LINQ self join in ASP.NET MVC3 - linq

I have a situation where I need to do a self join on a table in LINQ. The table consists of fields ItemsID, Title, SeriesTitle, and many other. An item can be either a series or members and I can tell that by looking into ItemId which has "S" or "M" letters on it. I need to retrieve all records that are member of a series with ItemId "S117". I can do this in simple SQL by the code below,
select i.Series_Title, i.Item_ID, i2.Item_ID as Member_ID,
i2.Title as Member_Title, i2.Series_Title as Member_Series_Title
from Items i join Items i2 on i.Series_Title = i2.Series_Title
where i.Item_ID = "S117"
Now, I translated this query in LINQ which goes as
items = _dataContext.Items.AsQueryable();
items = from series in items
join members in items on series.Series_Title.ToLower()
equals members.Series_Title.ToLower()
where series.Item_ID.ToLower().Equals(itemId)
select series;
The last line of this query select series will only retrieve series but not members and I need members also.
I am using MVC3 Razor view where I have to display almost all fields so I am not using select new {....}
Even when I tried to use select new {series, members}, I got this exception -
Cannot implicitly convert type
'System.Linq.IQueryable'
to 'System.LinQ.IQueryable<My.App.models.Items>'
An explicit conversion exist.
Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.

Try this:
var items1 = _dataContext.Items.AsQueryable();
var items2 = from series in items1
join members in items1 on series.Series_Title
equals members.Series_Title
where series.Item_ID== 'S117'
select series;

Related

LINQ Joining 2 tables

I have two tables in the database one contains a list of all possible grocery values. For Example
Milk
Cheese
Bread
Meat
the second table contains Items from Grocery that are selected. For Example:
Milk
Cheese
I want a result that has all possible grocery items with Milk and Cheese selected.
Any ideas?
Here are the tables.
The GroceryList Table:
ID INT PK
Description Varchar(50)
The ShoppingList Table:
ID INT PK
GroceryListID int FK to GroceryList.ID
So the resulting Entity would be all items from GroceryList and if they exist in ShoppingList then selected is marked as true:
ShoppingList.ID
Grocerylists.Description
Selected
Based on understanding you can do something like this
//first get the list of product which satisfy your condition
var ids = (from p ShoppingList
select p.GroceryListID ).ToList();
//second filter the Grocery products by using contains
var myProducts = from p in GroceryList
where ids.Contains(p.ID)
Select p;
or
if you want to get info about join than this image would help you
Inner Join
Outer Join
Try to understand and which may help you to resolve your query
Edit: Still sounds like you want to do a left join. In your case:
var LINQResult = from g in Datacontext.GroceryList
from s in DataContext.ShoppingList
.Where(c=>c.ID == g.ID)
.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new {
g.ID,
g.Description,
s.ID // Will be null if not selected.
};
For more examples:
Left Join on multiple tables in Linq to SQL

Linq: Orderby when including multiple tables

Currently learning Linq to Entity. I been successful, but came stumped with the orderby clause and its use with multiple tables.
var query = from k in contxt.pages.Include("keywords")
where k.ID == vals.pageId select k;
My understanding with the code above is it creates an inner join where ID is equal to pageId.
So what I am having a difficult time visualizing is how I would perform an orderby on both tables?
I would like to sort on both tables.
I have tried:
var query = from k in contxt.pages.Include("keywords") where k.ID == vals.pageId orderby k.keywords.**?** select k;
The question mark is not supposed to be there. I am showing that the column that I would like to sort by isn't there. Trying this k.Kegwords. doesn't show the column.
I would write a SQL query as follows:
string query = "SELECT pages.page, pages.title, pages.descp, keywords.keyword
FROM pages INNER JOIN keywords ON pages.ID = keywords.pageID
ORDER BY keywords.sort, pages.page";
pages and keywords have a 1 to many relationship, which FK keywords.
Thank you,
deDogs
Here you go.
var result = (from x in pages
join y in keywords on x.ID equals y.pageID
orderby y.sort, x.page
select new
{
x.Page,
x.title,
x.descp,
y.keyword
});

