I'm messing around with LINQ for the first time, and I'm using EF 4.1 code first.
I have entities containing nested Lists of other entities, for example:
class Release
{
int ReleaseID { get; set; }
string Title { get; set; }
ICollection<OriginalTrack> OriginalTracks { get; set; }
}
class OriginalTrack
{
int OriginalTrackID { get; set; }
string Title { get; set; }
ICollection<Release> Releases { get; set; }
ICollection<OriginalArtist> OriginalArtists { get; set; }
}
class OriginalArtist
{
int OriginalArtistID { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
ICollection<OriginalTrack> OriginalTracks { get; set; }
}
I'm wondering what is the quickest way, in one LINQ query, to obtain all the information for where ReleaseID == some value.
I've done my homework, but have found solutions that require implicit rebuilding of an object (usually anonymous) with the required data. I want the data out of the database in the exact format that it is held within the database, i.e. pulling a Release object with relevant ReleaseID pulls and populates all the OriginalTrack and OriginalArtist data in the Lists.
I know about Include(), but am not sure how to apply it for multiple entities.
All help greatly appreciated.
Use Include. This is the purpose of Include, and there's no reason to write a bunch of nested select statements.
context.Releases.Include("OriginalTracks.OriginalArtist")
.Where(release => release.ReleaseID == id);
This is simpler to write, simpler to read, and preserves your existing data structure.
To use Include you need to specify the name of the property you want to return - this means the name as it exists in your code, not in the database. For example:
.Include("OriginalTracks") will include the OriginalTracks property on each Release
.Include("OriginalTracks.OriginalArtist") will include OriginalTracks property on each Release, and the OriginalArtist on each Track (note that it's not possible - syntactically or logically - to include an OriginalArtist within including the OriginalTrack)
.Include("OriginalTracks").Include("OtherProperty") will include the OriginalTracks and OtherProperty objects on each Release.
You can chain as many of these as you like, for example:
.Include("Tracks.Artist").Include("AnotherProperty")
.Include("ThirdProperty.SomeItems").Where(r => r.something);
is perfectly valid. The only requirement is that you put the Include on the EntitySet, not on a query - you can't .Where().Include().
Don't worry about using include here
just do something like the following
var query =
from release in ctx.Releases
select new {
release,
originalTracks = from track in release.OriginalTracks
select new {
track,
releases = track.Releases,
orignialArtist = from artist in track.OriginalArtists
select new {
artist,
artist.OriginalTracks
}
}
}
var Releases = query.Select(x => x.Release);
Should load all of your data
I worked with information from this post here.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alexj/archive/2009/10/13/tip-37-how-to-do-a-conditional-include.aspx
To include the nested entities without using string literals, use Select, like this:
context.Releases.Include(r => r.OriginalTracks.Select(t => t.OriginalArtist))
.Where(release => release.ReleaseID == id);
Related
I have noticed that when I do a LINQ - group by, it only seems to be working if I dont group on any of my custom classes.
I have a Product class (shown below) and I would like to group on Product.Id ,Product.Variant (object) and on Product.Options (ICollection) (because my source list contains multiple times the same Product but with different Variants and / or Options)
Product:
public class Product
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public Variant Variant { get; set; }
public ICollection<Option> Options{ get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Amount { get; set; }
}
The code below will do a grouping, but only on my Product.ID, when I try to also group on Variant / Options, I get no grouping (well, not the grouping I am intending to make) as it will return just as much items as my source list.
IEnumerable<productAndSum> productsAndSums = unmappedProducts
.GroupBy(prod => new { Id = prod.Id})
.Select(group => new productAndSum()
{
Key = group.Key,
Sum = group.Sum(x => x.Amount)
});
If I am on the right track and the issue is related to the Objects, then it might be usefull to add that also Option and Variant have multiple objects and collections themselves, or is this too deep?
Extra information: I first started to just group by my Product class (not Id, Variant & Options separately), but this was unsuccessful. so I started eliminating properties and this is how I found out this issue. I think that solving this issue will result in killing two birds with one stone.
Warm regards
We have a lot of Dto classes in our project and on various occasions SELECT them using Expressions from the entity framework context. This has the benefit, that EF can parse our request, and build a nice SQL statement out of it.
Unfortunatly, this has led to very big Expressions, because we have no way of combining them.
So if you have a class DtoA with 3 properties, and one of them is of class DtoB with 5 properties, and again one of those is of class DtoC with 10 properties, you would have to write one big selector.
public static Expression<Func<ClassA, DtoA>> ToDto =
from => new DtoA
{
Id = from.Id,
Name = from.Name,
Size = from.Size,
MyB = new DtoB
{
Id = from.MyB.Id,
...
