I have a couple of DBML generated classes which are linked together by an id, e.g.
ClassA {
AID,
XID,
Name
}
ClassB {
AID,
ExtraInfo,
ExtraInfo2
}
In using something like db.ClassAs.Where(XID == x) and iterating through that result,
it ends up executing a query for each of the ClassAs and each of ClassBs, which is slow.
Alternatively, I've tried to use ExecuteQuery to fetch all the info I care about and have that return a ClassA. In iterating over that I end up with it doing the same, i.e. doing alot of individual fetches vs. just 1. If I store it in a ClassC (that is not associated with a DB entity) which has the fields of interest of both ClassA and ClassB, this query is much faster, but it's annoying b/c I just created IMO an unnecessary ClassC.
How can I still use ClassA, which associates to ClassB, and still use ExecuteQuery to run 1 query vs. A*B number of queries?
If you have associations you shouldn't need to use ExecuteQuery().
Here's an example using some imaginary Book Library context and anonymous types for the result:
var results =
Books
.Where(book => book.BookId == 1)
.Select(book =>
new
{
book.Name,
AuthorName = book.Author.Name, //Is a field in an associated table.
book.Publisher, //Is an associtated table.
});
EDIT: without anon types
var results =
Books
.Where(book => book.BookId == 1)
.Select(book =>
new BookResult()
{
BookName = book.Name,
AuthorName = book.Author.Name, //Is a field in an associated table.
Publisher = book.Publisher, //Is an associtated table.
});
Related
I wrote a simple recursive function to climb up the tree of a table that has ID and PARENTID.
But when I do that I get this error
System.InvalidOperationException: 'The instance of entity type 'InternalOrg' cannot be tracked because another instance with the same key value for {'Id'} is already being tracked. When attaching existing entities, ensure that only one entity instance with a given key value is attached.
Is there another way to do this or maybe done in one LINQ expression ?
private InternalOrgDto GetInternalOrgDto(DepartmentChildDto dcDto)
{
if (dcDto.InternalOrgId != null)
{
InternalOrg io = _internalOrgRepo.Get(Convert.ToInt32(dcDto.InternalOrgId));
InternalOrgDto ioDto = new InternalOrgDto
{
Id = io.Id,
Abbreviation = io.Abbreviation,
Code = io.Code,
Description = io.Description
};
return ioDto;
}
else
{
//manually get parent department
Department parentDepartment = _departmentRepo.Get(Convert.ToInt32(dcDto.ParentDepartmentId));
DepartmentChildDto parentDepartmenDto = ObjectMapper.Map<DepartmentChildDto>(parentDepartment);
return GetInternalOrgDto(parentDepartmenDto);
}
}
Is there a way to get a top-level parent from a given child via Linq? Not that I am aware of. You can do it recursively similar to what you have done, though I would recommend simplifying the query to avoid loading entire entities until you get what you want. I'm guessing from your code that only top level parent departments would have an InternalOrg? Otherwise this method would recurse up the parents until it found one. This could be sped up a bit like:
private InternalOrgDto GetInternalOrgDto(DepartmentChildDto dcDto)
{
var internalOrgid = dcDto.InternalOrgId
?? FindInternalOrgid(dcDto.ParentDepartmentId)
?? throw new InternalOrgNotFoundException();
InternalOrgDto ioDto = _context.InternalOrganizations
.Where(x => x.InternalOrgId == internalOrgId.Value)
.Select(x => new InternalOrgDto
{
Id = x.Id,
Abbreviation = x.Abbreviation,
Code = x.Code,
Description = x.Description
}).Single();
return ioDto;
}
private int? FindInternalOrgid(int? departmentId)
{
if (!departmentId.HasValue)
return (int?) null;
var details = _context.Departments
.Where(x => x.DepartmentId == departmentId.Value)
.Select(x => new
{
x.InternalOrgId,
x.ParentDepartmentId
}).Single();
if (details.InternalOrgId.HasValue)
return details.InternalOrgId;
return findInternalOrgId(details.parentDepartmentId);
}
The key considerations here are to avoid repository methods that return entities or sets of entities, especially where you don't need everything about an entity. By leveraging the IQueryable provided by EF through Linq we can project down to just the data we need rather than returning every field. The database server can accommodate this better via indexing and help avoid things like locks. If you are using repositories to enforce low level domain rules or to enable unit testing then the repositories can expose IQueryable<TEntity> rather than IEnumerable<TEntity> or even TEntity to enable projection and other EF Linq goodness.
