I have a Linq query using NHibernate 3.0. But it keeps returning an error.
threw exception: System.NotImplementedException: The method or operation is not implemented..
I tried the same in LINQ 2 SQL and it works perfectly.
What might be wrong here? Here is part of my select, it's a subquery with a Groupby and Sum.
Amount = (System.Double)
((from m0 in _session.Query<Statement>()
where m0.Code== c.Code
group m0 by new
{
m0.Code
}
into g
select new
{
Expr1 = (System.Double)g.Sum(p => p.Amount)
}).First().Expr1)
};
I have the latest CSR1 installed of NHibernate but it just doesn't seem to work with my query.
The LINQ provider in NH3 is currently in a beta state. There are certain constructs that are not yet supported. (The team plans to address this after the NH3 release.) The parts causing problems in your query are the "new {}" anonymous type in the group by clause and the First() in the context of a group by. Both are not currently implemented. The following query executes properly and should give the same results:
var query = from m0 in session.Query<Statement>()
where m0.Code == c.Code
group m0 by m0.Code into g
select new {Expr1 = g.Sum(p => p.Amount)};
var result = query.ToList().First().Expr1;
First note that the "new {}" in the group by clause is not required. The other change was adding "ToList()". This forces the results to be queried from the database and then we use LINQ-to-Objects to get the First() result. The SQL generated for this query is:
select cast(sum(statement0_.Amount) as DOUBLE PRECISION) as col_0_0_
from Statement statement0_
where (statement0_.Code is null)
and ('FOO' /* #p0 */ is null)
or statement0_.Code = 'FOO' /* #p0 */
group by statement0_.Code
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);
I want to do a Linq query that joins three tables, but only returns data from two of them (the third is only joined for ordering purposes). I'm trying to order by columns that aren't in the output of the produced query, but they seem to be ignored:
var records = from q in _pdxContext.Qualifier
join aql in _pdxContext.ApplicationQualifierLink on q.Id equals aql.QualifierId
join qt in _pdxContext.QualifierType on q.QualifierTypeId equals qt.Id
where SOME_LIST.Contains(aql.ApplicationId)
orderby aql.Sequence
select new Qualifier
{
Id = q.Id,
QualifierType = new QualifierType
{
Id = qt.Id, Value = qt.Value
}
};
return records.Distinct().ToList();
The output SQL from this does NOT have an ORDER BY clause.
If I change the orderby to read like so:
orderby q.Id
... then the output SQL has the order by clause.
Does Linq ignore orderby statements when the mentioned columns aren't used in the output (as appears to be the case here)? If so, how do I order by columns not in the output?
It seems this is an SQL limitation. The error from the SQL Server engine:
"ORDER BY items must appear in the select list if SELECT DISTINCT is specified."
So, as written, I can't do what I want to do.
I ended up using:
using (var cnn = new SqlConnection(_connectionString))
{
string sql = #"select
min(q.Id) Id, q.QualifierTypeId, q.QualifierTypeId, min(q.AcaId) AcaId,
q.QualifierTypeId Id, qt.Value
from
qdb.Qualifier q
inner join qdb.QualifierType qt on qt.Id = q.QualifierTypeId
inner join ApplicationQualifierLink l on l.QualifierId = q.id
where l.ApplicationId in (" + string.Join(",", applicationIds) + #")
group by q.Text, q.QualifierTypeId, qt.Value";
qualifiers = cnn.Query<Qualifier, QualifierType, Qualifier>(sql,
(qualifier, type) =>
{
qualifier.QualifierType = type; return qualifier;
}
).ToList();
}
Note: When you attempt to use order by and distinct as in my original clause, no error is given, entity framework silently discards the order by without any error.