MyCList = from.MyCList.Select(myC => new DtoC
{
Id = myC.Id,
...
}
}
};
Also, they cannot be reused. When you have DtoD, which also has a propertiy of class DtoB, you would have to paste in the desired code of DtoB and DtoC again.
public static Expression<Func<ClassD, DtoD>> ToDto =
from => new DtoD
{
Id = from.Id,
Length = from.Length,
MyB = new DtoB
{
Id = from.MyB.Id,
...
MyCList = from.MyCList.Select(myC => new DtoC
{
Id = myC.Id,
...
}
}
};
So this will escalate pretty fast. Please note that the mentioned code is just an example, but you get the idea.
I would like to define an expression for each class and then combine them as required, as well as EF still be able to parse it and generate the SQL statement so to not lose the performance improvement.
How can i achieve this?
Have you thought about using Automapper ? You can define your Dtos and create a mapping between the original entity and the Dto and/or vice versa, and using the projection, you don't need any select statements as Automapper will do it for you automatically and it will project only the dto's properties into SQL query.
for example, if you have a Person table with the following structure:
public class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string FamilyName { get; set; }
public string GivenName { get; set; }
public string Initial { get; set; }
public string PreferredName { get; set; }
public string FormerTitle { get; set; }
public string FormerFamilyName { get; set; }
public string FormerGivenName { get; set; }
}
and your dto was like this :
public class PersonDto
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string FamilyName { get; set; }
public string GivenName { get; set; }
}
You can create a mapping between Person and PersonDto like this
Mapper.CreateMap<Person, PersonDto>()
and when you query the database using Entity Framework (for example), you can use something like this to get PersonDto columns only:
ctx.People.Where(p=> p.FamilyName.Contains("John"))
.Project()
.To<PersonDto>()
.ToList();
which will return a list of PersonDtos that has a family name contains "John", and if you run a sql profiler for example you will see that only the PersonDto columns were selected.
Automapper also supports hierachy, if your Person for example has an Address linked to it that you want to return AddressDto for it.
I think it worth to have a look and check it, it cleans a lot of the mess that manual mapping requires.
I thought about it a little, and I didn't come up with any "awesome" solution.
Essentially you have two general choices here,
Use placeholder and rewrite expression tree entirely.
Something like this,
public static Expression<Func<ClassA, DtoA>> DtoExpression{
get{
Expression<Func<ClassA, DtoA>> dtoExpression = classA => new DtoA(){
BDto = Magic.Swap(ClassB.DtoExpression),
};
// todo; here you have access to dtoExpression,
// you need to use expression transformers
// in order to find & replace the Magic.Swap(..) call with the
// actual Expression code(NewExpression),
// Rewriting the expression tree is no easy task,
// but EF will be able to understand it this way.
// the code will be quite tricky, but can be solved
// within ~50-100 lines of code, I expect.
// For that, see ExpressionVisitor.
// As ExpressionVisitor detects the usage of Magic.Swap,
// it has to check the actual expression(ClassB.DtoExpression),
// and rebuild it as MemberInitExpression & NewExpression,
// and the bindings have to be mapped to correct places.
return Magic.Rebuild(dtoExpression);
}
The other way is to start using only Expression class(ditching the LINQ). This way you can write the queries from zero, and reusability will be nice, however, things get harder & you lose type safety. Microsoft has nice reference about dynamic expressions. If you structure everything that way, you can reuse a lot of the functionality. Eg, you define NewExpression and then you can later reuse it, if needed.
The third way is to basically use lambda syntax: .Where, .Select etc.. This gives you definitely better "reusability" rate. It doesn't solve your problem 100%, but it can help you to compose queries a bit better. For example: from.MyCList.Select(dtoCSelector)
I'm having a performance issue with lookups using the navigation properties of an EF model.
My model is something like this (conceptually):
public class Company
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string CompanyName { get; set; }
public EntityCollection<Employee> Employees { get; set; }
}
public class Employee
{
public int CompanyID { get; set; }
public string EmployeeName { get; set; }
public EntityReference<Company> CompanyReference { get; set; }
}
Now let's say I want to get a list of all Companies that have (known) Employees.
Additionally, assume that I've already cached lists of the both the Companies and the Employees through previous calls:
var dbContext = new EmploymentContext();
var allCompanies = dbContext.Companies.ToList();
var allEmployees = dbContext.Employees.ToList();
bool activeCompanies =
allCompanies.Where(company => company.Employees.Any()).ToList();
This (in my environment) generates a new SQL statement for each .Any() call, following the Employees navigation property.