Another option to consider where I have hierarchal data where the relationships are important and I want to quickly find all related entities to a parent, or get to a specific level, one option is to store a breadcrumb with each record which is updated if that item is ever moved. The benefit is that these kinds of checks become very trivial to do, the risk is that anywhere/anything that can modify data relationships could leave the breadcrumb trail in an invalid state.
For example, if I have a Department ID 22 which belongs to Department 8 which belongs to Department 2 which is a top-level department, 22's breadcrumb trail would be: "2,8". If the breadcrumbs are empty we have a top-level entity. (and no parent Id) We can parse the breadcrumbs using a simple string.Split() operation. This avoids the recursive trips to the DB entirely. Though you may want a maintenance job running behind the scenes to periodically inspect recently modified data to ensure their breadcrumb trails are accurate and alerting you if any get broken. (Either by faulty code or such)
I'm looking for an elegant way to execute a Contains() statement in a scalable way. Please allow me to give some background before I come to the actual question.
The IN statement
In Entity Framework and LINQ to SQL the Contains statement is translated as a SQL IN statement. For instance, from this statement:
var ids = Enumerable.Range(1,10);
var courses = Courses.Where(c => ids.Contains(c.CourseID)).ToList();
Entity Framework will generate
SELECT
[Extent1].[CourseID] AS [CourseID],
[Extent1].[Title] AS [Title],
[Extent1].[Credits] AS [Credits],
[Extent1].[DepartmentID] AS [DepartmentID]
FROM [dbo].[Course] AS [Extent1]
WHERE [Extent1].[CourseID] IN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Unfortunately, the In statement is not scalable. As per MSDN:
Including an extremely large number of values (many thousands) in an IN clause can consume resources and return errors 8623 or 8632
which has to do with running out of resources or exceeding expression limits.
But before these errors occur, the IN statement becomes increasingly slow with growing numbers of items. I can't find documentation about its growth rate, but it performs well up to a few thousands of items, but beyond that it gets dramatically slow. (Based on SQL Server experiences).
Scalable
We can't always avoid this statement. A JOIN with the source data in stead would generally perform much better, but that's only possible when the source data is in the same context. Here I'm dealing with data coming from a client in a disconnected scenario. So I have been looking for a scalable solution. A satisfactory approach turned out to be cutting the operation into chunks:
var courses = ids.ToChunks(1000)
.Select(chunk => Courses.Where(c => chunk.Contains(c.CourseID)))
.SelectMany(x => x).ToList();
(where ToChunks is this little extension method).
This executes the query in chunks of 1000 that all perform well enough. With e.g. 5000 items, 5 queries will run that together are likely to be faster than one query with 5000 items.
But not DRY
But of course I don't want to scatter this construct all over my code. I am looking for an extension method by which any IQueryable<T> can be transformed into a chunky executing statement. Ideally something like this:
var courses = Courses.Where(c => ids.Contains(c.CourseID))
.AsChunky(1000)
.ToList();
But maybe this
var courses = Courses.ChunkyContains(c => c.CourseID, ids, 1000)
.ToList();
I've given the latter solution a first shot:
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> ChunkyContains<TEntity, TContains>(
this IQueryable<TEntity> query,
Expression<Func<TEntity,TContains>> match,
IEnumerable<TContains> containList,
int chunkSize = 500)
{
return containList.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select (chunk => query.Where(x => chunk.Contains(match)))
.SelectMany(x => x);
}
Obviously, the part x => chunk.Contains(match) doesn't compile. But I don't know how to manipulate the match expression into a Contains expression.
Maybe someone can help me make this solution work. And of course I'm open to other approaches to make this statement scalable.
I’ve solved this problem with a little different approach a view month ago. Maybe it’s a good solution for you too.
