Hi i want to know how to create nested subquery in linq to entities.
e.g. this is my sql subquery which i want to translate in linq.
SELECT
#planned = COUNT(ID)
FROM Task_Detail
WHERE task_id IN
(
SELECT
task_id
FROM Story_Task
WHERE is_testcase = 'true' AND
story_id IN
(
SELECT str_id FROM dbo.story
WHERE prjId = #pro_id AND
str_id IN
(
SELECT str_id FROM dbo.Sprint_StoryMapping WHERE sprint_id = #sprintid
) AND is_testcase = 'true'
)
) AND status = 1 AND
DATEPART(dd,workDate) = DATEPART(dd,#stdt)
Gut feel is that if you just turn this into a single select with the tables joined together, the whole query is going to run a lot faster and be easier to work with. Especially since your after an aggregate result.
Related
I have a query like:
select
qsn.code,
(select prs.display_name from prs where prs.id = qsn.fk_prs) display_name,
(select prs.address from prs where prs.id = qsn.fk_prs) address,
(select prs.tel from prs where prs.id = qsn.fk_prs) tel
from
qsn
where
qsn.register_date between :x1 and :x2
When I look at the execution plan of the query, it queries prs table 3 times (each time using INDEX UNIQUE SCAN).
I wonder if I can query the prs table once using WITH clause? How can I write the query that way.
I shall mention that because each of the tables have millions of record, joining them makes the query so slow.
using with clause your query goes like this:
with abc as (select id,
display_name ,
address ,
tel
from prs)
select
qsn.code,
abc.display_name,
abc.address,
abc.tel
from qsn
inner join abc
on qsn.fk_prs = abc.id
where qsn.register_date between :x1 and :x2 ;
ps: not tested.
Use a join:
select qsn.code, prs.display_name, prs.address, prs.tel
from qsn
left join prs on prs.id = qsn.fk_prs
where qsn.register_date between :x1 and :x2
Query 1
select student.identifier,
id_tab.reporter_name,
non_id_tab.reporter_name
from student_table student
inner join id_table id_tab on (student.is_NEW = 'Y'
and student.reporter_id = id_tab.reporter_id
and id_tab.name in('name1','name2'))
inner join id_table non_id_tab on (student.non_reporter_id = non_id_tab.reporter_id)
Query 2
select student.identifier,
id_tab.reporter_name,non_id_tab.reporter_name
from student_table student,
id_table id_tab,
id_table non_id_tab
where student.is_NEW = 'Y'
and student.reporter_id = id_tab.reporter_id
and id_tab.name in('name1','name2')
and student.non_reporter_id = non_id_tab.reporter_id
Since these two queries produce exactly same output,I am assuming they are syntactically same(please correct me if I am wrong).
I was wondering whether either of them is more efficient that the other.
Can anyone help me here please?
I would rewrite it as follows, using the ON only for JOIN conditions and moving the filters to a WHERE condition:
...
from student_table student
inner join id_table id_tab on ( student.reporter_id = id_tab.reporter_id )
inner join id_table non_id_tab on (student.non_reporter_id = non_id_tab.reporter_id)
where student.is_NEW = 'Y'
and id_tab.name in('name1','name2')
This should give a more readable query; however, no matter how you write it (the ANSI join is highly preferrable), you should check the explain plans to understand how the query will be executed.
In terms of performance, there should be no difference.
Execution Plans created by the Oracle optimizer do not differ.
In terms of readability, joining tables inside the WHERE clause is an old style (SQL89).
From SQL92 and higher, it is recommended to use the JOIN syntax.
How can I simplify this query?
What I am trying to do is derive the column S9_Unlock via a subquery in which I only look for user_ids which are returned from the main query but this looks very awkward to me, especially as this query here is just an excerpt. In reality I am doing multiple of these subqueries to derive different columns...