I already have all the records I need in my cached lists, but they're not 'connected' to each other on the client side.
I realize I can add .Include() calls to my initial cache-fill statement. I want to avoid doing this because in my actual environment I have a large number of relations and a large number of lists I'm populating up front. I'm caching largely to keep Linq from generating overly-complicated nested SQL statements that tend to bog down my database server.
I also realize I can modify my query so as to do an in-memory join:
bool activeCompanies = allCompanies.Where
(
company => allEmployees.Any(employee => employee.CompanyID == company.ID)
);
I'm trying to avoid doing such a rewrite, because the actual business logic gets rather involved. Using Linq statements has significantly improved the readability of this logic, and I'd prefer not to lose that if at all possible.
So my question is this: can I connect them together manually somehow, in the way that the Entity Framework would connect them?
I'd like to continue to use the .Any() operator, but I want it to examine only the objects I have in memory in my dbContext - without going back to the database repeatedly.
I have this structure:
class Foo {
IList<FooAttribute> Attributes { get; set; }
}
class FooAttribute {
bool IsSelected { get; set; }
string Value { get; set; }
}
And I have objects like:
IQuerable<Foo> foos; // Database repository object .AsQuerable()
IList<FooAttribute> attrs;
I need to filter only those items of foos that have all attributes of attrs list.
I tried this:
foos = foos.Where(foo =>
attrs.All(a =>
foo.Attributes.Any(at => at.Value == a)));
var filteredFoos = foos.ToList();
and i think it would work, but would be super slow and... it throws NotSupportedException...
By the way... I use ASP.NET MVC 3 and C# 4.0, so even the newest solutions are very welcome.
Thanks in advance.
FooAttribute fooAttributeAlias=null;
Session.QueryOver<Foo>().Inner.JoinAlias(x=>x.Attributes,()=>fooAttributeAlias)
.WhereRestrictionOn(()=>fooAttributeAlias).IsNotEmpty
.List();
I did not understand the query that you have written. I am not sure if the above query does what you expect, see the generated sql and see if it is correct.
Also what might help is the sql query that you expect to see which will give you the correct result.
The basic problem...
I have a method which executes the following code:
IList<Gig> gigs = GetGigs().WithArtist(artistId).ToList();
The GetGigs() method gets Gigs from my database via LinqToSql...
So, when GetGigs().WithArtist(artistId).ToList() is executed I get the following exception:
Member access 'ListenTo.Shared.DO.Artist Artist' of 'ListenTo.Shared.DO.Act' not legal on type 'System.Collections.Generic.List`1[ListenTo.Shared.DO.Act]
Note that the extension function "WithArtist" looks like this:
public static IQueryable<Gig> WithArtist(this IQueryable<Gig> qry, Guid artistId)
{
return from gig in qry
where gig.Acts.Any(act => (null != act.Artist) && (act.Artist.ID == artistId))
orderby gig.StartDate
select gig;
}
If I replace the GetGigs() method with a method that constructs a collection of gigs in code (rather than from the DB via LinqToSQL) I do NOT get the exception.
So I'm fairly sure the problem is with my LinqToSQl code rather than the object structure.
However, I have NO IDEA why the LinqToSQl version isnt working, so I've included all the associated code below. Any help would be VERY gratefully receivced!!
The LinqToSQL code....
public IQueryable<ListenTo.Shared.DO.Gig> GetGigs()
{
return from g in DBContext.Gigs
let acts = GetActs(g.ID)
join venue in DBContext.Venues on g.VenueID equals venue.ID
select new ListenTo.Shared.DO.Gig
{
ID = g.ID,
Name = g.Name,
Acts = new List<ListenTo.Shared.DO.Act>(acts),
Description = g.Description,
StartDate = g.Date,
EndDate = g.EndDate,
IsDeleted = g.IsDeleted,
Created = g.Created,
TicketPrice = g.TicketPrice,
Venue = new ListenTo.Shared.DO.Venue {
ID = venue.ID,
Name = venue.Name,
Address = venue.Address,
Telephone = venue.Telephone,
URL = venue.Website
}
};
}
IQueryable<ListenTo.Shared.DO.Act> GetActs()
{
return from a in DBContext.Acts
join artist in DBContext.Artists on a.ArtistID equals artist.ID into art
from artist in art.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new ListenTo.Shared.DO.Act
{
ID = a.ID,
Name = a.Name,
Artist = artist == null ? null : new Shared.DO.Artist
{
ID = artist.ID,
Name = artist.Name
},
GigId = a.GigID
};
}
IQueryable<ListenTo.Shared.DO.Act> GetActs(Guid gigId)
{
return GetActs().WithGigID(gigId);
}
I have included the code for the Act, Artist and Gig objects below:
public class Gig : BaseDO
{
#region Accessors
public Venue Venue
{
get;
set;
}
public System.Nullable<DateTime> EndDate
{
get;
set;
}
public DateTime StartDate
{
get;
set;
}
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
public string Description
{
get;
set;
}
public string TicketPrice
{
get;
set;
}
/// <summary>
/// The Act object does not exist outside the context of the Gig, therefore,
/// the full act object is loaded here.