I didn’t want my solution to change the query itself. So a ids.ChunkContains(p.Id) or a special WhereContains method was unfeasible. Also should the solution be able to combine a Contains with another filter as well as using the same collection multiple times.
db.TestEntities.Where(p => (ids.Contains(p.Id) || ids.Contains(p.ParentId)) && p.Name.StartsWith("Test"))
So I tried to encapsulate the logic in a special ToList method that could rewrite the Expression for a specified collection to be queried in chunks.
var ids = Enumerable.Range(1, 11);
var result = db.TestEntities.Where(p => Ids.Contains(p.Id) && p.Name.StartsWith ("Test"))
.ToChunkedList(ids,4);
To rewrite the expression tree I discovered all Contains Method calls from local collections in the query with a view helping classes.
private class ContainsExpression
{
public ContainsExpression(MethodCallExpression methodCall)
{
this.MethodCall = methodCall;
}
public MethodCallExpression MethodCall { get; private set; }
public object GetValue()
{
var parent = MethodCall.Object ?? MethodCall.Arguments.FirstOrDefault();
return Expression.Lambda<Func<object>>(parent).Compile()();
}
public bool IsLocalList()
{
Expression parent = MethodCall.Object ?? MethodCall.Arguments.FirstOrDefault();
while (parent != null) {
if (parent is ConstantExpression)
return true;
var member = parent as MemberExpression;
if (member != null) {
parent = member.Expression;
} else {
parent = null;
}
}
return false;
}
}
private class FindExpressionVisitor<T> : ExpressionVisitor where T : Expression
{
public List<T> FoundItems { get; private set; }
public FindExpressionVisitor()
{
this.FoundItems = new List<T>();
}
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
var found = node as T;
if (found != null) {
this.FoundItems.Add(found);
}
return base.Visit(node);
}
}
public static List<T> ToChunkedList<T, TValue>(this IQueryable<T> query, IEnumerable<TValue> list, int chunkSize)
{
var finder = new FindExpressionVisitor<MethodCallExpression>();
finder.Visit(query.Expression);
var methodCalls = finder.FoundItems.Where(p => p.Method.Name == "Contains").Select(p => new ContainsExpression(p)).Where(p => p.IsLocalList()).ToList();
var localLists = methodCalls.Where(p => p.GetValue() == list).ToList();
If the local collection passed in the ToChunkedList method was found in the query expression, I replace the Contains call to the original list with a new call to a temporary list containing the ids for one batch.
if (localLists.Any()) {
var result = new List<T>();
var valueList = new List<TValue>();
var containsMethod = typeof(Enumerable).GetMethods(BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)
.Single(p => p.Name == "Contains" && p.GetParameters().Count() == 2)
.MakeGenericMethod(typeof(TValue));
var queryExpression = query.Expression;
foreach (var item in localLists) {
var parameter = new List<Expression>();
parameter.Add(Expression.Constant(valueList));
if (item.MethodCall.Object == null) {
parameter.AddRange(item.MethodCall.Arguments.Skip(1));
} else {
parameter.AddRange(item.MethodCall.Arguments);
}
var call = Expression.Call(containsMethod, parameter.ToArray());
var replacer = new ExpressionReplacer(item.MethodCall,call);
queryExpression = replacer.Visit(queryExpression);
}
var chunkQuery = query.Provider.CreateQuery<T>(queryExpression);
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Ceiling((decimal)list.Count() / chunkSize); i++) {
valueList.Clear();
valueList.AddRange(list.Skip(i * chunkSize).Take(chunkSize));
result.AddRange(chunkQuery.ToList());
}
return result;
}
// if the collection was not found return query.ToList()
return query.ToList();
Expression Replacer:
private class ExpressionReplacer : ExpressionVisitor {
private Expression find, replace;
public ExpressionReplacer(Expression find, Expression replace)
{
this.find = find;
this.replace = replace;
}
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
if (node == this.find)
return this.replace;
return base.Visit(node);
}
}
Please allow me to provide an alternative to the Chunky approach.
The technique involving Contains in your predicate works well for:
A constant list of values (no volatile).
A small list of values.
Contains will do great if your local data has those two characteristics because these small set of values will be hardcoded in the final SQL query.
The problem begins when your list of values has entropy (non-constant). As of this writing, Entity Framework (Classic and Core) do not try to parameterize these values in any way, this forces SQL Server to generate a query plan every time it sees a new combination of values in your query. This operation is expensive and gets aggravated by the overall complexity of your query (e.g. many tables, a lot of values in the list, etc.).
