First Table is the View and Second is the result I want
This below query works fine
List<BTWStudents> students = (from V in db.vwStudentCoursesSD
where classIds.Contains(V.Class.Value)
select new BTWStudents
{
StudentId = V.StudentId
Amount= V.PaymentMethod == "Cashier Check" ? V.Amount: "0.00"
}).Distinct().ToList();
But I changed it to List to add string formatting(see below)
List<BTWStudents> students = (from V in db.vwStudentCoursesSD
where classIds.Contains(V.Class.Value)
select new {V}).ToList().Select(x => new BTWStudents
{
StudentId = V.StudentId
Amount= V.PaymentMethod == "Cashier Check" ? String.Format("{0:c}",V.Amount): "0.00"
}).Distinct().ToList();
With this Second Query I get this
Why is distinct not working in the second query?
When working with objects (in your case a wrapped anonymous type because you are using Select new {V} rather than just Select V), Distinct calls the object.Equals when doing the comparison. Internally, this checks the object's hash code. You'll find in this case, the hash code of the two objects is different even though the fields contain the same values. To fix this, you will need to override Equals on the object type or pass a custom IEqualityComparer implementation into the Distinct overload. You should be able to find a number of examples online searching for "Distinct IEqualityComparer".
Try this (moved your distinct to the first query and corrected your bugged if/then/else):
List<BTWStudents> students = (from V in db.vwStudentCoursesSD
where classIds.Contains(V.Class.Value)
select new {V}).Distinct().ToList().Select(x => new BTWStudents
{
classId = V.Class.HasValue ? V.Class.Value : 0,
studentName = V.StudentName,
paymentAmount = V.PaymentMethod == "Cashier Check" ? String.Format("{0:c}",x.V.AmountOwed): "0.00"
}).ToList();
You can get around using Distinct all together if you Group by StudentID
var studentsGroupedByPayment =
(from V in db.vwStudentCoursesSD
where classIds.Contains(V.Class.Value)
group V by V.StudentId into groupedV
select new
{
StudentID = groupedV.Key,
Amount = string.Format("{0:C}",
groupedV.First().PaymentMethod == "Cashier Check" ?
groupedV.First().Amount : 0.0)
}
).ToList();
Related
My code is as below:
var conntionRecord1Id = (from connectionBase in orgServiceContext.CreateQuery("connection")
where connectionBase["record1roleid"] == null
select new { OpportunityId = connectionBase["record1id"] }).Distinct().ToList();
var query =
from opportunity in orgServiceContext.CreateQuery("opportunity")
orderby opportunity["createdon"] ascending
select new
{
Topic = opportunity.Attributes.Contains("name") == true ? opportunity["name"] : null,
OpportunityId = opportunity.Attributes.Contains("opportunityid") == true ? opportunity["opportunityid"] : null,
PostalCode = opportunity.Attributes.Contains("new_address_postalcode") == true ? opportunity["new_address_postalcode"] : null,
};
var result = (from f in query.ToList() where conntionRecord1Id.Contains(f.OpportunityId) select f).ToList();
But in above query where i am using Contains it giving count 0. even though I have common records in the list
The Contains Linq extension method does not know how to compare complex objects.
Comparing f.OpportunityId to a list of Guids instead of a list of an anonymous type will work:
var conntionRecord1Id = (from connectionBase in orgServiceContext
.CreateQuery("connection")
where connectionBase["record1roleid"] == null
select connectionBase.GetAttributeValue<Guid?>("record1id"))
.Distinct()
.ToList();
Implement IEqualityComparer in a custom comparer class to compare complex objects: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6694563/1817350
Keep in mind that calling .ToList() brings down all the records into memory and will cause performance problems with large amounts of records.
I am trying to write a linq query that will only return certain columns from my entity object into a list object.
Below is my code which produces an error(can't implicitly convert a generic list of anonymous types to a generic list of type TBLPROMOTION):
IQueryable<TBLPROMOTION> matches = webStoreContext.TBLPROMOTION.Include("TBLSTORE").Include("LKPROMOTIONTYPE");
List<TBLPROMOTION> promotionInfo = null;
promotionInfo = (from p in matches
orderby p.PROMOTION_NM descending
select new { p.EFFECTIVE_DT, p.EXPIRE_DT, p.IS_ACTIVE,
p.PROMOTION_DESC, p.PROMOTION_ID, p.PROMOTION_NM }).ToList();
What would be the best way to accomplish this. I do not want to do a "select p" in this case and return all the columns associated with the query.
thanks in advance,
Billy
Can't you do var promotionInfo = () and get a list of anonymous types?