/// </summary>
public IList<Act> Acts
{
get;
set;
}
#endregion
}
public class Act : BaseDO
{
public Guid GigId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Artist Artist { get; set; }
}
public class Artist : BaseDO
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Profile { get; set; }
public DateTime Formed { get; set; }
public Style Style { get; set; }
public Town Town { get; set; }
public string OfficalWebsiteURL { get; set; }
public string ProfileAddress { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public ImageMetaData ProfileImage { get; set; }
}
public class BaseDO: IDO
{
#region Properties
private Guid _id;
#endregion
#region IDO Members
public Guid ID
{
get
{
return this._id;
}
set
{
this._id = value;
}
}
}
}
I think the problem is the 'let' statement in GetGigs. Using 'let' means that you define a part of the final query separately from the main set to fetch. the problem is that 'let', if it's not a scalar, results in a nested query. Nested queries are not really Linq to sql's strongest point as they're executed deferred as well. In your query, you place the results of the nested query into the projection of the main set to return which is then further appended with linq operators.
When THAT happens, the nested query is buried deeper into the query which will be executed, and this leads to a situation where the nested query isn't in the outer projection of the query to execute and thus has to be merged into the SQL query ran onto the DB. This is not doable, as it's a nested query in a projection nested inside the main sql query and SQL doesn't have a concept like 'nested query in a projection', as you can't fetch a set of elements inside a projection in SQL, only scalars.
I had the same issue and what seemed to do the trick for me was separating out an inline static method call that returned IQueryable<> so that I stored this deferred query into a variable and referenced that.
I think this is a bug in Linq to SQL but at least there is a reasonable workaround. I haven't tested this out yet but my assumption is that this problem may arise only when referencing static methods of a different class within a query expression regardless of whether the return type of that function is IQueryable<>. So maybe it's the class that holds the method that is at the root of the problem. Like I said, I haven't been able to confirm this but it may be worth investigating.
UPDATE: Just in case the solution isn't clear I wanted to point it out in context of the example from the original post.
public IQueryable<ListenTo.Shared.DO.Gig> GetGigs()
{
var acts = GetActs(g.ID); // Don't worry this call is deferred
return from g in DBContext.Gigs
join venue in DBContext.Venues on g.VenueID equals venue.ID
select new ListenTo.Shared.DO.Gig
{
ID = g.ID,
Name = g.Name,
Acts = new List<ListenTo.Shared.DO.Act>(acts),
Description = g.Description,
StartDate = g.Date,
EndDate = g.EndDate,
IsDeleted = g.IsDeleted,
Created = g.Created,
TicketPrice = g.TicketPrice,
Venue = new ListenTo.Shared.DO.Venue {
ID = venue.ID,
Name = venue.Name,
Address = venue.Address,
Telephone = venue.Telephone,
URL = venue.Website
}
};
}
Note that while this should correct the issue at hand there also seems to be another issue in that the deferred acts query is being accessed in each element of the projection which I would guess would cause separate queries to be issued to the database per row in the outer projection.
I don't see anything in your classes to indicate how LINQ to SQL is meant to work out which column is which, etc.
Were you expecting the WithArtist method to be executed in .NET, or converted into SQL? If you expect it to be converted into SQL, you'll need to decorate your Gig class with appropriate LINQ to SQL attributes (or configure your data context some other way). If you want it to be executed in code, just change the first parameter type from IQueryable<Gig> to IEnumerable<Gig>.
I found out that an issue like this (which I also had recently) can be resolved, if you convert the IQueryable (or Table) variable Gigs into a list like so
return from g in DBContext.Gigs.ToList()
...
If that still doesn't work, do the same for all the IQueryables. The reason behind seems to me that some queries are too complex to be translated into SQL. But if you "materialize" it into a list, you can do every kind of query.
Be careful, you should add "filters" (where conditions) early because too much memory consumption can become a problem.