SELECT userid, CAST(to_char(S9_unlock,'YYYY/MM/DD') AS timestamp) AS "S9_Unlock"
FROM (
SELECT ca.user_id AS userid
FROM shop_db.invoices AS inv
LEFT JOIN shop_db.carts AS ca ON inv.id = ca.invoice_id
LEFT JOIN shop_db.cart_items AS ci ON ca.id = ci.cart_id
WHERE (inv.created BETWEEN '2014-11-13' AND '2014-11-14' OR inv.created BETWEEN '2013-11-14' AND '2013-11-15')
AND inv.status <> 'do_not_book'
AND inv.id IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY user_id) AS master
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT MIN(s3.unl) AS "S9_Unlock", s3.user_id
FROM (
SELECT user_id, challenge_codes.created AS unl,
MAX /* Check if license contains Suite9 */
(CASE WHEN substring(bundle_article_code,1,6) = 'BuSu90' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS "S9_Unlock"
FROM licensing_db.serial_numbers
LEFT JOIN licensing_db.licenses ON licenses.id = serial_numbers.license_id
LEFT JOIN user_db.users ON users.id = licenses.user_id
LEFT JOIN licensing_db.challenge_codes ON challenge_codes.serial_number_id = serial_numbers.id
WHERE user_id IN (
SELECT ca.user_id AS userid
FROM shop_db.invoices AS inv
LEFT JOIN shop_db.carts AS ca ON inv.id = ca.invoice_id
LEFT JOIN shop_db.cart_items AS ci ON ca.id = ci.cart_id
WHERE (inv.created BETWEEN '2014-11-13' AND '2014-11-14' OR inv.created BETWEEN '2013-11-14' AND '2013-11-15')
AND inv.status <> 'do_not_book'
AND inv.id IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY user_id
)
GROUP BY user_id, challenge_codes.created) AS s3
)
WHERE "S9_Unlock" = 1
AND s3.unl IS NOT NULL
GROUP BY s3.user_id) AS "S9_Unlock" ON "S9_Unlock".user_id = master.userid
In your query you have two sub-queries that are identical; this screams for a CTE.
In the sub-query on licensing issues you can filter out the valid licenses after the GROUP BY clause using a HAVING clause. Make that a WITH QUERY too and you end up with the rather more readable:
WITH inv AS (
SELECT ca.user_id AS userid
FROM shop_db.invoices AS inv
LEFT JOIN shop_db.carts AS ca ON ca.invoice_id = inv.id
LEFT JOIN shop_db.cart_items AS ci ON ci.cart_id = ca.id
WHERE (inv.created BETWEEN '2014-11-13' AND '2014-11-14' OR inv.created BETWEEN '2013-11-14' AND '2013-11-15')
AND inv.status <> 'do_not_book'
AND inv.id IS NOT NULL
), s3 AS (
SELECT u.user_id, min(cc.created) AS first_unlocked, bundle_article_code
FROM licensing_db.serial_numbers AS sn
LEFT JOIN licensing_db.licenses AS lic ON lic.id = sn.license_id
LEFT JOIN user_db.users AS u ON u.id = lic.user_id
LEFT JOIN licensing_db.challenge_codes AS cc ON cc.serial_number_id = sn.id
WHERE u.user_id IN (SELECT userid FROM inv)
GROUP BY u.user_id, bundle_article_code
HAVING bundle_article_code LIKE 'BuSu90%'
AND first_unlocked IS NOT NULL
)
SELECT userid, date_trunc('day', first_unlocked) AS "S9_Unlock"
FROM inv
LEFT JOIN s3 ON s3.user_id = inv.userid;
So the main query is now reduced to 3 lines and both the WITH-QUERY's perform a logically self-contained query of the database. The other sub-queries you refer to can similarly become a WITH-QUERY and then you assemble them in the main query. Remember that you can refer to earlier named queries in the list of with-queries, as is shown above with inv being referred to by s3. While such CTE's are syntactically not providing new functionality (except for the RECURSIVE variant), they do make complex queries much more readable and therefore easier to maintain.
Another approach would be to factor out logical sub-components (such as the inv sub-query) and make a VIEW out of those. Then you can simply reference the view in the main query. Making the whole thing a view is probably also a good idea if you want to make the query more flexible. What if you want to query for Suite9.1 ('BuSu91%') on 27 March 2014? Taken those literals out and then using them as WHERE clauses in a view makes your query more versatile; this can be either with sub-queries or with the complete CTE.
(Please check if the semantics are still right in the s3 with-query because without your table structures and sample data I ccannot test my code above.)