The Chunky approach still suffers from this SQL Server query plan cache pollution problem, because it does not parametrizes the query, it just moves the cost of creating a big execution plan into smaller ones that are more easy to compute (and discard) by SQL Server, furthermore, every chunk adds an additional round-trip to the database, which increases the time needed to resolve the query.
An Efficient Solution for EF Core
🎉 NEW! QueryableValues EF6 Edition has arrived!
For EF Core keep reading below.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a way of composing local data in your query in a way that's SQL Server friendly? Enter QueryableValues.
I designed this library with these two main goals:
It MUST solve the SQL Server's query plan cache pollution problem ✅
It MUST be fast! ⚡
It has a flexible API that allows you to compose local data provided by an IEnumerable<T> and you get back an IQueryable<T>; just use it as if it were another entity of your DbContext (really), e.g.:
// Sample values.
IEnumerable<int> values = Enumerable.Range(1, 1000);
// Using a Join (query syntax).
var query1 =
from e in dbContext.MyEntities
join v in dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values) on e.Id equals v
select new
{
e.Id,
e.Name
};
// Using Contains (method syntax)
var query2 = dbContext.MyEntities
.Where(e => dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values).Contains(e.Id))
.Select(e => new
{
e.Id,
e.Name
});
You can also compose complex types!
It goes without saying that the provided IEnumerable<T> is only enumerated at the time that your query is materialized (not before), preserving the same behavior of EF Core in this regard.
How Does It Works?
Internally QueryableValues creates a parameterized query and provides your values in a serialized format that is natively understood by SQL Server. This allows your query to be resolved with a single round-trip to the database and avoids creating a new query plan on subsequent executions due to the parameterized nature of it.
Useful Links
Nuget Package
GitHub Repository
Benchmarks
SQL Server Cache Pollution Problem
QueryableValues is distributed under the MIT license
Linqkit to the rescue! Might be a better way that does it directly, but this seems to work fine and makes it pretty clear what's being done. The addition being AsExpandable(), which lets you use the Invoke extension.
using LinqKit;
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> ChunkyContains<TEntity, TContains>(
this IQueryable<TEntity> query,
Expression<Func<TEntity,TContains>> match,
IEnumerable<TContains> containList,
int chunkSize = 500)
{
return containList
.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select (chunk => query.AsExpandable()
.Where(x => chunk.Contains(match.Invoke(x))))
.SelectMany(x => x);
}
You might also want to do this:
containsList.Distinct()
.ToChunks(chunkSize)
...or something similar so you don't get duplicate results if something this occurs:
query.ChunkyContains(x => x.Id, new List<int> { 1, 1 }, 1);
Another way would be to build the predicate this way (of course, some parts should be improved, just giving the idea).
public static Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> ContainsPredicate<TEntity, TContains>(this IEnumerable<TContains> chunk, Expression<Func<TEntity, TContains>> match)
{
return Expression.Lambda<Func<TEntity, bool>>(Expression.Call(
typeof (Enumerable),
"Contains",
new[]
{
typeof (TContains)
},
Expression.Constant(chunk, typeof(IEnumerable<TContains>)), match.Body),
match.Parameters);
}
which you could call in your ChunkContains method
return containList.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select(chunk => query.Where(ContainsPredicate(chunk, match)))
.SelectMany(x => x);
Using a stored procedure with a table valued parameter could also work well. You in effect write a joint In the stored procedure between your table / view and the table valued parameter.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/data/adonet/sql/table-valued-parameters
I am working with code first approach in EDM and facing an error for which I can't the solution.Pls help me
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'Boolean
CheckMeetingSettings(Int64, Int64)' method, and this method cannot be
translated into a store expression.
My code is following(this is the query which I have written
from per in obj.tempPersonConferenceDbSet
where per.Conference.Id == 2
select new PersonDetials
{
Id = per.Person.Id,
JobTitle = per.Person.JobTitle,
CanSendMeetingRequest = CheckMeetingSettings(6327,per.Person.Id)
}
public bool CheckMeetingSettings(int,int)
{
///code I have written.
}
Please help me out of this.
