I want to query a datatable (dt) and load a 2nd dt with the resultant collection of datarows. Fine - we have the CopyToDataTable() extn mthd for exactly that purpose. However it is constrained to enumerate only over DataRows, which means that I cannot return anything else e.g. a collection of anonymous types. So - how can I modify the values in the datarows?
Eg I have a dt with 3 columns: MyPK, VARCHAR01, VARCHAR02.
Foreach row, if VARCHAR01 or VARCHAR02 has the value "" (i.e. String.Empty) I want to replace that with NULL (which the underlying type allows).
I would do this as follows:
var MyCleanedDatarows =
from o in ds.Tables["dt"].AsEnumerable()
select new {
MyPK = o.Field<string>("MyPK"),
VARCHAR01 = (o.Field<string?>("VARCHAR01") == "" ? NULL : o.Field<string?>("VARCHAR01") ),
VARCHAR02 = (o.Field<string?>("VARCHAR02") == "" ? NULL : o.Field<string?>("VARCHAR02") )
};
...but then I cant use CopyToDataTable() to get back to a dt. I'm thinking I need to modify the datarows before invoking select operator, but I dont know how to achieve that. Any help/thoughts would be v.greatfully recieved.
Thanks in advance,
Tamim.
Take a look at this approach, in MSDN documentation.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb669096.aspx
Related
I want to retrieve commissions with a certain order number.
This works:
var expression = from commission in db.Auftraege
where commission.Auftragsnummer == orderNbr
select new Commission() { EF_Commission = (commission as Auftrag) };
return expression.ToList();
However, if i transform this to use a dynamic where clause (because i want to apply some more filters), the where-clause does not seem to be applied. Instead, all commissions are returned instead of only those with a specific number:
//base query
var expression = from commission in db.Auftraege select new Commission() { EF_Commission = (commission as Auftrag) };
//now add a where clause if the input parameter was specified
if (orderNbr >= 0)
expression.Where(commission => commission.EF_Commission.Auftragsnummer == orderNbr);
return expression.ToList();
I have looked at a dozen examples but they all seem to do it this way. Does anybody have an idea why the second query ignores the where clause?
You need to assign the interim expression to something (perhaps to itself). expression.Where() does not alter the existing query - it returns a new one.
So:
expression = expression.Where(...);
First Table is the View and Second is the result I want
This below query works fine
List<BTWStudents> students = (from V in db.vwStudentCoursesSD
where classIds.Contains(V.Class.Value)
select new BTWStudents
{
StudentId = V.StudentId
Amount= V.PaymentMethod == "Cashier Check" ? V.Amount: "0.00"
}).Distinct().ToList();
But I changed it to List to add string formatting(see below)
List<BTWStudents> students = (from V in db.vwStudentCoursesSD
where classIds.Contains(V.Class.Value)
select new {V}).ToList().Select(x => new BTWStudents
{
StudentId = V.StudentId
Amount= V.PaymentMethod == "Cashier Check" ? String.Format("{0:c}",V.Amount): "0.00"
}).Distinct().ToList();
With this Second Query I get this
Why is distinct not working in the second query?
When working with objects (in your case a wrapped anonymous type because you are using Select new {V} rather than just Select V), Distinct calls the object.Equals when doing the comparison. Internally, this checks the object's hash code. You'll find in this case, the hash code of the two objects is different even though the fields contain the same values. To fix this, you will need to override Equals on the object type or pass a custom IEqualityComparer implementation into the Distinct overload. You should be able to find a number of examples online searching for "Distinct IEqualityComparer".
Try this (moved your distinct to the first query and corrected your bugged if/then/else):
List<BTWStudents> students = (from V in db.vwStudentCoursesSD
where classIds.Contains(V.Class.Value)
select new {V}).Distinct().ToList().Select(x => new BTWStudents
{
classId = V.Class.HasValue ? V.Class.Value : 0,
studentName = V.StudentName,
paymentAmount = V.PaymentMethod == "Cashier Check" ? String.Format("{0:c}",x.V.AmountOwed): "0.00"
}).ToList();
You can get around using Distinct all together if you Group by StudentID
var studentsGroupedByPayment =
(from V in db.vwStudentCoursesSD
where classIds.Contains(V.Class.Value)
group V by V.StudentId into groupedV
select new
{
StudentID = groupedV.Key,
Amount = string.Format("{0:C}",
groupedV.First().PaymentMethod == "Cashier Check" ?
groupedV.First().Amount : 0.0)
}
).ToList();
I'm trying to merge these two object but not totally sure how.. Can you help me merge these two result objects?
