I'm trying to figure out a way of combining these 2 LINQ queries. The first one creates a list of holiday customers and the second one de-dupes the list based on the email address.
Whats the most succinct way of combining them?
var allNonBuyers = (from a in allCustomers
where !(from q in db.Quotes
where q.CreationDate > DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(duration)
join p in db.Passengers on q.QuoteGUID equals p.QuoteGUID
where q.PolicyNumber != null
select p.EmailAddress).Contains(a.EmailAddress)
select new { a.QuoteGUID, a.Title, a.FirstName, a.LastName, a.EmailAddress, a.Telephone });
var distinctNonBuyers = from buyer in allNonBuyers
group buyer by buyer.EmailAddress
into gbuyer
select gbuyer.First();
You normally don't need to - because LINQ has delayed execution, when you ask for the result it will all be combined. If this is Linq-To-Sql then it will be executed as one statement (if possible) against the database.
Related
I have the following LINQ query (using EF Core 6 and MS SQL Server):
var resultSet = dbContext.Systems
.Include(system => system.Project)
.Include(system => system.Template.Type)
.Select(system => new
{
System = system,
TemplateText = system.Template.TemplateTexts.FirstOrDefault(templateText => templateText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier),
TypeText = system.Template.Type.TypeTexts.FirstOrDefault(typeText => typeText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier)
})
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.System.Id == request.Id);
The requirement is to retrieve the system matching the requested ID and load its project, template and template's type info. The template has multiple TemplateTexts (one for each translated language) but I only want to load the one matching the requested locale, same deal with the TypeTexts elements of the template's type.
The LINQ query above does that in one query and it gets converted to the following SQL query (I edited the SELECT statements to use * instead of the long list of columns generated):
SELECT [t1].*, [t2].*, [t5].*
FROM (
SELECT TOP(1) [p].*, [t].*, [t0].*
FROM [ParkerSystems] AS [p]
LEFT JOIN [Templates] AS [t] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [t].[Id]
LEFT JOIN [Types] AS [t0] ON [t].[TypeId] = [t0].[Id]
LEFT JOIN [Projects] AS [p0] ON [p].[Project_ProjectId] = [p0].[ProjectId]
WHERE [p].[SystemId] = #__request_Id_1
) AS [t1]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [t3].*
FROM (
SELECT [t4].*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY [t4].[ReferenceId] ORDER BY [t4].[Id]) AS [row]
FROM [TemplateTexts] AS [t4]
WHERE [t4].[Language] = #__locale_LanguageIdentifier_0
) AS [t3]
WHERE [t3].[row] <= 1
) AS [t2] ON [t1].[Id] = [t2].[ReferenceId]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [t6].*
FROM (
SELECT [t7].*, ROW_NUMBER() OVER(PARTITION BY [t7].[ReferenceId] ORDER BY [t7].[Id]) AS [row]
FROM [TypeTexts] AS [t7]
WHERE [t7].[Language] = #__locale_LanguageIdentifier_0
) AS [t6]
WHERE [t6].[row] <= 1
) AS [t5] ON [t1].[Id0] = [t5].[ReferenceId]
which is not bad, it's not a super complicated query, but I feel like my requirement can be solved with a much simpler SQL query:
SELECT *
FROM [Systems] AS [p]
JOIN [Templates] AS [t] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [t].[Id]
JOIN [TemplateTexts] AS [tt] ON [p].[TemplateId] = [tt].[ReferenceId]
JOIN [Types] AS [ty] ON [t].[TypeId] = [ty].[Id]
JOIN [TemplateTexts] AS [tyt] ON [ty].[Id] = [tyt].[ReferenceId]
WHERE [p].[SystemId] = #systemId and tt.[Language] = 2 and tyt.[Language] = 2
My question is: is there a different/simpler LINQ expression (either in Method syntax or Query syntax) that produces the same result (get all info in one go) because ideally I'd like to not have to have an anonymous object where the filtered sub-collections are aggregated. For even more brownie points, it'd be great if the generated SQL would be simpler/closer to what I think would be a simple query.
Is there a different/simpler LINQ expression (...) that produces the same result
Yes (maybe) and no.
No, because you're querying dbContext.Systems, therefore EF will return all systems that match your filter, also when they don't have TemplateTexts etc. That's why it has to generate outer joins. EF is not aware of your apparent intention to skip systems without these nested data or of any guarantee that these systems don't occur in the database. (Which you seem to assume, seeing the second query).
That accounts for the left joins to subqueries.