Okay, basically you can not cast an Anonymous type to a known type like TBLPROMOTION.
ofcourse, you can say var promotionInfo = and then get an IEnumerable<{Anonymoustype}> and use that to do, what you were wanting to do with promotionInfo.
Also, personally I prefer the Fluent version of a linq query, easy on the eyes, good programming diet, at least for me :)
var promotionInfo = matches
.OrderByDescending( p => p.PROMOTION_NM)
.Select( p => new { p.EFFECTIVE_DT,
p.EXPIRE_DT,
p.IS_ACTIVE,
p.PROMOTION_DESC,
p.PROMOTION_ID,
p.PROMOTION_NM})
.ToList();
If you're moving from a L2E query to a Type already defined, you may need a step between. I haven't tried to compile this but something like:
List<TBLPROMOTION> promotions = new List<TBLPROMOTION>();
var results = from p in matches
orderby p.PROMOTION_NM descending
select new
{
p.EFFECTIVE_DT,
p.EXPIRE_DT,
p.IS_ACTIVE,
p.PROMOTION_DESC,
p.PROMOTION_ID,
p.PROMOTION_NM
};
foreach (var v in results)
{
promotions.Add(new TBLPROMOTION(v.EFFECTIVE_DT, v.EXPIRE_DT, v.IS_ACTIVE,
v.PROMOTION_DESC, v.PROMOTION_ID, v.PROMOTION_NM));
}
Based on the comment below, you might try something like:
foreach(var v in results)
{
TBLPROMOTION temp = new TBLPROMOTION();
temp.EFFECTIVE_DT = v.EFFECTIVE_DT;
temp.EXPIRE_DT = v.EXPIRE_DT;
temp.IS_ACTIVE = v.IS_ACTIVE
// Assign Other Properties
promotions.Add(temp);
}
.......
Sorry: Just read the addition to the top.
Are you sure that none of the fields you're leaving out (instead of saying "select p") are required for a TBLPROMOTION object? Also, sense your TBLPROMOTION object is going to have properties (and therefore memory allocated) for those skipped fields, why not just use an annonymous type or set up a helper class that contains only your needed properties?
#Billy, following code worked for me.
List<TBLPROMOTION> promotionInfo =
(from p in matches
orderby p.PROMOTION_NM descending
select new TBLPROMOTION(p.EFFECTIVE_DT, p.EXPIRE_DT, p.IS_ACTIVE,
p.PROMOTION_DESC, p.PROMOTION_ID, p.PROMOTION_NM)
).ToList();
did you try
select new TBLPROMOTION {.....
instead of
select new {.....
List<TBLPROMOTION> promotionInfo = null;
promotionInfo = (from p in matches
orderby p.PROMOTION_NM descending
select new TBLPROMOTION { COL1 = p.EFFECTIVE_DT, COL2 = p.EXPIRE_DT, COL3 = p.IS_ACTIVE... }).ToList();
Where COL1, COL2, ... are the names of the properties on TBLPROMOTION you wish you populate.
If you want a subset of the table you have 2 options:
#Fredou mentioned select new TBLPROMOTION{...}
other way is to create a custom DTO which has the exact properties & select them instead like:
List promotionInfo = ...
select new TBLPROMOTION_DTO{
Effective_dt = ...
}
HTH
I am looking to optimize my LINQ query because although it works right, the SQL it generates is convoluted and inefficient...
Basically, I am looking to select customers (as CustomerDisplay objects) who ordered the required product (reqdProdId), and are registered with a credit card number (stored as a row in RegisteredCustomer table with a foreign key CustId)
var q = from cust in db.Customers
join regCust in db.RegisteredCustomers on cust.ID equals regCust.CustId
where cust.CustomerProducts.Any(co => co.ProductID == reqdProdId)
where regCust.CreditCardNumber != null && regCust.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.DisplayName,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
As an overview, a Customer has a corresponding Person which has the Name; PersonID is a foreign key in Customer table.
If I look at the SQL generated, I see all columns being selected from the Person table. Fyi, DisplayName is an extension method which uses Customer.FirstName and LastName. Any ideas how I can limit the columns from Person?
Secondly, I want to get rid of the Any clause (and use a sub-query) to select all other CustomerIds who have the required ProductID, because it (understandably) generates an Exists clause.