//
// Create Linq Query for all segments in "CognosSecurity"
//
var userListAuthoritative = (from c in ctx.CognosSecurities
where (c.SecurityType == 1 || c.SecurityType == 2)
select new {c.SecurityType, c.LoginName , c.SecurityName}).Distinct();
//
// Create Linq Query for all segments in "CognosSecurity"
//
var userListAuthoritative3 = (from c in ctx.CognosSecurities
where c.SecurityType == 3 || c.SecurityType == 0
select new {c.SecurityType , c.LoginName }).Distinct();
I think I see where to go with this... but to answer the question the types of the objects are int, string, string for SecurityType, LoginName , and SecurityName respectively
If you're wondering why I have them broken like this is because I want to ignore one column when doing a distinct. Here are the SQL queries that I'm converting to SQL.
select distinct SecurityType, LoginName, 'Segment'+'-'+SecurityName
FROM [NFPDW].[dbo].[CognosSecurity]
where SecurityType =1
select distinct SecurityType, LoginName, 'Business Line'+'-'+SecurityName
FROM [NFPDW].[dbo].[CognosSecurity]
where SecurityType =2
select distinct SecurityType, LoginName, SecurityName
FROM [NFPDW].[dbo].[CognosSecurity]
where SecurityType in (1,2)
You can't join these because the types are different (first has 3 properties in the resulting type, second has two).
If you can tolerate putting a null value in for the 3rd result of the second query this will help. I would then suggest you just do a userListAuthoritative.concat(userListAuthoritative3 ) BUT I think this will not work as the anonymous types generated by the linq will not be of the same class, even tho the structure is the same. To solve that you can either define a CustomType to encapsulate the tuple and do select new CustomType{ ... } in both queries or postprocess the results using select() in a similar fashion.
Acutally the latter select() approach will also allow you to solve the parameter count mismatch by implementing the select with a null in the post-process to CustomType.
EDIT: According to the comment below once the structures are the same the anonymous types will be the same.
I assume that you want to keep the results distinct:
var merged = userListAuthoritative.Concat(userListAuthoritative3).Distinct();
And, as Mike Q pointed out, you need to make sure that your types match, either by giving the anonymous types the same signature, or by creating your own POCO class specifically for this purpose.
Edit
If I understand your edit, you want your Distinct to ignore the SecurityName column. Is that correct?
var userListAuthoritative = from c in ctx.CognosSecurities
where new[]{0,1,2,3}.Contains(c.SecurityType)
group new {c.SecurityType, c.LoginName, c.SecurityName}
by new {c.SecurityType, c.LoginName}
select g.FirstOrDefault();
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by merge, since you're returning different (anonymous) types from each one. Is there a reason the following doesn't work for you?
var userListAuthoritative = (from c in ctx.CognosSecurities
where (c.SecurityType == 1 || c.SecurityType == 2 || c.SecurityType == 3 || c.SecurityType == 0)
select new {c.SecurityType, c.LoginName , c.SecurityName}).Distinct();
Edit: This assumed they were of the same type -- but they're not.
userListAuthoritative.Concat(userListAuthoritative3);
Try below code, you might need to implement IEqualityComparer<T> in your ctx type.
var merged = userListAuthoritative.Union(userListAuthoritative3);
I am looking to optimize my LINQ query because although it works right, the SQL it generates is convoluted and inefficient...
Basically, I am looking to select customers (as CustomerDisplay objects) who ordered the required product (reqdProdId), and are registered with a credit card number (stored as a row in RegisteredCustomer table with a foreign key CustId)
var q = from cust in db.Customers
join regCust in db.RegisteredCustomers on cust.ID equals regCust.CustId
where cust.CustomerProducts.Any(co => co.ProductID == reqdProdId)
where regCust.CreditCardNumber != null && regCust.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.DisplayName,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
As an overview, a Customer has a corresponding Person which has the Name; PersonID is a foreign key in Customer table.
If I look at the SQL generated, I see all columns being selected from the Person table. Fyi, DisplayName is an extension method which uses Customer.FirstName and LastName. Any ideas how I can limit the columns from Person?
Secondly, I want to get rid of the Any clause (and use a sub-query) to select all other CustomerIds who have the required ProductID, because it (understandably) generates an Exists clause.
As you may know, LINQ has a known issue with junction tables, so I cannot just do a cust.CustomerProducts.Products.
How can I select all Customers in the junction table with the required ProductID?
Any help/advice is appreciated.