These subqueries are generated because of FirstOrDefault. In SQL it always requires some sort of subquery to get "first" records of one-to-many relationships. This ROW_NUMBER() OVER construction is actually quite efficient. Your second query doesn't have any notion of "first" records. It'll probably return different data.
Yes (maybe) because you also Include data. I'm not sure why. Some people seem to think Include is necessary to make subsequent projections (.Select) work, but it isn't. If that's your reason to use Includes then you can remove them and thus remove the first couple of joins.
OTOH you also Include system.Project which is not in the projection, so you seem to have added the Includes deliberately. And in this case they have effect, because the entire entity system is in the projection, otherwise EF would ignore them.
If you need the Includes then again, EF has to generate outer joins for the reason mentioned above.
EF decides to handle the Includes and projections separately, while hand-crafted SQL, aided by prior knowledge of the data could do that more efficiently. There's no way to affect that behavior though.
This LINQ query is close to your SQL, but I'm afraid of correctness of the result:
var resultSet =
(from system in dbContext.Systems
from templateText in system.Template.TemplateTexts
where templateText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier
from typeText in system.Template.Type.TypeTexts
where typeText.Language == locale.LanguageIdentifier
select new
{
System = system,
TemplateText = templateText
TypeText = typeText
})
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.System.Id == request.Id);
My project needs to let users build their own dynamic queries. From what I've read, Expression Trees are the way to go. However the syntax is rather complicated.
I envision having a GUI where users would be able to check tables, select columns, specify parameters,etc and then build a string such as:
var myQuery =
from P in context.Projects
join UA in context.UserAttributes on P.ProjectID equals UA.ProjectID
join UBA in context.UserBooleanAttributes on UA.UserAttributeID equals UBA.UserAttributeID
join U in context.Users on UBA.UserID equals U.UserID
where P.ProjectID == 1
where UBA.Value == true
where (UA.UserAttributeID == 1 || UA.UserAttributeID == 2)
select new { uba = U };
And store that in a queries table. To process the query, I was hoping there is some library out there that will magically do something like:
var result = magic(str);
foreach(var user in result)
Foo(user.Email);
In this example I know that all my queries would return Users, but for other queries I would probably have to use reflection or in another column specify the expected type in results.
I found one project called LinqTextQueryBuilder which looks interesting, but I wanted to see if there are other alternatives.
I'm trying to use the result of one LINQ query to be the parameter for the next part of a LINQ query, but to keep it all within one overall query.
For example, my (not-working) code looks like this
List<Categories> myCats = (from city in myCities
where city.CityName == myCityName
select city
from ids in city.IDs
where ids != 4
select ids).ToList();
Can this feed the result to be the be start of the next query be performed in this fashion and if it can, what am I missing to get this to work?
city.IDs is an int array
Unless you're actually trying to create a new projection, you can simply avoid using a select until the end.
List<Categories> myCats = (from city in myCities
where city.CityName == myCityName
//select city
from ids in city.IDs
where ids != 4
select ids).ToList();
I personally like breaking up my queries into pieces:
var matchingCities = from city in myCities
where city.CityName == myCityName
select city;
var matchingCityIds = (from city in matchingCities
from id in city.IDs
select id).ToList();
This approach has two main advantages:
The variable names give you automatic "documentation", allowing other developers to see what the intent of each transformation is.
It's easier to debug because you can step over each transformation and verify that you got the results you wanted.
If you really do need to follow one select by another, though, you can use the into keyword to chain the queries together.
List<Categories> myCats = (from city in myCities
where city.CityName == myCityName
// Not typically recommended
select city.IDs into cityIDs
from id in cityIDs
where id != 4
select id).ToList();
At my job our main application was written long ago before n-tier was really a thing, ergo - it has tons and tons of business logic begin handled in stored procs and such.
So we have finally decided to bite the bullet and make it not suck so bad. I have been tasked with converting a 900+ line sql script to a .NET exe, which I am doing in C#/Linq. Problem is...for the last 5-6 years at another job, I had been doing Linq exclusively, so my SQL has gotten somewhat rusty, and some of thing I am converting I have never tried to do before in Linq, so I'm hitting some roadblocks.
Anyway, enough whining.
