I'm trying to add a column to the following LINQ expression. I want the column to contain a string concatenation of a text value in a many table called WasteItems. The join would be on "Waste.WasteId = WasteItem.WasteId". My problem is I need to display in a single dynamic column a string such as "EW (5); EX (3)" if there was 8 records in WasteItem and the column containing the 2 character string was called WasteItem.EWC. Hope that makes sense, there must be an efficient way since I realise LINQ is very powerfull. I'm new to it and not sure how to start or go about this:
return from waste in this._db.Wastes
where (from u in _db.UsersToSites.Where(p => p.UserId == userId && p.SystemTypeId == SystemType.W)
select u.SiteId)
.Contains(waste.SiteId)
orderby waste.Entered descending select waste;
THANKS IN ADVANCE
Something like this should do:
wastes.GroupJoin(db.WasteItems, w => w.WastId, wi => wi.WasteId, (w,wi) => new { w, wi })
.AsEnumerable()
.Select(x => new
{
x.w.Name,
Items = string.Join(", ", x.wi.GroupBy(wi => wi.EWC).Select(g => string.Format("{0} ({1})", g.Key, g.Count())))
})
Where wastes is the result from your query. The AsEnumerable() is necessary because Entity Framework can not handle string.Join, so that part must be dealt with in memory.
I could not check the syntax, obviously, but at least it may show you the way to go.
Related
I am trying to get a list of a database table called oracleTimeCards whose employee id equals to the employeeID in employees list. Here is what I wrote:
LandornetSQLEntities db = new LandornetSQLEntities();
List<OracleEmployee> employees = db.OracleEmployees.Where(e => e.Office.Contains(officeName) && e.IsActive == true).Distinct().ToList();
var oracleTimeCards = db.OracleTimecards.Where(c => employees.Any(e => c.PersonID == e.PersonID)).ToList();
Anyone has any idea?
I'm going to assume you're using Entity Framework here. You can't embed calls to arbitrary LINQ extension methods inside your predicate, since EF might not know how to translate these to SQL.
Assuming you want to find all the timecards for the employees you found in your first query, you have two options. The simplest is to have a navigation property on your Employee class, named let's say TimeCards, that points to a collection of time card records for the given employee. Here's how that would work:
var oracleTimeCards = employees
.SelectMany(e => e.TimeCards)
.ToList();
If you don't want to do this for whatever reason, you can create an array of employee IDs by evaluating your first query, and use this to filter the second:
var empIDs = employees
.Select(e => e.PersonID)
.ToArray();
var oracleTimeCards = db.OracleTimecards
.Where(tc => empIDs.Contains(tc.PersonID))
.ToList();
I have the following linq-to-entities query with 2 joined tables that I would like to add pagination to:
IQueryable<ProductInventory> data = from inventory in objContext.ProductInventory
join variant in objContext.Variants
on inventory.VariantId equals variant.id
where inventory.ProductId == productId
where inventory.StoreId == storeId
orderby variant.SortOrder
select inventory;
I realize I need to use the .Join() extension method and then call .OrderBy().Skip().Take() to do this, I am just gettting tripped up on the syntax of Join() and can't seem to find any examples (either online or in books).
NOTE: The reason I am joining the tables is to do the sorting. If there is a better way to sort based on a value in a related table than join, please include it in your answer.
2 Possible Solutions
I guess this one is just a matter of readability, but both of these will work and are semantically identical.
1
IQueryable<ProductInventory> data = objContext.ProductInventory
.Where(y => y.ProductId == productId)
.Where(y => y.StoreId == storeId)
.Join(objContext.Variants,
pi => pi.VariantId,
v => v.id,
(pi, v) => new { Inventory = pi, Variant = v })
.OrderBy(y => y.Variant.SortOrder)
.Skip(skip)
.Take(take)
.Select(x => x.Inventory);
2
var query = from inventory in objContext.ProductInventory
where inventory.ProductId == productId
where inventory.StoreId == storeId
join variant in objContext.Variants
on inventory.VariantId equals variant.id
orderby variant.SortOrder
select inventory;
var paged = query.Skip(skip).Take(take);
Kudos to Khumesh and Pravin for helping with this. Thanks to the rest for contributing.
