I am trying to run a query where I get the name of locations and the number of items in that location. So if i have a program that contains 3 locations I want to know how many programs are in that location..I need to use this with a lambda expression or linq to entities.
return Repository.Find(x => x.Location.Name.Count())...clearly missing something here.
we'll just assume I have a Program entity with ProgramID, ProgramName, LocationName...need to know how many programs are in at a location
You can do it like this:
return repository.Count(x => x.Location == "SomeLocation");
Do you want to know the counts for all locations at once?
var locCounts = Repository.GroupBy(prog => prog.Location.Name).ToLookup(g => g.key, g => g.Count());
if you will repositoryPattern, use this code
Clients.Where(p => p.DateOfArrival >= DateTime.Now.AddDays(-3) && p.DateOfArrival <= DateTime.Now.AddDays(3)).Select(p => p.ID).Count()
Repository Pattern
Related
I'm trying to filter a list within a list from an entity framework entity.
I've managed to get the code working however, i'm not convinced it's the cleanest way of achieving the goal.
Here's the code I have so far:
foreach (var n1 in tier.MatchNodes)
{
n1.LenderMatchNodes = n1.LenderMatchNodes.Where(x => x.Commission == 0).ToList();
}
Effectively MatchNodes contains a collection of LenderMatchNodes, however I want to return only the nodes where the commission == 0.
Thanks in advance.
Try
tier.MatchNodes.ToList().ForEach(n1=>n1.LenderMatchNodes = n1.LenderMatchNodes.Where(x => x.Commission == 0).ToList());
Try using SelectMany():
var result = dataContext.Table<Tier>()
.Where(some condition to get you the tier)
.SelectMany(tier => tier.MatchNodes)
.SelectMany(node => node.LenderMatchNodes)
.Where(x => x.Commission == 0)
.ToList();
This has the additional benefit of being able to execute it a single SQL query.
If you're goal is to actually update the node list in the database, you can still minimize the number of queries using Include() (assuming you're using EF):
var nodes = dataContext.Table<Tier>()
.Where(some condition to get you the tier)
.SelectMany(tier => tier.MatchNodes)
.Include(node => node.LenderMatchNodes) // loads this eagerly
.ToList();
nodes.ForEach(n => n.LenderMatchNodes = n.LenderMatchNodes.Where(condition));
How should I structure a Linq query to return a List or Ienumerable of the most popular Tags in my db (I am using EF4.1 by the way).
Currently I have:
var tagsListing = db.Tags
.GroupBy(q => q.Name)
.OrderByDescending(gp => gp.Count())
.Take(5)
.Select();
I think I am part of the way there, but I am unsure of how to structure the Select statement...
Your Select call could look like this:
.Select(gp => gp.Key)
That will give you an IEnumerable<string> of your most popular tags (assuming that Name is a string).
Assuming you want the name and the count, just:
.Select(g => new { Name = g.Key, Count = g.Count() });
EDIT: If you want the complete tags as well, you could use:
.Select(g => new { Tags = g, Count = g.Count() })
which would give you a sequence of groups of tags, all with the same name within a group. Or you might only want the first tag within each group, e.g.
.Select(g => g.First())
It's not clear what a Tag consists of, or what exactly you want in the results.
You've written a perfectly workable query and do not need to call .Select
IQueryable<IGrouping<string, Tag>> tagsListing = db.Tags
.GroupBy(q => q.Name)
.OrderByDescending(gp => gp.Count())
.Take(5);
List<IGrouping<string, Tag>> results = tagListing.ToList();
You probably want to select the names like this:
.Select(gp => gp.Key);
I have a linq query that returns a list of employees and a job title.
I need to sort it by job title but have the ones that do not have any employees in the output list first.
Example sorted:
- Driver List{0}
- Attendant List{71}
- Pilot List{19}
The driver is first because it has nothing in the list and then it is sorted by title.
I am just curious what do you think would be my best option to accomplish that?
Thanks
Something like:
var query = employees.OrderBy(x => x.Subordinates.Any() ? 1 : 0)
.ThenBy(x => x.JobTitle);
You could also use the fact that false sorts earlier than true:
var query = employees.OrderBy(x => !x.Subordinates.Any())
.ThenBy(x => x.JobTitle);
... but that's a little bit less obvious, IMO.
Something like:
Jobs.OrderBy(j => j.Eployees.Count()).ThenBy(j => j.Name);
Currently, I have the following LINQ queries. How can I merge the two queries into one. Basically, write a LINQ query to bring back the results I'd get from
IEnumerable<int> deltaList = people2010.Except(allPeople);
except in a single query.
var people2010 = Contacts.Where(x => x.Contractors
.Any(d => d.ContractorsStatusTrackings
.Any(date => date.StatusDate.Year >= 2010)))
.Select(x => x.ContactID);
var allPeople = Contacts.Where(x => x.Contractors
.Any(m => m.ContactID == x.ContactID))
.Select(x=> x.ContactID);
Thanks!