I'm having trouble with the following sql statement, I think due to the fact that he is joining on a temp table and a derived table. Here's the SQL:
insert into #processedBatchesPurgeList
select d.pricebatchdetailid
from pricebatchheader h (nolock)
join pricebatchstatus pbs (nolock) on h.pricebatchstatusid = pbs.pricebatchstatusid
join pricebatchdetail d (nolock) on h.pricebatchheaderid = d.pricebatchheaderid
join
( -- Grab most recent REG.
select
item_key
,store_no
,pricebatchdetailid = max(pricebatchdetailid)
from pricebatchdetail _pbd (nolock)
join pricechgtype pct (nolock) on _pbd.pricechgtypeid = pct.pricechgtypeid
where
lower(rtrim(ltrim(pct.pricechgtypedesc))) = 'reg'
and expired = 0
group by item_key, store_no
) dreg
on d.item_key = dreg.item_key
and d.store_no = dreg.store_no
where
d.pricebatchdetailid < dreg.pricebatchdetailid -- Make sure PBD is not most recent REG.
and h.processeddate < #processedBatchesPurgeDateLimit
and lower(rtrim(ltrim(pbs.pricebatchstatusdesc))) = 'processed' -- Pushed/processed batches only.
So that's raising an overall question first: how to handle temp tables in Linq? This script uses about 10 of them. I currently have them as List. The problem is, if I try to .Join() on one in a query, I get the "Local sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL implementations of query operators except the Contains operator." error.
I was able to get the join to the derived table to work using 2 queries, just so a single one wouldn't get nightmarishly long:
var dreg = (from _pbd in db.PriceBatchDetails.Where(pbd => pbd.Expired == false && pbd.PriceChgType.PriceChgTypeDesc.ToLower().Trim() == "reg")
group _pbd by new { _pbd.Item_Key, _pbd.Store_No } into _pbds
select new
{
Item_Key = _pbds.Key.Item_Key,
Store_No = _pbds.Key.Store_No,
PriceBatchDetailID = _pbds.Max(pbdet => pbdet.PriceBatchDetailID)
});
var query = (from h in db.PriceBatchHeaders.Where(pbh => pbh.ProcessedDate < processedBatchesPurgeDateLimit)
join pbs in db.PriceBatchStatus on h.PriceBatchStatusID equals pbs.PriceBatchStatusID
join d in db.PriceBatchDetails on h.PriceBatchHeaderID equals d.PriceBatchHeaderID
join dr in dreg on new { d.Item_Key, d.Store_No } equals new { dr.Item_Key, dr.Store_No }
where d.PriceBatchDetailID < dr.PriceBatchDetailID
&& pbs.PriceBatchStatusDesc.ToLower().Trim() == "processed"
select d.PriceBatchDetailID);
So that query gives the expected results, which I am holding in a List, but then I need to join the results of that query to another one selected from the database, which is leading me back to the aforementioned "Local sequence cannot be used..." error.
That query is this:
insert into #pbhArchiveFullListSaved
select h.pricebatchheaderid
from pricebatchheader h (nolock)
join pricebatchdetail d (nolock)
on h.pricebatchheaderid = d.pricebatchheaderid
join #processedBatchesPurgeList dlist
on d.pricebatchdetailid = dlist.pricebatchdetailid -- PBH list is restricted to PBD purge list rows that have PBH references.
group by h.pricebatchheaderid
The join there on #processedBatchesPurgeList is the problem I am running into.
So uh...help? I have never written SQL like this, and certainly never tried to convert it to Linq.
As pointed out by the comments above, this is no longer being rewritten as Linq.
Was hoping to get a performance improvement along with achieving better SOX compliance, which was the whole reason for the rewrite in the first place.
I'm happy with just satisfying the SOX compliance issues.
Thanks, everyone.
I have this sql that i want to have written in linq extension method returning an entity from my edm:
SELECT p.[Id],p.[Firstname],p.[Lastname],prt.[AddressId],prt.[Street],prt.[City]
FROM [Person] p
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT TOP(1) pa.[AddressId],a.[ValidFrom],a.[Street],a.[City]
FROM [Person_Addresses] pa
LEFT OUTER JOIN [Addresses] AS a
ON a.[Id] = pa.[AddressId]
WHERE p.[Id] = pa.[PersonId]
ORDER BY a.[ValidFrom] DESC ) prt
Also could this be re-written in linq extension method using 3 joins?
Assuming you have set the Person_Addresses table up as a pure relation table (i.e., with no data besides the foreign keys) this should do the trick:
var persons = model.People
.Select(p => new { p = p, a = p.Addresses.OrderByDescending(a=>a.ValidFrom).First() })
.Select(p => new { p.p.Id, p.p.Firstname, p.p.LastName, AddressId = p.a.Id, p.a.Street, p.a.City });
The first Select() orders the addresses and picks the latest one, and the second one returns an anonymous type with the properties specified in your query.
If you have more data in your relation table you're gonna have to use joins but this way you're free from them. In my opinion, this is more easy to read.
NOTE: You might get an exception if any entry in Persons have no addresses connected to them, although I haven't tried it out.