Does anyone have any tips for calculating percentages in Linq to Entities?
I'm guessing that there must be a more efficient way than returning 2 results and calculating in memory. Perhaps an inventive use of let or into?
EDIT
Thanks Mark for your comment, here is a code snippet, but I think this will result in 2 database hits:
int passed = (from lpt in this.PushedLearnings.Select(pl => pl.LearningPlanTask)
where lpt.OnlineCourseScores.Any(score => score.ActualScore >= ((lpt.LearningResource.PassMarkPercentage != (decimal?)null) ?lpt.LearningResource.PassMarkPercentage : 80))
select lpt).Count();
int total = (from lpt in this.PushedLearnings.Select(pl => pl.LearningPlanTask)
select lpt).Count();
double percentage = passed * 100 / total;
If you use LINQ to Entities and write something along the lines of select x * 100.0 / y in your query then this expression will be converted to SQL and run in the database. It will be efficient.
Related
I have a list of Customers who each have a list of Orders. Each Order has a list of LineItems.
I would like to write a LINQ query that would get me the top 10 customers based on order value (i.e. money spent) and not the total number of orders.
One customer could have 2 orders but could have spent £10,000, but another customer could have 100 orders, and only spent £500.
Right now, I have this which gets me the top 10 customers by the number of orders.
var customers = (from c in _context.Customers where c.SaleOrders.Count > 0
let activeCount = c.SaleOrders.Count(so => so.Status != SaleOrderStatus.Cancelled)
orderby activeCount descending
select c).Take(10);
UPDATE
Thanks to Jon Skeet's comment about doing a double Sum, I wrote the following query which compiles.
var customers = (from c in _context.Customers where c.SaleOrders.Count > 0
let orderSum = c.SaleOrders.Where(so => so.Status != SaleOrderStatus.Cancelled)
.Sum(so => so.LineItems.Sum(li => li.CalculateTotal()))
orderby orderSum descending
select c).Take(10);
But when I run this, I get the following error:
It seems LINQ doesn't recognise my .CalculateTotal() method which sit on my LineItem.cs entity.
The problem you were seeing is that CalculateTotal() is not something that Linq can translate into SQL (which is done at run-time, hence no complier error).
The essential problem here is that Linq doesn't really work on lambdas (Func<>), but actually Expressions (Expression<Func<>>), which is the code in a partial compiled state, which Linq then goes about disassembling and translating into SQL.
So, let assume CalculateTotal is a member function defined like this:
public decimal CalculateTotal()
{
return this.quantity * this.value;
}
We could define that as a local lambda function
Func<LineItem, decimal> CalculateTotal = (li => li.quantity * li.value);
Now, we have a lambda which takes a LineItem and returns a value, which is exactly what Sum() wants, so now we can replace:
.Sum(so => so.LineItems.Sum(li => li.CalculateTotal()))
with
.Sum(so => so.LineItems.Sum(CalculateTotal))
But that will crash, just as it did before, because, as I said, it wants an Expression. So, we give it one:
Expression<Func<LineItem, decimal>> CalculateTotal = (li => li.quantity * li.value);
I have a list of integers summed by an Aggregate method using a Lambda expression:
var mylist = new int[] { 3, 4, 5 };
var result = mylist.Aggregate((a, b) => a + b);
As I understand it, a Lambda expression can always be converted to a LINQ query. How would such a LINQ query look for my example?
EDIT: I understand .Sum may be better to add the numbers in my example. But I would really like to know how this Aggregate will look with a LINQ Query instead.
It already IS a LINQ query, Aggregate is a LINQ operator, i'm assuming what you meant was how it would look like in the LINQ comprehension syntax? The comprehension syntax only has a few built in features (select , where, multiple selects, groupby etc), it doesn't have all operators built in so when you need one of those (such as aggregate) you wrap it around parenthèses and keep going with the regular syntax. Since there is nothing there except aggregate it's not possible to give an example so i'll go from a different query:
var mylist = new int[] { 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 };
var result = mylist
.Where(item=>item %2 == 0)
.Aggregate((a, b) => a + b);
var ComprehensiveResult =
(from item in mylist
where item % 2 == 0
select item)
.Aggregate((a, b) => a + b);
Comprehensive syntax is more of a "LINQ for people coming from SQL introduction", there's nothing you can do in it that you can't do with plain using the operators but the reverse isn't true as not all operators have built in replacements. The only thing that comes to mind where Comprehensive syntax is better (aside from personal taste) is multiple selects to generate a cartesian product which is much harder to maintain in plain method syntax.
In this case Aggregate function adds numbers each other. So, the equivalent function is SUM:
var qry = mylist.Sum(x=>x);
or
var qry = (from n in mylist select n).Sum();
[EDIT]
OP has added extra information to the question without informing me about that.
