tables but I have to make more joins based on my requirements.
Any help translating this query in to Oracle would be Great. Thanks!
I believe this should be equivalent.
UPDATE master m
SET closure_reason = 'Closed For Name and Document Number Match',
(result_id, result_pid) = (SELECT r.id, r.pid
FROM result r
WHERE m.last_name = r.last_name
AND m.first_name = r.first_name
AND m.lead_id = r.batch_id
AND m.document_number = r.document_number
AND m.event_date = r.event_date
AND r.event_type = 'Open')
WHERE m.closure_reason IS NULL
AND m.rec_code = 'A1'
AND m.document_number IS NOT NULL
AND m.document_number != 'null'
AND EXISTS( SELECT 1
FROM result r
WHERE m.last_name = r.last_name
AND m.first_name = r.first_name
AND m.lead_id = r.batch_id
AND m.document_number = r.document_number
AND m.event_date = r.event_date
AND r.event_type = 'Open' )
Obviously, however, this isn't tested. If you could post the DDL to create your tables, the DML to insert a few rows, and show the expected result, we could test our code and would likely be able to give you more accurate answers.
Related
What is the difference between the query in this post:
Save LINQ Query As Variable To Call Another LINQ Query
var parentLoc = (from a in db.PartsLocations
where a.LocationName == aContainer
select a.ParentLocation);
var locations = (from b in db.PartsLocations
where b.LocationID == parentLoc
select b).ToList();
to the following example from this post.
Dim persVogel = From p In db.People
Where p.LastName = "Vogel"
Select p
Dim persVogelPHVIS = From pp In persVogel
Where pp.Company.Name = "PHVIS"
Select pp
Both of these have declared 2 queries and use the first query variable into second query.
What is the reason to use Single() in the first example but was not used in visualstudiomagazine.com article? Thanks
The two samples are fundamentally different.
First Sample
I think you pasted this one incorrectly...from the referenced question, the query should be:
var parentLoc = (from a in db.PartsLocations
where a.LocationName == aContainer
select a.ParentLocation).Single();
var locations = (from b in db.PartsLocations
where b.LocationID == parentLoc
select b).ToList();
(I am going to assume that LocationID and ParentLocation are typed as int.)
In this sample parentLoc is an int - a single instance of a ParentLocation value, obtained from the PartsLocations table. So what you get is an int.
The second linq statement sources its records also from the PartsLocations table. It uses parentLoc to identify records within that table (e.g. where b.LocationID == parentLoc). What you get at the end is a set of PartsLocations records.
The .Single() call is made because you want to compare the result to LocationID in the second statement, and cannot compare int to IEnumerable<int>.
Second Sample
Dim persVogel = From p In db.People
Where p.LastName = "Vogel"
Select p
Dim persVogelPHVIS = From pp In persVogel
Where pp.Company.Name = "PHVIS"
Select pp
In the second sample, persVogel is a subset of records from the People table (specifically, the subset of people with LastName == "Vogel") - so what you get is a set of People records.
The second linq statement is based on this subset of records (From pp In persVogel) and further filters them down to records where pp.Company.Name = "PHVIS". What you get is still a set of People records.
These two statements could easily be compressed into one single statement:
Dim persVogelPHVIS = From p In db.People
Where p.LastName = "Vogel"
AndAlso p.Company.Name = "PHVIS"
Select p
You will still get a set of People records at the end.
I want to get the latest record of each group from a SQL Server table using Linq.
Table Example:
I want to get this result:
My Linq query returns one record for each company, but it doesn't return the most recent ones:
var query = from p in db.Payments
where p.Status == false
&& DateTime.Compare(DateTime.Now, p.NextPaymentDate.Value) == 1
group p by p.CompanyID into op
select op.OrderByDescending(nd => nd.NextPaymentDate.Value).FirstOrDefault();
What am i missing here? Why isn't the NextPaymentDate being ordered correctly?
!!UPDATE!!