EF can not convert custom code to SQL. Try iterating the result set and assigning the property outside the LINQ query.
var people = (from per in obj.tempPersonConferenceDbSet
where per.Conference.Id == 2
order by /**/
select new PersonDetials
{
Id = per.Person.Id,
JobTitle = per.Person.JobTitle,
}).Skip(/*records count to skip*/)
.Take(/*records count to retrieve*/)
.ToList();
people.ForEach(p => p.CanSendMeetingRequest = CheckMeetingSettings(6327, p.Id));
With Entity Framework, you cannot mix code that runs on the database server with code that runs inside the application. The only way you could write a query like this, is if you defined a function inside SQL Server to implement the code that you've written.
More information on how to expose that function to LINQ to Entities can be found here.
Alternatively, you would have to call CheckMeetingSettings outside the initial query, as Eranga demonstrated.
Try:
var personDetails = obj.tempPersonConferenceDbSet.Where(p=>p.ConferenceId == 2).AsEnumerable().Select(p=> new PersonDetials
{
Id = per.Person.Id,
JobTitle = per.Person.JobTitle,
CanSendMeetingRequest = CheckMeetingSettings(6327,per.Person.Id)
});
public bool CheckMeetingSettings(int,int)
{
///code I have written.
}
You must use AsEnumerable() so you can preform CheckMeetingSettings.
Linq to Entities can't translate your custom code into a SQL query.
You might consider first selecting only the database columns, then add a .ToList() to force the query to resolve. After you have those results you van do another select where you add the information from your CheckMeetingSettings method.
I'm more comfortable with the fluid syntax so I've used that in the following example.
var query = obj.tempPersonConferenceDbSet
.Where(per => per.Conference.Id == 2).Select(per => new { Id = per.Person.Id, JobTitle = per.Person.JobTitle })
.ToList()
.Select(per => new PersonDetails { Id = per.Id,
JobTitle = per.JobTitle,
CanSendMeetingRequest = CheckMeetingSettings(6327, per.Person.Id) })
If your CheckMeetingSettings method also accesses the database you might want to consider not using a seperate method to prevent a SELECT N+1 scenario and try to express the logic as part of the query in terms that the database can understand.
I have a function inside a class that will run a Linq to Entities query (or any type of Linq query actually), and it's gonna return 2 columns in the resultset. I would like to return an object to whoever is calling my function that will allow Intellisense to know what I have returned.
Let me explain. If I have a function like this:
public static IQueryable GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
var query =
(from t in oEntityModel.Table1
from u in t.Table2
where t.Status == true &&
u.Status == true
select new
{
t.Column1,
u.Column2
})
return query;
}
What can (should) I put instead of IQueryable so that whoever calls my GetInfo function, will get Intellisense from the resultset, and show that it has a Column1 and Column2?
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
if (linqresult.Column1 == 1)
{
foreach (var oItem in linqresult)
{
.. do stuff...
}
}
Tks
You cannot return an anonymous type from a function, they are strictly "inline" classes. When you return it, the foreach loop will only be able to interpret the result as an plain object. I guess you could use reflection to query the property names and values, however it seems much more straight forward to define a data transfer type to hold the results.
See this question, and this blog post.
So you could create a simple struct or class:
public class MyDataResult
{
public object Column1 { get; set; }
public object Column2 { get; set; }
}
Then modify your query in the function:
public static IQueryable<MyDataResult> GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
var query =
(from t in oEntityModel.Table1
from u in t.Table2
where t.Status == true &&
u.Status == true
select new MyDataResult
{
Column1 = t.Column1,
Column2 = u.Column2
})
return query;
}
Something like that should work. Note that I used "object" for the properties in MyDataResult. I don't know the types of the columns you are returning, you should use the actual types in order to get full intellisense.
You are returning a collection of anonymous types, they will be casted to objects, so when you try to iterate over them, altough they will be your objects (and they will contain your properties) at compile time they will be casted to objects:
foreach (var x in ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel))
{
//x is an Object
}
You can read more about it here.
If you want to have intellisense, I suggest you create a custom class they will hold your properties and return not an anonymous type (using new {}) but object of your class (new MyClass(prop1, prop2)). You also need to change signature of your method, so it returns IQueryable<YourClass> and not just plain non-generic IQueryable.