Define the join in your mapping, and then use it. You really don't get anything by using the Join method - instead, use the Include method. It's much nicer.
var data = objContext.ProductInventory.Include("Variant")
.Where(i => i.ProductId == productId && i.StoreId == storeId)
.OrderBy(j => j.Variant.SortOrder)
.Skip(x)
.Take(y);
Add following line to your query
var pagedQuery = data.Skip(PageIndex * PageSize).Take(PageSize);
The data variable is IQueryable, so you can put add skip & take method on it. And if you have relationship between Product & Variant, you donot really require to have join explicitly, you can refer the variant something like this
IQueryable<ProductInventory> data =
from inventory in objContext.ProductInventory
where inventory.ProductId == productId && inventory.StoreId == storeId
orderby inventory.variant.SortOrder
select new()
{
property1 = inventory.Variant.VariantId,
//rest of the properties go here
}
pagedQuery = data.Skip(PageIndex * PageSize).Take(PageSize);
My answer here based on the answer that is marked as true
but here I add a new best practice of the code above
var data= (from c in db.Categorie.AsQueryable().Join(db.CategoryMap,
cat=> cat.CategoryId, catmap => catmap.ChildCategoryId,
cat, catmap) => new { Category = cat, CategoryMap = catmap })
select (c => c.Category)
this is the best practice to use the Linq to entity because when you add AsQueryable() to your code; system will converts a generic System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable to a generic System.Linq.IQueryable which is better for .Net engine to build this query at run time
thank you Mr. Khumesh Kumawat
You would simply use your Skip(itemsInPage * pageNo).Take(itemsInPage) to do paging.
I am a newbie to Linq. I am trying to write a linq query to get a min value from a set of records. I need to use groupby, where , select and min function in the same query but i am having issues when using group by clause. here is the query I wrote
var data =newTrips.groupby (x => x.TripPath.TripPathLink.Link.Road.Name)
.Where(x => x.TripPath.PathNumber == pathnum)
.Select(x => x.TripPath.TripPathLink.Link.Speed).Min();
I am not able to use group by and where together it keeps giving error .
My query should
Select all the values.
filter it through the where clause (pathnum).
Groupby the road Name
finally get the min value.
can some one tell me what i am doing wrong and how to achieve the desired result.
Thanks,
Pawan
It's a little tricky not knowing the relationships between the data, but I think (without trying it) that this should give you want you want -- the minimum speed per road by name. Note that it will result in a collection of anonymous objects with Name and Speed properties.
var data = newTrips.Where(x => x.TripPath.PathNumber == pathnum)
.Select(x => x.TripPath.TripPathLink.Link)
.GroupBy(x => x.Road.Name)
.Select(g => new { Name = g.Key, Speed = g.Min(l => l.Speed) } );
Since I think you want the Trip which has the minimum speed, rather than the speed, and I'm assuming a different data structure, I'll add to tvanfosson's answer:
var pathnum = 1;
var trips = from trip in newTrips
where trip.TripPath.PathNumber == pathnum
group trip by trip.TripPath.TripPathLink.Link.Road.Name into g
let minSpeed = g.Min(t => t.TripPath.TripPathLink.Link.Speed)
select new {
Name = g.Key,
Trip = g.Single(t => t.TripPath.TripPathLink.Link.Speed == minSpeed) };
foreach (var t in trips)
{
Console.WriteLine("Name = {0}, TripId = {1}", t.Name, t.Trip.TripId);
}
I have two table Company and Employee. And there relation is Company(one) - Employee(many).
And I want to concatenate all the Employees' name to a string and output.
I know I can write such a query :
String names = "";
foreach(var emp in Company.Employee)
{
names += emp.name;
}
But If I use this mean, I would load all the employee records into memory, and then make comparison, which is a waste of time and memory, and would low the performance.
So in linq, is it possible to craft such a query that can return all concatenated names within a single SQL ?
Thanks in advance ! Any recommendations will be greatly appreciated !
var employeeNames = context
.Company
.Where(c => c.Id = 0xF00)
.SelectMany(c => c.Employee)
.Select(e => e.Name)
.ToArray();
var result = String.Join(" ", employeeNames);
You can vary the part of the query selecting the company a bit depending on the exact semantics and Entity Framework version. In .NET 4.0 the Entity Framework supports Single(). If you don't care about minor semantic differences you can use First() instead of SelectMany() prior to .NET 4.0.