Yes, it's possible to "convert" Aggregate function into linq query, but extension method is needed. See this article: Cumulating values with LINQ
I am trying to compare two tables (i.e values, count, etc..) in linq to sql but I am not getting the way to achieve it. I tried the following,
Table1.Any(i => i.itemNo == Table2.itemNo)
It gives error. Could you please help me?
Thanks in Advance.
how about
var isDifferent =
Table1.Zip(Table2, (j, k) => j.itemNo == k.itemMo).Any(m => !m);
EDIT
if Linq-To-Sql does not support Zip.
var one = Table1.ToList();
var two = Table2.ToList();
var isDifferent =
one.Zip(two, (j, k) => j.itemNo == k.itemMo).Any(m => !m);
if the tables are vary large this could cause performance problems. In that case you will need a much more sophisticated solution, if so, please ask.
EDIT2
If the tables are very large you don't want to get all the data from the server and hold it memory. Additionaly, Linq and SQL server do not garauntee the order of the rows unless you specify an order in the query. This becomes espcially relavent for large result sets returned by a multi processor server where the effects of parallelism are likely to come into play.
I suggest that Linq-to-Sql doesen't really cater well for your scenario so you will have to help it out using ExecuteQuery somthing like this.
string zipQuery =
#"SELECT TOP 1
1
FROM
[Table1] [one]
WHERE
NOT EXISTS (
SELECT * FROM [Table2] [two] WHERE [two].[itemNo] = [one].[itemNo]
)
UNION ALL
SELECT
1
FROM
[Table2] [two]
WHERE
NOT EXISTS (
SELECT * FROM [Table1] [one] WHERE [one].[itemNo] = [two].[itemNo]
)
UNION ALL
SELECT 0";
var isDifferent = context.ExecuteQuery<int>(zipQuery).Single() == 1;
This will do the select on the server without returning lots of data to the client but, I think you will agree is much more complicated.
EDIT3
Okay, the zip approach should be fine for 1000 rows. I've read your comment and I suggest changing the code accordingly.
var one = Table1.ToList();
var two = Table2.ToList();
var isDifferent =
one.Count != two.Count ||
one.Zip(two, (o, t) => o.itemNo == k.itemNo).Any(m => !m);
You should probably consider putting an order by on the list retrievers, like this.
var one = Table1.OrderBy(o => o.itemNo).ToList();
Strictly, the results of a Linq-to-Sql come back in any order unless an order is specified.
I have some bad performance issues in my application. One of the big operations is comparing strings.
I download a list of strings, approximately 1000 - 10000. These are all unique strings.
Then I need to check if these strings already exists in the database.
The linq query that I'm using looks like this:
IEnumerable<string> allNewStrings = DownloadAllStrings();
var selection = from a in allNewStrings
where !(from o in context.Items
select o.TheUniqueString).Contains(a)
select a;
Am I doing something wrong or how could I make this process faster preferably with Linq?
Thanks.
You did query the same unique strings 1000 - 10000 times for every element in allNewStrings, so it's extremely inefficient.
Try to query unique strings separately in order that it is executed once:
IEnumerable<string> allNewStrings = DownloadAllStrings();
var uniqueStrings = from o in context.Items
select o.TheUniqueString;
var selection = from a in allNewStrings
where !uniqueStrings.Contains(a)
select a;
Now you can see that the last query could be written using Except which is more efficient for the case of set operators like your example:
var selection = allNewStrings.Except(uniqueStrings);
An alternative solution would be to use a HashSet:
var set = new HashSet<string>(DownloadAllStrings());
set.ExceptWith(context.Items.Select(s => s.TheUniqueString));
The set will now contain the the strings that are not in the DB.
var ci = ctx.CI().Where(p => p.PId == pId);
var result = ctx.RM().Where(p => p.R.D.PId == Id && p.MTId == mt.Id).
Sum(p => (((p.M.TN * p.EC * p.F.PW * 52m) + (p.M.TN * p.EC * p.F.PY * (WW / 52m)))
/ 100m) * ci.FirstOrDefault(q => q.PId == p.R.PId.Value && q.FPId == p.R.FPId.Value).Factor);
8000 records. Query Takes 2000ms to load doing it this way and 4000 using join on CI and RM.
As you can see there are 6 tables used. CC, RM, R, D, F and M.
Model was defined using CodeFirst, so i'm using EF 4.1.
How can i speed up my query to run way faster than 2 seconds?
With a complex query like this, I'm guessing that a lot of the time is being spent compiling the query. Try using CompiledQuery to allow you to reuse a precompiled query.
Beyond that, you'll need to analyze the SQL that gets produced to see where time is spent in the execution plan. It's possible that you'll be able to significantly improve performance with a few well-placed indices.
Use a stored procedure, and bind the ef to a function for it.