My query is working as expected. After analysing #Gilang and #JonSkeet comments i ran further tests and found that i wasn't getting the intended results due to a column that wasn't being updated.
var query = from p in db.Payments
where p.Status == false
group p by p.CompanyID into op
select new {
CompanyID = op.Key,
NextPaymentDate = op.Max(x => x.NextPaymentDate),
Status = false
};
The reason your query is not being ordered correctly is that your query does not do proper grouping. You did correctly grouping by CompanyID, but then you have to retrieve the maximum NextPaymentDate by calling aggregate function.
Status can be assigned false because it is already filtered by Where clause in the early clauses.
I have a query generated by entity framework running against oracle that's too slow. It runs in about 4 seconds.
This is the main portion of my query
var query = from x in db.BUILDINGs
join pro_co in db.PROFILE_COMMUNITY on x.COMMUNITY_ID equals pro_co.COMMUNITY_ID
join co in db.COMMUNITies on x.COMMUNITY_ID equals co.COMMUNITY_ID
join st in db.STATE_PROFILE on co.STATE_CD equals st.STATE_CD
where pro_co.PROFILE_NM == authorizedUser.ProfileName
select new
{
COMMUNITY_ID = x.COMMUNITY_ID,
COUNTY_ID = x.COUNTY_ID,
REALTOR_GROUP_NM = x.REALTOR_GROUP_NM,
BUILDING_NAME_TX = x.BUILDING_NAME_TX,
ACTIVE_FL = x.ACTIVE_FL,
CONSTR_SQFT_AVAIL_NB = x.CONSTR_SQFT_AVAIL_NB,
TRANS_RAIL_FL = x.TRANS_RAIL_FL,
LAST_UPDATED_DT = x.LAST_UPDATED_DT,
CREATED_DATE = x.CREATED_DATE,
BUILDING_ADDRESS_TX = x.BUILDING_ADDRESS_TX,
BUILDING_ID = x.BUILDING_ID,
COMMUNITY_NM = co.COMMUNITY_NM,
IMAGECOUNT = x.BUILDING_IMAGE2.Count(),
StateCode = st.STATE_NM,
BuildingTypeItems = x.BUILDING_TYPE_ITEM,
BuildingZoningItems = x.BUILDING_ZONING_ITEM,
BuildingSpecFeatures = x.BUILDING_SPEC_FEATURE_ITEM,
buildingHide = x.BUILDING_HIDE,
buildinghideSort = x.BUILDING_HIDE.Count(y => y.PROFILE_NM == ProfileName) > 0 ? 1 : 0,
BUILDING_CITY_TX = x.BUILDING_CITY_TX,
BUILDING_ZIP_TX = x.BUILDING_ZIP_TX,
LPF_GENERAL_DS = x.LPF_GENERAL_DS,
CONSTR_SQFT_TOTAL_NB = x.CONSTR_SQFT_TOTAL_NB,
CONSTR_STORIES_NB = x.CONSTR_STORIES_NB,
CONSTR_CEILING_CENTER_NB = x.CONSTR_CEILING_CENTER_NB,
CONSTR_CEILING_EAVES_NB = x.CONSTR_CEILING_EAVES_NB,
DESCR_EXPANDABLE_FL = x.DESCR_EXPANDABLE_FL,
CONSTR_MATERIAL_TYPE_TX = x.CONSTR_MATERIAL_TYPE_TX,
SITE_ACRES_SALE_NB = x.SITE_ACRES_SALE_NB,
DESCR_PREVIOUS_USE_TX = x.DESCR_PREVIOUS_USE_TX,
CONSTR_YEAR_BUILT_TX = x.CONSTR_YEAR_BUILT_TX,
DESCR_SUBDIVIDE_FL = x.DESCR_SUBDIVIDE_FL,
LOCATION_CITY_LIMITS_FL = x.LOCATION_CITY_LIMITS_FL,
TRANS_INTERSTATE_NEAREST_TX = x.TRANS_INTERSTATE_NEAREST_TX,
TRANS_INTERSTATE_MILES_NB = x.TRANS_INTERSTATE_MILES_NB,
TRANS_HIGHWAY_NAME_TX = x.TRANS_HIGHWAY_NAME_TX,
TRANS_HIGHWAY_MILES_NB = x.TRANS_HIGHWAY_MILES_NB,
TRANS_AIRPORT_COM_NAME_TX = x.TRANS_AIRPORT_COM_NAME_TX,
TRANS_AIRPORT_COM_MILES_NB = x.TRANS_AIRPORT_COM_MILES_NB,
UTIL_ELEC_SUPPLIER_TX = x.UTIL_ELEC_SUPPLIER_TX,
UTIL_GAS_SUPPLIER_TX = x.UTIL_GAS_SUPPLIER_TX,
UTIL_WATER_SUPPLIER_TX = x.UTIL_WATER_SUPPLIER_TX,
UTIL_SEWER_SUPPLIER_TX = x.UTIL_SEWER_SUPPLIER_TX,
UTIL_PHONE_SVC_PVD_TX = x.UTIL_PHONE_SVC_PVD_TX,
CONTACT_ORGANIZATION_TX = x.CONTACT_ORGANIZATION_TX,
CONTACT_PHONE_TX = x.CONTACT_PHONE_TX,
