i have the following action method:-
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public PartialViewResult Search(string q, int classid)
{
var users = r.searchusers(q, classid);
// code does here..............
which calls the following model repository method:-
public IQueryable<User> searchusers(string q, int id)
{
return from u in entities1.Users
where (!u.Users_Classes.Any(c => c.ClassID == id) && (u.UserID.Contains(q))
select u;
}
now if i change the IQueryable to IEnumerable as follow , will there be any changes on how the query will be executed in this case ?:-
public IEnumerable<User> searchusers(string q, int id)
{
return from u in entities1.Users
where (!u.Users_Classes.Any(c => c.ClassID == id) && (u.UserID.Contains(q))
select u;
}
Yes, in my testing once you cast to IEnumerable, that determines the query SQL. Any additional query composition you do after that will be done in memory after the query is executed.
So suppose you have a base query that loads a list of users and returns an IEnumerable. Then before you actually run through that list (thereby executing the query), you also add a .Where(i=>i.username='bob'). In that case, it will execute the whole select, and then apply a LINQ-to-Objects in memory filter for the "where username='bob'" part, which is probably not what you want, instead you want the whole thing to be run as part of the SQL statement.
So yes, always use IQueryable whenever you can so that your fully composed are run at once.
Yes it will change the query, you want to use the IQuerable for anything that uses a remote datasource.
In your case it will force linq to execute the query, where as IQuerable would wait until someone else to execute the query. IQuerable allows them, if they desire, to append more conditions to push down to the database for execution.
I generally enforce IEnumerable at the layer boundary, places where I dont want people modifying the queries that the system is going to generate.
Related
I have a DbSet<Items> collection.
The primary key is a Guid. I don't want to order by this primary key. I want to order by an editable decimal property named "Order".
The code I have is very simple, and it works great until the user puts a "$top" parameter into the request:
public class ItemsController : ApiController
{
protected DbContext ctx = // ...
// GET api/documents
[EnableQuery()]
public IQueryable<Item> Get()
{
return ctx.Items.OrderBy(o => o.Order).AsQueryable();
}
When the user puts "$top" into the query string, the order gets all messed up (it presumably forces the ordering to be done by the primary key, for consistent paging results -- however, in my situation, this is having the opposite effect, it's preventing me from having consistent paging results).
I've tried moving .AsQueryable() to be earlier in the query (before the .OrderBy(...) clause), I've tried it without the .AsQueryable(), I've tried it with two AsQueryables, etc.
There are going to be a lot of items in this table, so it needs to be done via an IQueryable (enumerating all of the items on the web server via IEnumerable is not an option here).
The only thing that has worked so far is passing in "$orderby=Order" from the client, but I don't want to force that (seems like it will get forgotten easily).
1.) Is there anything I can do to make ordering by my Order property the default behavior here?
2.) Or failing that, is there anyway to trick WebApi / OData into thinking that a custom "$orderby=Order" clause was specified?
To override default sort order, you need to set property EnsureStableOrdering of EnableQueryAttribute to false, like describe here:
A true value indicates the original query should be modified when
necessary to guarantee a stable sort order. A false value indicates
the sort order can be considered stable without modifying the query.
Query providers that ensure a stable sort order should set this value
to false. The default value is true.
So in your code, changes the action attribute like this:
// GET api/documents
[EnableQuery(EnsureStableOrdering = false)]
public IQueryable<Item> Get()
{
return ctx.Items.OrderBy(o => o.Order).AsQueryable();
}
You can manually invoke the odata in your controller. This should create the proper sorted IQueryable and then apply the $top and any other odata like $filter and $skip. Now you don't have to return an IQueryable which was causing the problem because the actual query was being executed later in the pipeline.
public class ItemsController : ApiController
{
protected DbContext ctx = // ...
public IEnumerable<Item> Get(ODataQueryOptions<Item> odata)
{
var collection = ctx.Items.OrderBy(o => o.Order);
if (odata == null)
{
//return a default max size of 100
return collection.Take(100).ToList();
}
var results = odata.ApplyTo(collection.AsQueryable()) as List<Item>;
//still provide a max incase the $top wasn't specified.
//you could check the odata to see if $top is there or not.
return results.Take(100);
}
}
More information can be found in the WebApi documentation.
The Linq query "order by" is not working and I've followed all the suggestions found on your site and other sites. Any assistance would be appreciated.
[WebGet]
public IQueryable<vw_providercharge_providers> GetChargeProviders(int submitted)
{
var results = (from p in this.CurrentDataSource.vw_providercharge_providers
where p.submitted == submitted
orderby p.fullname
select p);
return results;
}
Thanks for your input!
Yes, this is a WebGet method for a WCF data service. I get a 400 error if I don't return an IQueryable type, so I modified your suggestion a little. Unfortunately, it still seems to disregard any order-by.
[WebGet]
public IQueryable<vw_providercharge_providers> GetChargeProviders(int submitted)
{
var results = (from p in this.CurrentDataSource.vw_providercharge_providers
where p.submitted == submitted
orderby p.fullname
select p).ToArray();
results.OrderBy(p => p.patientname);
return results;
}
I notice you return an IQueryable<T> - are you calling any LINQ methods on the result before you enumerate it?