Dynamics CRM 2011 - Filtering LINQ query with outer joins

I have a requirement to query for records in CRM that don't have a related entity of a certain type. Normally, I would do this with an Left Outer Join, then filter for all the rows that have NULLs in the right-hand side.
For example:
var query = from c in orgContext.CreateQuery<Contact>()
join aj in orgContext.CreateQuery<Account>()
on c.ContactId equals aj.PrimaryContactId.Id
into wonk
from a in wonk.DefaultIfEmpty()
where a.Name == null
select new Contact
{
FirstName = c.FirstName,
LastName = c.LastName,
};
This should return me any Contats that are not the Primary Contact of an account. However, this query ends up returning all contacts...! When you look at the SQL that gets generated in SQL Profiler it comes out like this:
SELECT cnt.FirstName, cnt.LastName
FROM Contact as cnt
LEFT OUTER JOIN Account AS acct
ON cnt.ContactId = acct.PrimaryContactId AND acct.Name is NULL
So, I get the Left Join OK, but the filter is on the Join clause, and not in a WHERE clause.and not as it should, like this:
SELECT cnt.FirstName, cnt.LastName
FROM Contact as cnt
LEFT OUTER JOIN Account AS acct
ON cnt.ContactId = acct.PrimaryContactId
WHERE acct.Name is NULL
Clearly, the results from this query are very different! Is there a way to get the query on CRM to generate the correct SQL?
Is this a limitation of the underlying FetchXML request?
Unfortunately, this is a limitation of CRM's LINQ and FetchXML implementations. This page from the SDK states outer joins are not supported:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg328328.aspx
And while I can't find an official document, there are a lot of results out there for people mentioning FetchXML does not support left outer joins, for example:
http://gtcrm.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/fetch-xml-reports-for-crm-2011-online/
Try this:
var query = from c in orgContext.CreateQuery<Contact>()
where orgContext.CreateQuery<Account>().All(aj => c.ContactId != aj.PrimaryContactId.Id)
select new Contact
{
FirstName = c.FirstName,
LastName = c.LastName,
};
If you don't need to update the entity (e.g. to process all the corresponding validation rules and workflow steps), you can write less-ugly and more efficient queries by hitting the SQL Server directly.
Per CRM's pattern, the views take care of most of the common joins for you. For instance, the dbo.ContactBase and dbo.ContactExtensionBase tables are already joined for you in the view dbo.Contact. The AccountName is already there (called AccountIdName for some bizarre reason, but at least it's there).

Linq To Entity Framework selecting whole tables

I have the following Linq statement:
(from order in Orders.AsEnumerable()
join component in Components.AsEnumerable()
on order.ORDER_ID equals component.ORDER_ID
join detail in Detailss.AsEnumerable()
on component.RESULT_ID equals detail.RESULT_ID
where orderRestrict.ORDER_MNEMONIC == "MyOrderText"
select new
{
Mnemonic = detail.TEST_MNEMONIC,
OrderID = component.ORDER_ID,
SeqNumber = component.SEQ_NUM
}).ToList()
I expect this to put out the following query:
select *
from Orders ord (NoLock)
join Component comp (NoLock)
on ord .ORDER_ID = comp.ORDER_ID
join Details detail (NoLock)
on comp.RESULT_TEST_NUM = detail .RESULT_TEST_NUM
where res.ORDER_MNEMONIC = 'MyOrderText'
but instead I get 3 seperate queries that select all rows from the tables. I am guessing that Linq is then filtering the values because I do get the correct values in the end.
The problem is that it takes WAY WAY too long because it is pulling down all the rows from all three tables.
Any ideas how I can fix that?
Remove the .AsEnumerable()s from the query as these are preventing the entire query being evaluated on the server.

Linq to SQL: order by value in related table

I have 2 tables which in simplified form look like this:
Products(
id: int,
name: varchar
);
ProductSpecs(
product_id: int,
spec_name: varchar,
spec_value: int
);
Now I need to sort products (in linq to sql) by value of some specification item (eg. "price"). So I do something like this
var products = from p in db.Products
from ps in p.ProductsSpecs
where ps.spec_name == "price"
orderby ps.spec_value
select p;
The problem is that if there's no such ProductSpec with spec_name "price" the product is not included at all. I can add these products with Union or Concat but this way the sorting of the first part is not preserved.
What is the best way to deal with this?
Thanks.
First, I would recommend that you either do this in pure SQL as a function or Stored Procedure and then access this through linq, or add a price column to your product table. It seems like price would be a normal attribute to add to all of your products even if that price is NULL.
SQL:
select p.*
from products p
left outer join productspecs ps on
p.id = ps.product_id
and ps.spec_name = 'Price'
order by ps.spec_value
With that said, here's the weird bit of LINQ that should work on your table (I might have some of the column names spelled incorrectly):
var products = from p in db.Products
join ps in (from pss in db.ProductSpecs
where pss.spec_name== "Price"
select pss
) on p.id equals ps.product_id into temp
from t in temp.DefaultIfEmpty()
orderby t.spec_value
select p;
I tested this on some tables setup like above and created 5 products, three with prices in different value orders and this LINQ ordered them just like the SQL above and returned the null result rows as well.
Hope this works!
In ordinary SQL, you'd use an LEFT OUTER JOIN. This preserves rows that appear in the left-hand table (the one listed first), even when there's no matching row in the right-hand table (the second one listed, and the one that is outer joined). You end up with nulls for the values that should be, but weren't, present in the right-hand table. So, the price for those items missing a price would appear as NULL.
What that translates to in LINQ to SQL is another matter.
You might care to think about whether it is reasonable to have products that do not have a price. You're emulating something called EAV - Entity, Attribute, Value - tables, and they are generally regarded as 'not a good thing'.
Can you not just do a simple join?
var products =
from p in db.Products
join ps in db.ProductSpecs on p.id equals ps.product_id
where ps.spec_name == "price"
orderby ps.spec_value
select p;

Resources