CONTACT_EMAIL_TX = x.CONTACT_EMAIL_TX,
TERMS_SALE_PRICE_TX = x.TERMS_SALE_PRICE_TX,
TERMS_LEASE_SQFT_NB = x.TERMS_LEASE_SQFT_NB
};
There is a section of code that tacks on dynamic where and sort clauses to the query but I've left those out. The query takes about 4 seconds to run no matter what is in the where and sort.
I dropped the generated SQL in Oracle and an explain plan didn't appear to show anything that screamed fix me. Cost is 1554
If this isn't allowed I apologize but I can't seem to find a good way to share this information. I've uploaded the explain plan generated by Sql Developer here: http://www.123server.org/files/explainPlanzip-e1d291efcd.html
Table Layout
Building
--------------------
- BuildingID
- CommunityId
- Lots of other columns
Profile_Community
-----------------------
- CommunityId
- ProfileNM
- lots of other columns
state_profile
---------------------
- StateCD
- ProfileNm
- lots of other columns
Profile
---------------------
- Profile-NM
- a few other columns
All of the tables with allot of columns have 120-150 columns each. It seems like entity is generating a select statement that pulls every column from every table instead of just the ones I want.
The thing that's bugging me and I think might be my issue is that in my LINQ I've selected 50 items, but the generated sql is returning 677 columns. I think returning so many columns is the source of my slowness possibly.
Any ideas why I am getting so many columns returned in SQL or how to speed my query?
I have a suspicion some of the performance is being impacted by your object creation. Try running the query without just a basic "select x" and see if it's the SQL query taking time or the object creation.
Also if the query being generated is too complicated you could try separating it out into smaller sub-queries which gradually enrich your object rather than trying to query everything at once.
I ended up creating a view and having the view only select the columns I wanted and joining on things that needed to be left-joined in linq.
It's pretty annoying that EF selects every column from every table you're trying to join across. But I guess I only noticed this because I am joining a bunch of tables with 150+ columns in them.
I'm having a bit trouble with a query in Linq to Entities which I hope someone can shed a light on :-) What I'm trying to do is to create a query that joins three tables.
So far it works, but since the last table I'm trying to join is empty, the result of the query doesn't contain any records. When I remove the last join, it gives me the right results.
My query looks like this:
var query = from p in db.QuizParticipants
join points in db.ParticipantPoints on p.id
equals points.participantId into participantsGroup
from po in participantsGroup
join winners in db.Winners on p.id
equals winners.participantId into winnersGroup
from w in winnersGroup
where p.hasAttended == 1 && p.weeknumber == weeknumber
select new
{
ParticipantId = p.id,
HasAttended = p.hasAttended,
Weeknumber = p.weeknumber,
UmbracoMemberId = p.umbMemberId,
Points = po.points,
HasWonFirstPrize = w.hasWonFirstPrize,
HasWonVoucher = w.hasWonVoucher
};
What I would like is to get some records even if the Winners table is empty or there is no match in it.