I have a table which contains ~600k records and 33 columns. In my project I am using EF Core (2.0.1) to retrieve data from database. I am having issues with below code:
var theCounter = (from f in _context.tblData.Take(100000)
group f by f.TypeId into data
select new DataDto { ID = data.Key, Count = data.Count() }).ToList();
This code is a part of REST API and when I am testing it from SOAP UI, I am gettin timeout error. When I tested the code for
Take(1000)
There are around 300 unique TypeIds.
it works fine. Any ideas how I can make it work?
-- EDIT 1:
Here is what I see when debugging the code:
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: Query: '(from TblData <generated>_1 in DbSet<TblData> select [<generated>_1]).Take(__p_0)' uses a row limiting operation (Skip/Take) without OrderBy which may lead to unpredictable results.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: Query: '(from TblData <generated>_1 in DbSet<TblData> select [<generated>_1]).Take(__p_0)' uses a row limiting operation (Skip/Take) without OrderBy which may lead to unpredictable results.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: The LINQ expression 'GroupBy([f].TypeId, [f])' could not be translated and will be evaluated locally.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: The LINQ expression 'GroupBy([f].TypeId, [f])' could not be translated and will be evaluated locally.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query:Warning: The LINQ expression 'Count()' could not be translated and will be evaluated locally.
Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Database.Command:Information: Executed DbCommand (131ms) [Parameters=[#__p_0='?'], CommandType='Text', CommandTimeout='30']
SELECT [t2].[Id], [t2].[at], [t2].[add], [t2].[AddDate], [t2].[aftc], [t2].[aftcd], [t2].[aid], [t2].[afl], [t2].[prdid], [t2].[cid], [t2].[TypeId], [t2].[env], [t2].[ext], [t2].[extddcode], [t2].[fn], [t2].[fn], [t2].[fic], [t2].[gid], [t2].[grp], [t2].[hnm], [t2].[IP], [t2].[icid], [t2].[ln], [t2].[lg], [t2].[pcid], [t2].[ret], [t2].[rts], [t2].[rnam], [t2].[sled], [t2].[seq], [t2].[sid], [t2].[styp]
FROM (
SELECT TOP(#__p_0) [t1].[Id], [t1].[at], [t1].[add], [t1].[AddDate], [t1].[aftc], [t1].[aftcd], [t1].[aid], [t1].[afl], [t1].[prdid], [t1].[cid], [t1].[TypeId], [t1].[env], [t1].[ext], [t1].[extddcode], [t1].[fn], [t1].[fn], [t1].[fic], [t1].[gid], [t1].[grp], [t1].[hnm], [t1].[IP], [t1].[icid], [t1].[ln], [t1].[lg], [t1].[pcid], [t1].[ret], [t1].[rts], [t1].[rnam], [t1].[sled], [t1].[seq], [t1].[sid], [t1].[styp]
FROM [TblData] AS [t1]
) AS [t2]
WHERE [t2].[TypeId] IS NOT NULL
ORDER BY [t2].[TypeId]
I think it is not translated properly. Any ideas why?
-- EDIT 2:
I have changed my queries to:
var query = _context.TblData
.Select(a => new {ID = a.Id, TypeId= a.TypeId})
.Distinct();
var q1 = query.GroupBy(p => p.TypeId)
.Select(g => new DataDto {TypeId= g.Key, Count = g.Count()});
return await q1.ToListAsync();
But it was translated to:
SELECT DISTINCT [a0].[Id], [a0].[TypeId] AS [TypeId]
FROM [tblData] AS [a0]
ORDER BY [a0].[TypeId]
When I checked directly in the database this query takes 14 seconds to execute. Any idea why it was not translated to something like:
SELECT DISTINCT [a0].[Id], COUNT([TypeId]) AS [TypeId]
FROM [tblData] AS [a0]
GROUP BY COUNT([a0].[Id])
ORDER BY [a0].[TypeId]
I had to upgrade EF Core version to 2.1 and LINQ is now translated properly into SQL.
I want to get the latest record of each group from a SQL Server table using Linq.