Not all LINQ methods preserve order. Most commonly, calling Distinct() after you do the ordering will destroy the order.
Since your method is a marked with a WebGet attribute, I'm assuming that you are calling this method from a Web endpoint, therefore you may need to collapse the collection prior to send it through internet.
Try:
[WebGet]
public vw_providercharge_providers[] GetChargeProviders(int submitted)
{
var results = (from p in this.CurrentDataSource.vw_providercharge_providers
where p.submitted == submitted
orderby p.fullname
select p).ToArray();
return results;
}
This way you have the guarantee that the GetChargeProviders method returns and array instead of an linq expression.
Regards,
I found the cause of the issue.
I had not set the "fullname" column as an Entity Key for the "vw_providercharge_providers" data model entity. Only the identity column was set as an Entity Key. I didn't realize that was a requirement to use it in an order by clause.
Thanks again for your input.
Given the following query:
var query = from item in context.Users // Users if of type TblUser
select new User() // User is the domain class model
{
ID = item.Username,
Username = item.Username
};
How can I re-use the select part of the statement in other queries? I.e.
var query = from item in context.Jobs // Jobs if of type TblJob
select new Job() // Job is the domain class model
{
ID = item.JobId,
User = ReuseAboveSelectStatement(item.User);
};
I tried just using a mapper method:
public User MapUser(TblUser item)
{
return item == null ? null : new User()
{
ID = item.UserId,
Username = item.Username
};
}
With:
var query = from item in context.Users // Users if of type TblUser
select MapUser(item);
But if I do this, then the framework throws an error such as:
LINQ to Entities does not recognize
the method 'MapUser(TblUser)' method,
and this method cannot be translated
into a store expression.
You can't use regular function calls in a query definition like that. LINQ needs expression trees, it can't analyze compiled functions and magically translate that to SQL. Read this for a more elaborate explanation
The techniques used in the cited article are incorporated in linqkit (factoring out predicates) and might be of help, though I'm not sure you can use the same technique for managing projections, which is what you seem to want.
The more fundamental question you should ask yourself here IMHO is whether you really need this extra mapping layer? It seems like you're implementing something that EF is already perfectly capable of doing for you...
Try making your MapUser method static.
I am using dynamic linq to make a generic class for processing a generic JqGrid from MVC all works fine (searching, pagination etc) except for sorting on code properties. Sorting works fine when I am hitting the DB to sort the data, but as soon as it is a property I have made the sorting does not work eg
public partial class tblStockOrder
{
public string approved
{
get
{
return approved_id == null ? "" : "Approved";
}
}
}
I am running the following Dynamic Linq
items = items
.OrderBy(string.Format("{0} {1}", sidx, sord))
.Skip(pageIndex * pageSize)
.Take(pageSize);
Where sidx etc are strings passed in by jquery.
So basically what is the best solution for handling a case where some properties will be from the db while others will be code properties (not sure of the correct naming). I can handle all this in code using reflection but would obviously like the DB to handle as much of the searching / sorting as possible without pulling in thousands of records and sorting through them in code using reflection.
Computed class will of course not work, as you're trying to create record which is part in memory, part in database.
You can, however, compute the same on database by specifying the function in linq query, example:
items = items
.OrderBy(x=> x.approved_id != null )
.Skip(pageIndex * pageSize)
.Take(pageSize);
I have an Extension method which is supposed to filter a Queryable object (IQueryable) based upon a collection of Ids....
Note that IQueryable is sourced from my database via a LinqToSql request
public static IQueryable<NewsItemSummary> WithID(this IQueryable<NewsItemSummary> qry, IQueryable<Guid> Ids)
{
return from newsItemSummary in qry
where Ids.Contains(newsItemSummary.ID)
select newsItemSummary;
}
If Ids are created from an array or list and passed in as a queryable list, it DOESNT work
For example...
GetNewsItemSummary().WithID(ids.AsQueryable<Guid>())
If Ids is composed form a LinqToSql request, it DOES work!!
This is known issue:
http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=355026
My Ids collection cannot come from a LinqToSql request...
Note, if I change the function so that it consumes and IList rather than an IQueryable....
public static IQueryable<NewsItemSummary> WithID(this IQueryable<NewsItemSummary> qry, IList<Guid> Ids)
{
return from newsItemSummary in qry
where Ids.Contains(newsItemSummary.ID)
select newsItemSummary;
}
I now get the following exception:
Method 'Boolean Contains(System.Guid)' has no supported translation to SQL.
So... all I want to do is filter my collection of news based upon a list or array of Guids.... Ideas???
This will translate.
public static IQueryable<NewsItemSummary> WithID(
this IQueryable<NewsItemSummary> qry,
List<Guid> Ids
)
{
return from newsItemSummary in qry
where Ids.Contains(newsItemSummary.ID)
select newsItemSummary;
}
)
Translation of the Contains method against local collections was one of the last features added in the development of linq to sql for .net 3.5, so there are some cases that you would expect work that don't - such as translation of IList<T>.
Also, be aware that while LinqToSql will happily translate lists containing a vast number of items (I've seen it do over 50,000 elements), SQL Server will only accept 2,100 parameters for a single query.