Any help/hint on this is greatly appreciated! :-)
Thanks a lot in advance.
/ Bo
If you set these up as related entities instead of doing joins, I think it will be easier to do what you're trying to do.
var query = from p in db.QuizParticipants
where p.hasAttended == 1 && p.weeknumber == weeknumber
select new
{
ParticipantId = p.id,
HasAttended = p.hasAttended,
Weeknumber = p.weeknumber,
UmbracoMemberId = p.umbMemberId,
Points = p.ParticipantPoints.Sum(pts => pts.points),
HasWonFirstPrize = p.Winners.Any(w => w.hasWonFirstPrize),
HasWonVoucher = p.Winners.Any(w => w.hasWonVoucher)
};
This is assuming hasWonFirstPrize and hasWonVoucher are boolean fields, but you can use any aggregate function to get the results you need, such as p.Winners.Any(w => w.hasWonFirstPrize == 1)
I don't use query syntax a lot but I believe you need to change from w in winnersGroup to from w in winnersGroup.DefaultIfEmpty()
I wanted to do a paging style table, but NeerDinner example fetches the entire data into a PaggingList type, and I have more than 10 000 rows to be fetched, so I skipped that part.
so I come up with this query
var r = (from p in db.Prizes
join c in db.Calendars on p.calendar_id equals c.calendar_id
join ch in db.Challenges on c.calendar_id equals ch.calendar_id
join ca in db.ChallengeAnswers on ch.challenge_id equals ca.challenge_id
join cr in db.ChallengeResponses on ca.challenge_answer_id equals cr.challenge_answer_id
where
p.prize_id.Equals(prizeId)
&& ch.day >= p.from_day && ch.day <= p.to_day
&& ca.correct.Equals(true)
&& ch.day.Equals(day)
orderby cr.Subscribers.name
select new PossibleWinner()
{
Name = cr.Subscribers.name,
Email = cr.Subscribers.email,
SubscriberId = cr.subscriber_id,
ChallengeDay = ch.day,
Question = ch.question,
Answer = ca.answer
})
.Skip(size * page)
.Take(size);
Problem is, how can I get the total number of results before the Take part?
I was thinking of:
var t = (from p in db.JK_Prizes
join c in db.JK_Calendars on p.calendar_id equals c.calendar_id
join ch in db.JK_Challenges on c.calendar_id equals ch.calendar_id
join ca in db.JK_ChallengeAnswers on ch.challenge_id equals ca.challenge_id
join cr in db.JK_ChallengeResponses on ca.challenge_answer_id equals cr.challenge_answer_id
where
p.prize_id.Equals(prizeId)
&& ch.day >= p.from_day && ch.day <= p.to_day
&& ca.correct.Equals(true)
&& ch.day.Equals(day)
select cr.subscriber_id)
.Count();
but that will do the query all over again...
anyone has suggestions on how can I do this effectively ?
If you take a query as such:
var qry = (from x in y
select x).Count();
...LINQ to SQL will be clever enough to make this a SELECT COUNT query, which is potentially rather efficient (efficiency will depend more on the conditions in the query). Bottom line is that the count operation happens in the database, not in LINQ code.
Writing my old comments :Well i was facing the same issue some time back and then i came up with LINQ to SP =). Make an SP and drop that into your entities and use it.you can get write Sp according to your need like pulling total record column too. It is more easy and fast as compare to that whet you are using wright now.
You can put count for query logic as well as, see the sample as below:
public int GetTotalCountForAllEmployeesByReportsTo(int? reportsTo, string orderBy = default(string), int startRowIndex = default(int), int maximumRows = default(int))
{
//Validate Input
if (reportsTo.IsEmpty())
return GetTotalCountForAllEmployees(orderBy, startRowIndex, maximumRows);
return _DatabaseContext.Employees.Count(employee => reportsTo == null ? employee.ReportsTo == null : employee.ReportsTo == reportsTo);
}