Table Example:
I want to get this result:
My Linq query returns one record for each company, but it doesn't return the most recent ones:
var query = from p in db.Payments
where p.Status == false
&& DateTime.Compare(DateTime.Now, p.NextPaymentDate.Value) == 1
group p by p.CompanyID into op
select op.OrderByDescending(nd => nd.NextPaymentDate.Value).FirstOrDefault();
What am i missing here? Why isn't the NextPaymentDate being ordered correctly?
!!UPDATE!!
My query is working as expected. After analysing #Gilang and #JonSkeet comments i ran further tests and found that i wasn't getting the intended results due to a column that wasn't being updated.
var query = from p in db.Payments
where p.Status == false
group p by p.CompanyID into op
select new {
CompanyID = op.Key,
NextPaymentDate = op.Max(x => x.NextPaymentDate),
Status = false
};
The reason your query is not being ordered correctly is that your query does not do proper grouping. You did correctly grouping by CompanyID, but then you have to retrieve the maximum NextPaymentDate by calling aggregate function.
Status can be assigned false because it is already filtered by Where clause in the early clauses.
I couldn't get last articles of every writers in this statement.
List<Editor> lstEditors = dataContext.GetTable<Editor>().Where(t => t.M_Active).Select(t => t).ToList();
var lstArticles = from article in DAO.context.GetTable<Article>().ToList()
join editor in lstEditors on article.RefEditorId equals editor.EditorId
select
new
{
article.M_ArticleId,
article.M_Subject,
article.M_Text,
editor.M_EditorId,
editor.M_Member.M_EditorPicture,
M_NameSurname = editor.M_Member.M_Fname + " " + editor.M_Member.M_Lname
};
Be careful, your query is fetching all the contents of both the Editor and the Yazi tables and then performs Linq-to-Objects on it.
I'm not sure what you ask exactly either, do you want to obtain the list of all writers (editors) along with the last article of each one of these writers?
Do you want to get the writers that did not write any articles yet also?
Edit:
explanation of methods causing an immediate query
Any time you call one of the methods listed below on an IQueryable object (tables or other queries), it performs the actual query to SQL server:
ToList(), ToArray(), ToLookup(), ToDictionay()
Count(), Sum(), Avg(), Aggregate(), Min(), Max()
First(), FirstOrDefault(), Last(), LastOrDefault()
getting last article written by each writer
//create a subquery that returns an editor and its last article date
var editorLastArticleDates =
from article in DAO.context.GetTable<Article>()
group article by article.RefEditor into g
let lastArticleDate= g.Max(x => x.Date)
select new
{
Editor = g.Key,
LastArticleDate = lastArticleDate,
};
//Note: We did not do a ToList() here so the query is not executed
// The editorLastArticleDates object is a IQueryable<>
var query =
from article in DAO.context.GetTable<Article>()
join editorLastArticleDate in editorLastArticleDates
on new { article.Editor, article.Date } // 1
equals new { editorLastArticleDate.Editor, // 2
Date = editorLastArticleDate.LastArticleDate } // 3
select new
{
article.M_ArticleId,
article.M_Subject,
article.M_Text,
article.RefEditor.M_EditorId,
article.RefEditor.M_Member.M_EditorPicture,
M_NameSurname = article.RefEditor.M_Member.M_Fname + " "
+ article.RefEditor.M_Member.M_Lname,
};
//Note: We did not do a ToList() yet so the query is not executed
// The query object is a IQueryable<>
Console.WriteLine(query.ToString()); //Displays SQL query on the console
var results = query.ToList(); // SQL query is executed on this line.
In the code above, I left some remarks on things I had problems with:
When using join, the section between new and equals access only variables declared before the join keyword while the section after the equals keyword has access to the variable defined between join and in.
When writing your join condition, make sure you use equals and not ==.
When using new { XXX, YYY } syntax in your join condition, you declare anonymous types. If the property names are not identical on both sides, it will not compile. In order to have identical property names in this sample, I added the Date = before my value.
By the way, you should use LinqPad to test your queries, it is really a nice tool.