As you may know, LINQ has a known issue with junction tables, so I cannot just do a cust.CustomerProducts.Products.
How can I select all Customers in the junction table with the required ProductID?
Any help/advice is appreciated.
The first step is to start your query from CustomerProducts (as Alex Said):
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay =
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
join regCust in db.RegisteredCustomers
on custProd.Customer.ID equals regCust.CustId
where
custProd.ProductID == reqProdId
&& regCust.CreditCardNumber != null
&& regCust.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
This will simplify your syntax and hopefully result in a better execution plan.
Next, you should consider creating a foreign key relationship between Customers and RegisteredCustomers. This would result in a query that looked like this:
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay =
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
where
custProd.ProductID == reqProdId
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.CreditCardNumber != null
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
Finally, for optimum speed, have LINQ compile your query at compile time, rather than run time by using a compiled query:
Func<MyDataContext, SearchParameters, IQueryable<CustomerDisplay>>
GetCustWithProd =
System.Data.Linq.CompiledQuery.Compile(
(MyDataContext db, SearchParameters myParams) =>
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
where
custProd.ProductID == myParams.reqProdId
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.CreditCardNumber != null
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
);
You can call the compiled query like this:
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay = GetCustWithProd(db, myParams);
I'd suggest starting your query from the product in question, e.g. something like:
from cp in db.CustomerProducts
join .....
where cp.ProductID == reqdProdID
As you have found, using a property defined as an extension function or in a partial class will require that the entire object is hydrated first and then the select projection is done on the client side because the server has no knowledge of these additional properties. Be glad that your code ran at all. If you were to use the non-mapped value elsewhere in your query (other than in the projection), you would likely see a run-time exception. You can see this if you try to use the Customer.Person.DisplayName property in a Where clause. As you have found, the fix is to do the string concatenation in the projection clause directly.
Lame Duck, I think there is a bug in your code as the cust variable used in your select clause isn't declared elsewhere as a source local variable (in the from clauses).
Assuming that we have the following table:
Person:
PersonID,
Name,
Age,
Gender
And we are providing a search function that allows users to search the table according to the name and/or the age.
The tricky part in writing the SQL ( or LINQ) query is that the users can choose to search for both field, or any one field, or no field. If he wants to search for all then he would just have to leave the textbox blank.
The logic to do this can be written as follows:
var p;
if(Name_TextBox=='')
{
p=from row in person
select row ;
}
else
{
p= from row in person
where row.Name=Name_TextBox
select row ;
}
// repeat the same for age
Now after a while the code gets very long and messy... How can I compress the above into a single query with no if-else?
Try code like this
string personName = txtPersonName.Text;
int personAge = Convert.ToInt32(txtAge.Text);
var opportunites = from p in this.DataContext.Persons
select new
{
p.PersonID,
p.Name,
p.Age,
p.Gender
};
if (personsID != 0)
opportunites = opportunites.Where(p => p.PersonID == personID);
if (personName != string.Empty)
opportunites = opportunites.Where(p => p.Name.StartsWith(personName));
if (personAge != 0)
opportunites = opportunites.Where(p => p.Age == personAge);
This will work fine. If personName is not given it will be not add to where, and if given then it will added.
One alternative which I have used in SQL which could be implemented in Linq too is
var p = from p in Person
where p.Name == Name_TextBox || Name_TextBox == String.Empty
select p;
(Note that your 'linq' is using SQL syntax, which won't compile. Also you can't declare a var as you are doing without directly assigning a value)
why not use the null coalescing operator? eg.
var products = from a in context.products
where a.ID == (productID ?? a.ID)
select a;
This works really well on my system
What do I put in my order by?? I want to order by Name. I have moved the orderby after the distinct because I read that it needs to be done last.
var result = (from r in db.RecordDocs
where r.RecordID == recordID
select new
{
DocTypeID = r.Document.DocType.DocTypeID,
Name = r.Document.DocType.Name,
Number = r.Document.DocType.Number
}
).Distinct().OrderBy( );
Just do
.OrderBy(doc => doc.Name)
Another option, if you really prefer the query expression syntax would be to chain your query construction across multiple statements:
var query = from r in db.RecordDocs
where r.RecordID == recordID
select new
{
DocTypeID = r.Document.DocType.DocTypeID,
Name = r.Document.DocType.Name,
Number = r.Document.DocType.Number
};
query = query.Disctinct();
query = from doc in query orderby doc.Name select doc;
Since all of these methods are deferred, this will result in the exact same execution performance.