The first step is to start your query from CustomerProducts (as Alex Said):
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay =
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
join regCust in db.RegisteredCustomers
on custProd.Customer.ID equals regCust.CustId
where
custProd.ProductID == reqProdId
&& regCust.CreditCardNumber != null
&& regCust.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
This will simplify your syntax and hopefully result in a better execution plan.
Next, you should consider creating a foreign key relationship between Customers and RegisteredCustomers. This would result in a query that looked like this:
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay =
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
where
custProd.ProductID == reqProdId
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.CreditCardNumber != null
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
Finally, for optimum speed, have LINQ compile your query at compile time, rather than run time by using a compiled query:
Func<MyDataContext, SearchParameters, IQueryable<CustomerDisplay>>
GetCustWithProd =
System.Data.Linq.CompiledQuery.Compile(
(MyDataContext db, SearchParameters myParams) =>
from custProd in db.CustomerProducts
where
custProd.ProductID == myParams.reqProdId
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.CreditCardNumber != null
&& custProd.Customer.RegisteredCustomer.Authorized == true
select new CustomerDisplay
{
Id = cust.Id,
Name = cust.Person.Name,
RegNumber = cust.RegNumber
};
);
You can call the compiled query like this:
IQueryable<CustomerDisplay> myCustDisplay = GetCustWithProd(db, myParams);
I'd suggest starting your query from the product in question, e.g. something like:
from cp in db.CustomerProducts
join .....
where cp.ProductID == reqdProdID
As you have found, using a property defined as an extension function or in a partial class will require that the entire object is hydrated first and then the select projection is done on the client side because the server has no knowledge of these additional properties. Be glad that your code ran at all. If you were to use the non-mapped value elsewhere in your query (other than in the projection), you would likely see a run-time exception. You can see this if you try to use the Customer.Person.DisplayName property in a Where clause. As you have found, the fix is to do the string concatenation in the projection clause directly.
Lame Duck, I think there is a bug in your code as the cust variable used in your select clause isn't declared elsewhere as a source local variable (in the from clauses).
I just asked this question. Which lead me to a new question :)
Up until this point, I have used the following pattern of selecting stuff with Linq to SQL, with the purpose of being able to handle 0 "rows" returned by the query:
var person = (from p in [DataContextObject].Persons
where p.PersonsID == 1
select new p).FirstOrDefault();
if (person == null)
{
// handle 0 "rows" returned.
}
But I can't use FirstOrDefault() when I do:
var person = from p in [DataContextObject].Persons
where p.PersonsID == 1
select new { p.PersonsID, p.PersonsAdress, p.PersonsZipcode };
// Under the hood, this pattern generates a query which selects specific
// columns which will be faster than selecting all columns as the above
// snippet of code does. This results in a performance-boost on large tables.
How do I check for 0 "rows" returned by the query, using the second pattern?
UPDATE:
I think my build fails because I am trying to assign the result of the query to a variable (this._user) declared with the type of [DataContext].User.
this._user = (from u in [DataContextObject].Users
where u.UsersID == [Int32]
select new { u.UsersID }).FirstOrDefault();
Compilation error: Cannot implicitly convert type "AnonymousType#1" to "[DataContext].User".
Any thoughts on how I can get around this? Would I have to make my own object?
Why can you keep doing the samething? Is it giving you an error?
var person = (from p in [DataContextObject].Persons
where p.PersonsID == 1
select new { p.PersonsID, p.PersonsAdress, p.PersonsZipcode }).FirstOrDefault();
if (person == null) {
// handle 0 "rows" returned.
}
It is still a reference object just like you actual object, it is just anonymous so you don't know the actual type before the code is compiled.
Update:
I see now what you were actually asking! Sorry, my answer no longer applies. I thought you were not getting a null value when it was empty. The accepted response is correct, if you want to use the object out of scope, you need to create a new type and just use New MyType(...). I know DevEx's RefactorPro has a refactoring for this, and I think resharper does as well.
Call .FirstOrDefault(null) like this:
string[] names = { "jim", "jane", "joe", "john", "jeremy", "jebus" };
var person = (
from p in names where p.StartsWith("notpresent") select
new { Name=p, FirstLetter=p.Substring(0,1) }
)
.DefaultIfEmpty(null)
.FirstOrDefault();
MessageBox.Show(person==null?"person was null":person.Name + "/" + person.FirstLetter);
That does the trick for me.
Regarding your UPDATE: you have to either create your own type, change this._user to be int, or select the whole object, not only specific columns.
if (person.Any()) /* ... */;
OR
if (person.Count() == 0) /* ... */;
You can still use FirstOrDefault. Just have
var PersonFields = (...).FirstOrDefault()
PersonFields will be be null or an object with those properties you created.