This is a simplified variation of Daniel's but I think it should work (making assumptions about the schema)
var employeeNames = (from e in context.Employee
where e.CompanyId = 0xF00
select e.Name)
.ToArray();
var result = String.Join(" ", employeeNames);
I felt like the following should be possible I'm just not sure what approach to take.
What I'd like to do is use the include method to shape my results, ie define how far along the object graph to traverse. but... I'd like that traversal to be conditional.
something like...
dealerships
.include( d => d.parts.where(p => p.price < 100.00))
.include( d => d.parts.suppliers.where(s => s.country == "brazil"));
I understand that this is not valid linq, in fact, that it is horribly wrong, but essentially I'm looking for some way to build an expression tree that will return shaped results, equivalent to...
select *
from dealerships as d
outer join parts as p on d.dealerid = p.dealerid
and p.price < 100.00
outer join suppliers as s on p.partid = s.partid
and s.country = 'brazil'
with an emphasis on the join conditions.
I feel like this would be fairly straight forward with esql but my preference would be to build expression trees on the fly.
as always, grateful for any advice or guidance
This should do the trick:
using (TestEntities db = new TestEntities())
{
var query = from d in db.Dealership
select new
{
Dealer = d,
Parts = d.Part.Where
(
p => p.Price < 100.0
&& p.Supplier.Country == "Brazil"
),
Suppliers = d.Part.Select(p => p.Supplier)
};
var dealers = query.ToArray().Select(o => o.Dealer);
foreach (var dealer in dealers)
{
Console.WriteLine(dealer.Name);
foreach (var part in dealer.Part)
{
Console.WriteLine(" " + part.PartId + ", " + part.Price);
Console.WriteLine
(
" "
+ part.Supplier.Name
+ ", "
+ part.Supplier.Country
);
}
}
}
This code will give you a list of Dealerships each containing a filtered list of parts. Each part references a Supplier. The interesting part is that you have to create the anonymous types in the select in the way shown. Otherwise the Part property of the Dealership objects will be empty.
Also, you have to execute the SQL statement before selecting the dealers from the query. Otherwise the Part property of the dealers will again be empty. That is why I put the ToArray() call in the following line:
var dealers = query.ToArray().Select(o => o.Dealer);
But I agree with Darren that this may not be what the users of your library are expecting.
Are you sure this is what you want? The only reason I ask is, once you add the filter on Parts off of Dealerships, your results are no longer Dealerships. You're dealing in special objects that are, for the most part, very close to Dealerships (with the same properties), but the meaning of the "Parts" property is different. Instead of being a relationship between Dealerships and Parts, it's a filtered relationship.
Or to put it another way, if I pull a dealership out of your results and passed to a method I wrote, and then in my method I call:
var count = dealership.Parts.Count();
I'm expecting to get the parts, not the filtered parts from Brazil where the price is less than $100.
If you don't use the dealership object to pass the filtered data, it becomes very easy. It becomes as simple as:
var query = from d in dealerships
select new { DealershipName = d.Name,
CheapBrazilProducts = dealership.Parts.Where(d => d.parts.Any(p => p.price < 100.00) || d.parts.suppliers.Any(s => s.country == "brazil")) };
If I just had to get the filtered sets like you asked, I'd probably use the technique I mentioned above, and then use a tool like Automapper to copy the filtered results from my anonymous class to the real class. It's not incredibly elegant, but it should work.
I hope that helps! It was an interesting problem.
I know this can work with one single Include. Never test with two includes, but worth the try:
dealerships
.Include( d => d.parts)
.Include( d => d.parts.suppliers)
.Where(d => d.parts.All(p => p.price < 100.00) && d.parts.suppliers.All(s => s.country == "brazil"))
Am I missing something, or aren't you just looking for the Any keyword?
var query = dealerships.Where(d => d.parts.Any(p => p.price < 100.00) ||
d.parts.suppliers.Any(s => s.country == "brazil"));
Yes that's what I wanted to do I think the next realease of Data Services will have the possiblity to do just that LINQ to REST queries that would be great in the mean time I just switched to load the inverse and Include the related entity that will be loaded multiple times but in theory it just have to load once in the first Include like in this code
return this.Context.SearchHistories.Include("Handle")
.Where(sh => sh.SearchTerm.Contains(searchTerm) && sh.Timestamp > minDate && sh.Timestamp < maxDate);
before I tried to load for any Handle the searchHistories that matched the logic but don't know how using the Include logic you posted so in the mean time I think a reverse lookup would be a not so dirty solution