Instead of solving your problem as one big monolithic relational sql query, I would seriously consider going the "procedural" way, by using the built-in "plpgsql" language of postgresql. This could bring a lot of clarity in your application.
I wanted to write a LINQ query based on the SQL below.
Basically this strategy seems really confusing - why start from MerchantGroupMerchant and do 2 'from' statements?
Problem: Is there a simpler way to write this LINQ query?
var listOfCampaignsMerchantIsInvolvedIn =
(from merchantgroupactivity in uow.MerchantGroupActivities
from merchantgroupmerchant in uow.MerchantGroupMerchants
where merchantgroupmerchant.MerchantU.Id == merchantUIDGuid
select new
{
merchantgroupactivity.ActivityU.CampaignU.Id
}).Distinct();
Here is the table structure:
and the SQL:
SELECT DISTINCT Campaign.ID
FROM Campaign
INNER JOIN Activity
ON ( Campaign.CampaignUID = Activity.CampaignUID )
INNER JOIN MerchantGroupActivity
ON ( Activity.ActivityUID = MerchantGroupActivity.ActivityUID )
INNER JOIN MerchantGroup
ON ( MerchantGroup.MerchantGroupUID = MerchantGroupActivity.MerchantGroupUID )
INNER JOIN MerchantGroupMerchant
ON ( MerchantGroupMerchant.MerchantGroupUID = MerchantGroup.MerchantGroupUID )
INNER JOIN Merchant
ON ( Merchant.MerchantUID = MerchantGroupMerchant.MerchantUID )
WHERE Merchant.ID = 'M1'
No, not really, even if you use views to partially or completely reduce query size your execution plan will still look the same in the end (and execute just as fast/slow). If you have to traverse 5 joins then you have to traverse 5 joins, the only cure is "shorting" the model by introducing links between say merchant and activity or merchant and campaign. You can accomplish this by either introducing the M2M table between them (at the cost of manual maintenance), but I would not recommend it unless retrieval is really an issue. If this query is too slow you should check for existence of indexes on all join FK fields.
I need the fields in 1 table contingent on 1 property matching rows in another table.
I can write this query in SQL with a subquery as such:
SELECT *
FROM Table1
WHERE Property1 IN
(
SELECT Property1
FROM Table2
WHERE Property0 = 1
)
But I read here that it's less complicated and just as easy to write with a join, which I did. However, so far I'm unable to return just Table1 as I'd like since I'm using a join, which if I'm not mistaken, requires me to create this anonymous type, as below. What I did here works (I created another object with the same properties of Table1 I need), but I can't help thinking there's a better way to do this.
Table1.Join(Table2, t1 => t1.Property1, t2 => t2.Property1, (t1, t2) => new
{
t1.Property1,
t1.Property2,
t1.Property3
})
.Select(ob => new UnnecessaryObject
{
Property1 = ob.Property1,
Property2 = ob.Property2,
Property3 = ob.Property3
}
I also tried just creating a Table1 in the .Select part, but I got an error about explicit construction not being allowed.
Just to clarify, I'd like to be able to return the IQueryable of type Table1, which it seems like I ought to be able to do without having to create UnnecessaryObject...but I'm still pretty new to LINQ, so I'd appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks in advance.
You could just do:
from t1 in table1
join t2 in table2 on t1.property1 equals t2.property1
select t1;
That would return a collection of table1 objects. This assumes from your example table1 is a collection of table1 objects and table2 is a collection of table2 objects.
The best translation of your original query I can come up with is:
from item in context.Table1
where context.Table2
.Where(x => x.Property0 == 0)
.Any(x => x.Property1 == item.Property1)
select item
This selects all items from Table1, where there's an item with matching Property1 and Property0 == 0 from Table2
It can also be solved with a join indeed. To get an efficient join, you need to have a relation between the two tables. Then you can do something like assuming the relation is called RelatedItems:
from item in context.Table1
join relatedItem in item.RelatedItems
on item.Property1 equals relatedItem.Property
where relatedItem.Property0 == 0
select item
This is equivalent to the SQL:
SELECT *
FROM Table1
JOIN Table2 ON Table1.Property1 = Table2.Property1
WHERE Table2.Property0 = 0