As others have said, creating a new type to hold the two columns is usually the best option.
But if, for some reason, you don't want to do that and you are using .Net 4.0, you can use Tuple:
public static IQueryable<Tuple<Column1Type, Column2Type>>
GetInfo(MyEntityModel oEntityModel)
{
return from …
select Tuple.Create(t.Column1, u.Column2);
}
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
foreach (var oItem in linqresult)
Console.WriteLIne(oItem.Item1, oItem.Item2);
When you return your resultset AsQueryable, the app is already able to give you intellisense, however in your example, you must specify either .FirstOrDefault if you know your collection will only have a single row, or iterate over your collection to get the items from it, like so:
This is what you're doing:
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
if (linqresult.Column1 == 1)
{
..do stuff...
}
This is how you should do it:
var linqresult = ClsLinqTeste.GetInfo(oEntityModel);
foreach(var item in linqresult)
{
if (item.Column1 == 1)
{
..do stuff...
}
}
You must iterate over linqresult because when you query with link, it returns a result set, even if it just has one column. As with any collection, your data columns aren't available on the whole result set, only with individual items.
If you want to strongly typed enumerate a non-generic IEnumerable (IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() instead of IEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator<T>()) you can use the Cast<>() extension, like so
var myquery = GetQueryable();
for (var item in myquery.Cast<MyDataType>())
{
// use item.Column1 directly and strongly typed with intellisense
}
I have an entity that I'd like to compare with a subset and determine to select all except the subset.
So, my query looks like this:
Products.Except(ProductsToRemove(), new ProductComparer())
The ProductsToRemove() method returns a List<Product> after it performs a few tasks. So in it's simplest form it's the above.
The ProductComparer() class looks like this:
public class ProductComparer : IEqualityComparer<Product>
{
public bool Equals(Product a, Product b)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(a, b)) return true;
if (ReferenceEquals(a, null) || ReferenceEquals(b, null))
return false;
return a.Id == b.Id;
}
public int GetHashCode(Product product)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(product, null)) return 0;
var hashProductId = product.Id.GetHashCode();
return hashProductId;
}
}
However, I continually receive the following exception:
LINQ to Entities does not recognize
the method
'System.Linq.IQueryable1[UnitedOne.Data.Sql.Product]
Except[Product](System.Linq.IQueryable1[UnitedOne.Data.Sql.Product],
System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable1[UnitedOne.Data.Sql.Product],
System.Collections.Generic.IEqualityComparer1[UnitedOne.Data.Sql.Product])'
method, and this method cannot be
translated into a store expression.
Linq to Entities isn't actually executing your query, it is interpreting your code, converting it to TSQL, then executing that on the server.
Under the covers, it is coded with the knowledge of how operators and common functions operate and how those relate to TSQL. The problem is that the developers of L2E have no idea how exactly you are implementing IEqualityComparer. Therefore they cannot figure out that when you say Class A == Class B you mean (for example) "Where Person.FirstName == FirstName AND Person.LastName == LastName".
So, when the L2E interpreter hits a method it doesn't recognize, it throws this exception.
There are two ways you can work around this. First, develop a Where() that satisfies your equality requirements but that doesn't rely on any custom method. In other words, test for equality of properties of the instance rather than an Equals method defined on the class.
Second, you can trigger the execution of the query and then do your comparisons in memory. For instance:
var notThisItem = new Item{Id = "HurrDurr"};
var items = Db.Items.ToArray(); // Sql query executed here
var except = items.Except(notThisItem); // performed in memory
Obviously this will bring much more data across the wire and be more memory intensive. The first option is usually the best.
You're trying to convert the Except call with your custom IEqualityComparer into Entity SQL.
Obviously, your class cannot be converted into SQL.
You need to write Products.AsEnumerable().Except(ProductsToRemove(), new ProductComparer()) to force it to execute on the client. Note that this will download all of the products from the server.
By the way, your ProductComparer class should be a singleton, like this:
public class ProductComparer : IEqualityComparer<Product> {
private ProductComparer() { }
public static ProductComparer Instance = new ProductComparer();
...
}
The IEqualityComparer<T> can only be executed locally, it can't be translated to a SQL command, hence the error