Why can you not just do Except as you are doing? Don't forget that your people2010 and allPeople variables are just queries - they're not the data. Why not just use them as they are?
If that's not acceptable for some reason, please give us more information - such as whether this is in LINQ to Object, LINQ to SQL etc, and what's wrong with just using Except.
It sounds like you're just looking for a more elegant way to write your query. I believe that this is a more elegant way to write your combined queries:
var deltaList =
from contact in Contacts
let contractors = contact.Contractors
where contractors.Any(ctor => ctor.ContractorStatusTrackings
.Any(date => date.StatusDate.Year >= 2010))
&& !contractors.Any(m => m.ContactID == contact.ContactID)
select contact.ContactID
I felt like the following should be possible I'm just not sure what approach to take.
What I'd like to do is use the include method to shape my results, ie define how far along the object graph to traverse. but... I'd like that traversal to be conditional.
something like...
dealerships
.include( d => d.parts.where(p => p.price < 100.00))
.include( d => d.parts.suppliers.where(s => s.country == "brazil"));
I understand that this is not valid linq, in fact, that it is horribly wrong, but essentially I'm looking for some way to build an expression tree that will return shaped results, equivalent to...
select *
from dealerships as d
outer join parts as p on d.dealerid = p.dealerid
and p.price < 100.00
outer join suppliers as s on p.partid = s.partid
and s.country = 'brazil'
with an emphasis on the join conditions.
I feel like this would be fairly straight forward with esql but my preference would be to build expression trees on the fly.
as always, grateful for any advice or guidance
This should do the trick:
using (TestEntities db = new TestEntities())
{
var query = from d in db.Dealership
select new
{
Dealer = d,
Parts = d.Part.Where
(
p => p.Price < 100.0
&& p.Supplier.Country == "Brazil"
),
Suppliers = d.Part.Select(p => p.Supplier)
};
var dealers = query.ToArray().Select(o => o.Dealer);
foreach (var dealer in dealers)
{
Console.WriteLine(dealer.Name);
foreach (var part in dealer.Part)
{
Console.WriteLine(" " + part.PartId + ", " + part.Price);
Console.WriteLine
(
" "
+ part.Supplier.Name
+ ", "
+ part.Supplier.Country
);
}
}
}
This code will give you a list of Dealerships each containing a filtered list of parts. Each part references a Supplier. The interesting part is that you have to create the anonymous types in the select in the way shown. Otherwise the Part property of the Dealership objects will be empty.
Also, you have to execute the SQL statement before selecting the dealers from the query. Otherwise the Part property of the dealers will again be empty. That is why I put the ToArray() call in the following line:
var dealers = query.ToArray().Select(o => o.Dealer);
But I agree with Darren that this may not be what the users of your library are expecting.
Are you sure this is what you want? The only reason I ask is, once you add the filter on Parts off of Dealerships, your results are no longer Dealerships. You're dealing in special objects that are, for the most part, very close to Dealerships (with the same properties), but the meaning of the "Parts" property is different. Instead of being a relationship between Dealerships and Parts, it's a filtered relationship.
Or to put it another way, if I pull a dealership out of your results and passed to a method I wrote, and then in my method I call:
var count = dealership.Parts.Count();
I'm expecting to get the parts, not the filtered parts from Brazil where the price is less than $100.
If you don't use the dealership object to pass the filtered data, it becomes very easy. It becomes as simple as:
var query = from d in dealerships
select new { DealershipName = d.Name,
CheapBrazilProducts = dealership.Parts.Where(d => d.parts.Any(p => p.price < 100.00) || d.parts.suppliers.Any(s => s.country == "brazil")) };
If I just had to get the filtered sets like you asked, I'd probably use the technique I mentioned above, and then use a tool like Automapper to copy the filtered results from my anonymous class to the real class. It's not incredibly elegant, but it should work.
I hope that helps! It was an interesting problem.
I know this can work with one single Include. Never test with two includes, but worth the try:
dealerships
.Include( d => d.parts)
.Include( d => d.parts.suppliers)
.Where(d => d.parts.All(p => p.price < 100.00) && d.parts.suppliers.All(s => s.country == "brazil"))
Am I missing something, or aren't you just looking for the Any keyword?
var query = dealerships.Where(d => d.parts.Any(p => p.price < 100.00) ||
d.parts.suppliers.Any(s => s.country == "brazil"));
Yes that's what I wanted to do I think the next realease of Data Services will have the possiblity to do just that LINQ to REST queries that would be great in the mean time I just switched to load the inverse and Include the related entity that will be loaded multiple times but in theory it just have to load once in the first Include like in this code
return this.Context.SearchHistories.Include("Handle")
.Where(sh => sh.SearchTerm.Contains(searchTerm) && sh.Timestamp > minDate && sh.Timestamp < maxDate);
before I tried to load for any Handle the searchHistories that matched the logic but don't know how using the Include logic you posted so in the mean time I think a reverse lookup would be a not so dirty solution