I'm having performance issues with Linq2Sql compared to raw ADO.NET which has led me down the path of compiled queries. I have got this far so far
public static readonly Func<MyDataContext, WebServices.Search.Parameters, IQueryable<image>>
Compiled_SelectImagesLinq =
CompiledQuery.Compile<MyDataContext, WebServices.Search.Parameters, IQueryable<image>>(
(dc, parameters) => from i in dc.images
join l in dc.links on i.image_id equals l.image_id
join r in dc.resolutions on i.image_id equals r.image_id
where i.image_enabled == true && i.image_rating >= parameters.MinRating
&& i.image_rating <= parameters.MaxRating
select i
);
However I can't figure out how to add the extra optional parameters to the query as I currently do
if (parameters.Country != null)
{
query = query.Where(x => x.image_country_id == parameters.Country);
}
if (parameters.ComponentId != null)
{
query = query.Where(x => x.links.Any(l => l.link_component_id == parameters.ComponentId));
}
etc, etc
I tried writing another function which does
var query = Compiled_SelectImagesLinq(parameters);
and then adding the extra parameters to the query and returning
return query.Distinct().Take(parameters.Results);
Bit this doesn't seem right and returns no results
Have a look at this article. It may not do what you need (especially since you are compiling your queries), but anytime someone mentions Dynamic and Linq in the same sentence, I refer them to this article:
Dynamic LINQ: Using the LINQ Dynamic Query Library
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/07/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library.aspx
You'd have to benchmark your specific query, but often queries must be used 10-20 times before compiled query performance improvements equal the overhead. Also, how are you adding parameters to the where clause?
Additionally, dynamic compiled queries seems a bit of a mismatch. The Dynamic LINQ query library will do what you need but I don't think you'll get the compiled query performance improvement you want.
Related
var sample = db.Database.OrderByDescending(x => x.RecordId).Select(y => y.RecordId).FirstOrDefault();
I don't know if my title is correct / right. Just want to ask why this query the select is in another ( )?. As for the example .Select(y => y.RecordId) unlike the query I use to be
var sample = (from s in db.Databse where s.RecordId == id select s) I know this is the same right?. Then what is the why it is in another parenthesis?. Anyone has an idea or can anyone explain it why?. Thanks a lot.
In your first example, you're using "regular" C# syntax to call a bunch of extension methods:
var sample = db.Database
.OrderByDescending(x => x.RecordId)
.Select(y => y.RecordId)
.FirstOrDefault();
(They happen to be extension methods here, but of course they don't have to be...)
You use lambda expressions to express how you want the ordering and projection to be performed, and the compiler converts those into expression trees (assuming this is EF or similar; it would be delegates for LINQ to Objects).
The second example is a query expression, although it doesn't actually match your first example. A query expression corresponding to your original query would be:
var sample = (from x in db.Database
orderby x.RecordId descending
select x.RecordId)
.FirstOrDefault();
Query expressions are very much syntactic sugar. The compiler effectively converts them into the first form, then compiles that. The range variable declared in the from clause (x in this case) is used as the parameter name for the lambda expression, so select x.RecordId becomes .Select(x => x.RecordId).
Things become a bit more complicated with joins and multiple from clauses, as then the compiler introduces transparent identifiers to allow you to work with all the range variables that are in scope, even though you've really only got a single parameter. For example, if you had:
var query = from person in people
from job in person.Jobs
order by person.Name
select new { Person = person, Job = job };
that would be translated into the equivalent of
var query = people.SelectMany(person => person.Jobs, (person, job) => new { person, job } )
.OrderBy(t => t.person.Name)
.Select(t => new { Person = t.person, Job = t.job });
Note how the compiler introduces an anonymous type to combine the person and job range variables into a single object, which is used later on.
Basically, query expression syntax makes LINQ easier to work with - but it's just a translation into other C# code, and is neatly wrapped up in a single section of the C# specification. (Section 7.16.2 of the C# 5 spec.)
See my Edulinq blog post on query expressions for more detail on the precise translation from query expressions to "regular" C#.
I have a linq query which I want to add some additional, optional WHERE conditions to using LinqKit Predicate Builder. However, I an struggling to get the additional predicate to work
This is my initial query:
var query = (from OP in ctx.OrganisationProducts
where OP.OrganisationID == orgID
orderby OP.Product.Name, OP.Product.VersionName
select OP).Include("Product");
As you can see, there is JOIN in there.
I then wish to add additional predicates if required:
if(!includeDisabledP42Admin || !includeDisabledOrgAdmin)
{
var pred = PredicateBuilder.True<OrganisationProduct>();
if (!includeDisabledP42Admin)
pred.And(op => op.Enabled);
if (!includeDisabledOrgAdmin)
pred.And(op => op.AccessLevel == "NA" || op.AccessLevel == "NU");
query = query.Where(pred);
}
However, the generated SQL is unchanged and the query returns the same number of rows.
I thought I might have had to do the Expand conversion as so:
query = query.AsExpandable().Where(pred);
But this causes a runtime error.
I think the issue is the fact that I am adding the predicate to a query that is already no longer a pure OrganisationProduct object, however I would like advise on how I insert my predicate at the right place.
Thanks and all :-)
You have to assign the return value of And to the predicate:
pred = pred.And(op => op.Enabled);
Side note: you may like this predicate builder that works without Expand/AsExpandable, but has the same syntax.
Is there any way I can make this Linq to entities query in another way (better) and understand what I did?
First, can I have the string.jon() in the first part (select(p => new {...)?
Second, why do I need the first select to end with .ToList() for the string.join() to work?
The tables relation are as follow:
And here is the code:
Productos.Select(p => new {
Id = p.Id,
Code = p.CodigoProd,
Name = p.Nombre,
Cant = p.Inventario.Sum(i => i.Cantidad),
Pric = p.Inventario.OrderBy(i => i.Precio).Select (i => i.Precio).FirstOrDefault(),
cate = p.ProductosXCategoria.Select(pc => pc.CategoriasdeProducto.Nombre)
}).Where (p => p.Cant != null).ToList()
.Select (r => new {
r.Id, r.Code, r.Cant, r.Name, r.Pric, Categ = string.Join("-",r.cate)
})
the result is this (which is the result i expected to be):
IEnumerable<> (17 items)
**Id-- Code-- Cant-- Name-- Pric-- Categ**
1-- AXI-- 30-- Pepsi-- 10-- Granos
3-- ASI-- 38-- Carne blanca-- 12-- Granos-Limpieza
The query looks fine to me.
The reason you can't move the string.Join method to the first Select, is that LINQ-to-Entities ultimately has to be able to translate to SQL. string.Join has no direct translation to SQL, so it doesn't know how to translate your LINQ query to it. By calling ToList() first, you bring the results of the first Select into memory, where the subsequent Select works with Linq-to-Objects. Since Linq-to-Objects does not need to translate to SQL, it can operate directly on the results of the first query in memory.
Generally, you would want to put everything that would be better left to SQL before the ToList() call (such as filtering, sorting, averaging, grouping, etc.), and leave additional work that can't be translated to SQL (or isn't as efficient to do so) for after the results have been brought into local memory.
I'm programming a search for a SQLite-database using C# and LINQ.
The idea of the search is, that you can provide one or more keywords, any of which must be contained in any of several column-entries for that row to be added to the results.
The implementation consists of several linq-queries which are all put together by union. More keywords and columns that have to be considered result in a more complicated query that way. This can lead to SQL-code, which is to long for the SQLite-parser.
Here is some sample code to illustrate:
IQueryable<Reference> query = null;
if (searchAuthor)
foreach (string w in words)
{
string word = w;
var result = from r in _dbConnection.GetTable<Reference>()
where r.ReferenceAuthor.Any(a => a.Person.LastName.Contains(word) || a.Person.FirstName.Contains(word))
orderby r.Title
select r;
query = query == null ? result : query.Union(result);
}
if (searchTitle)
foreach (string word in words)
{
var result = from r in _dbConnection.GetTable<Reference>()
where r.Title.Contains(word)
orderby r.Title
select r;
query = query == null ? result : query.Union(result);
}
//...
Is there a way to structure the query in a way that results in more compact SQL?
I tried to force the creation of smaller SQL-statments by calling GetEnumerator() on the query after every loop. But apparently Union() doesn't operate on data, but on the underlying LINQ/SQL statement, so I was generating to long statements regardless.
The only solution I can think of right now, is to really gather the data after every "sub-query" and doing a union on the actual data and not in the statement. Any ideas?
For something like that, you might want to use a PredicateBuilder, as shown in the chosen answer to this question.
I'm trying to get Entity Framework to select an object and filter its collection at the same time. I have a JobSeries object which has a collection of jobs, what I need to do is select a jobseries by ID and filter all the jobs by SendDate but I can't believe how difficult this simple query is!
This is the basic query which works:
var q = from c in KnowledgeStoreEntities.JobSeries
.Include("Jobs.Company")
.Include("Jobs.Status")
.Include("Category")
.Include("Category1")
where c.Id == jobSeriesId
select c;
Any help would be appreciated, I've been trying to find something in google and what I want to do is here:http://blogs.msdn.com/bethmassi/archive/2009/07/16/filtering-entity-framework-collections-in-master-detail-forms.aspx
It's in VB.NET though and I couldn't convert it to C#.
EDIT: I've tried this now and it doesn't work!:
var q = from c in KnowledgeStoreEntities.JobSeries
.Include("Jobs")
.Include("Jobs.Company")
.Include("Jobs.Status")
.Include("Category")
.Include("Category1")
where (c.Id == jobSeriesId & c.Jobs.Any(J => J.ArtworkId == "13"))
select c;
Thanks
Dan
Include can introduce performance problems. Lazy loading is guaranteed to introduce performance problems. Projection is cheap and easy:
var q = from c in KnowledgeStoreEntities.JobSeries
where c.Id == jobSeriesId
select new
{
SeriesName = c.Name,
Jobs = from j in c.Jobs
where j.SendDate == sendDate
select new
{
Name = j.Name
}
CategoryName = c.Category.Name
};
Obviously, I'm guessing at the names. But note:
Filtering works.
SQL is much simpler.
No untyped strings anywhere.
You always get the data you need, without having to specify it in two places (Include and elsewhere).
No bandwith penalties for retrieving columns you don't need.
Free performance boost in EF 4.
The key is to think in LINQ, rather than in SQL or in materializing entire entities for no good reason as you would with older ORMs.
I've long given up on .Include() and implemented Lazy loading for Entity Framework