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
Related
I have the following linq-to-entities query with 2 joined tables that I would like to add pagination to:
IQueryable<ProductInventory> data = from inventory in objContext.ProductInventory
join variant in objContext.Variants
on inventory.VariantId equals variant.id
where inventory.ProductId == productId
where inventory.StoreId == storeId
orderby variant.SortOrder
select inventory;
I realize I need to use the .Join() extension method and then call .OrderBy().Skip().Take() to do this, I am just gettting tripped up on the syntax of Join() and can't seem to find any examples (either online or in books).
NOTE: The reason I am joining the tables is to do the sorting. If there is a better way to sort based on a value in a related table than join, please include it in your answer.
2 Possible Solutions
I guess this one is just a matter of readability, but both of these will work and are semantically identical.
1
IQueryable<ProductInventory> data = objContext.ProductInventory
.Where(y => y.ProductId == productId)
.Where(y => y.StoreId == storeId)
.Join(objContext.Variants,
pi => pi.VariantId,
v => v.id,
(pi, v) => new { Inventory = pi, Variant = v })
.OrderBy(y => y.Variant.SortOrder)
.Skip(skip)
.Take(take)
.Select(x => x.Inventory);
2
var query = from inventory in objContext.ProductInventory
where inventory.ProductId == productId
where inventory.StoreId == storeId
join variant in objContext.Variants
on inventory.VariantId equals variant.id
orderby variant.SortOrder
select inventory;
var paged = query.Skip(skip).Take(take);
Kudos to Khumesh and Pravin for helping with this. Thanks to the rest for contributing.
Define the join in your mapping, and then use it. You really don't get anything by using the Join method - instead, use the Include method. It's much nicer.
var data = objContext.ProductInventory.Include("Variant")
.Where(i => i.ProductId == productId && i.StoreId == storeId)
.OrderBy(j => j.Variant.SortOrder)
.Skip(x)
.Take(y);
Add following line to your query
var pagedQuery = data.Skip(PageIndex * PageSize).Take(PageSize);
The data variable is IQueryable, so you can put add skip & take method on it. And if you have relationship between Product & Variant, you donot really require to have join explicitly, you can refer the variant something like this
IQueryable<ProductInventory> data =
from inventory in objContext.ProductInventory
where inventory.ProductId == productId && inventory.StoreId == storeId
orderby inventory.variant.SortOrder
select new()
{
property1 = inventory.Variant.VariantId,
//rest of the properties go here
}
pagedQuery = data.Skip(PageIndex * PageSize).Take(PageSize);
My answer here based on the answer that is marked as true
but here I add a new best practice of the code above
var data= (from c in db.Categorie.AsQueryable().Join(db.CategoryMap,
cat=> cat.CategoryId, catmap => catmap.ChildCategoryId,
cat, catmap) => new { Category = cat, CategoryMap = catmap })
select (c => c.Category)
this is the best practice to use the Linq to entity because when you add AsQueryable() to your code; system will converts a generic System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable to a generic System.Linq.IQueryable which is better for .Net engine to build this query at run time
thank you Mr. Khumesh Kumawat
You would simply use your Skip(itemsInPage * pageNo).Take(itemsInPage) to do paging.
I'm trying to add a column to the following LINQ expression. I want the column to contain a string concatenation of a text value in a many table called WasteItems. The join would be on "Waste.WasteId = WasteItem.WasteId". My problem is I need to display in a single dynamic column a string such as "EW (5); EX (3)" if there was 8 records in WasteItem and the column containing the 2 character string was called WasteItem.EWC. Hope that makes sense, there must be an efficient way since I realise LINQ is very powerfull. I'm new to it and not sure how to start or go about this:
return from waste in this._db.Wastes
where (from u in _db.UsersToSites.Where(p => p.UserId == userId && p.SystemTypeId == SystemType.W)
select u.SiteId)
.Contains(waste.SiteId)
orderby waste.Entered descending select waste;
THANKS IN ADVANCE
Something like this should do:
wastes.GroupJoin(db.WasteItems, w => w.WastId, wi => wi.WasteId, (w,wi) => new { w, wi })
.AsEnumerable()
.Select(x => new
{
x.w.Name,
Items = string.Join(", ", x.wi.GroupBy(wi => wi.EWC).Select(g => string.Format("{0} ({1})", g.Key, g.Count())))
})
Where wastes is the result from your query. The AsEnumerable() is necessary because Entity Framework can not handle string.Join, so that part must be dealt with in memory.
I could not check the syntax, obviously, but at least it may show you the way to go.
What does it mean and why (if at all) is it important?
It means you can add additional "operators" to a query. It's important because you can do it extremely efficiently.
For example, let's say you have a method that returns a list (enumerable) of employees:
var employees = GetEmployees();
and another method that uses that one to return all managers:
IEnumerable<Employee> GetManagers()
{
return GetEmployees().Where(e => e.IsManager);
}
You can call that function to get managers that are approaching retirement and send them an email like this:
foreach (var manager in GetManagers().Where(m => m.Age >= 65) )
{
SendPreRetirementMessage(manager);
}
Pop quiz: How many times will that iterate over your employees list? The answer is exactly once; the entire operation is still just O(n)!
Also, I don't need to have separate methods for this. I could compose a query with these steps all in one place:
var retiringManagers = GetEmployees();
retiringManagers = retiringManagers.Where(e => e.IsManager);
retiringManagers = retiringManagers.Where(m => m.Age >= 65);
foreach (var manager in retiringMangers)
{
SendPreRetirementMessage();
}
One cool thing about this is that I can change is at run time, such that I can include or not include one part of the composition inside an if block, such that the decision to use a specific filter is made at run time, and everything still comes out nice and pretty.
I think it means that you can daisy chain your queries, like this
var peterJacksonsTotalBoxOffice
= movies.Where(movie => movie.Director == "Peter Jackson")
.Sum(movie => movie.BoxOffice);
I want to do something like DELETE FROM TABLE WHERE ID NOT IN (1,2,3) AND PAGEID = 9
I have a List of IDS but that could be changed if needs be. I can't work out how to get a boolean result for the LINQ parser.
Here is what Subsonic expects I think.
db.Delete(content => content.PageID == ID).Execute();
I can't work out how to do the NOT IN statement. I've tried the List.Contains method but something not quite right.
UPDATE: One alternative is to do:
var items = TABLE.Find(x => x.PageID == ID)'
foreach(var item in items)
{
item.Delete();
}
This hits the database a lot more though
When you say "something not quite right" what exactly do you mean?
I'd expect to write:
List<int> excluded = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3 };
db.Delete(content => !excluded.Contains(content.PageID)).Execute();
Note that you need to call Contains on the array of excluded values, not on your candidate. In other words, instead of saying "item not in collection" you're saying "collection doesn't contain item."
Try .Contains:
db.Delete(content => content.PageID.Contains(<Array containing ID's>).Execute();
(the above is just an example, might need some polishing for your specific situation)
I have found that this works but its not via LINQ
var table = new WebPageContentTable(_db.DataProvider);
var g = new SubSonic.Query.Delete<WebPageContent(_db.DataProvider)
.From(table)
.Where(table.ID)
.NotIn(usedID)
.Execute();
I have found that this does work and via LINQ - however it hits the database multiple times.
var f = WebPageContent.Find(x => !usedID.Any(e => e == x.ID));
if (f.Count > 0)
{
var repo = WebPageContent.GetRepo();
repo.Delete(f);
}
This I imagine would work in one hit to the database but I get an exception thrown in QueryVisitor::VisitUnary
WebPageContent.Delete(x => !usedID.Any(e => e == x.ID));
In another posting: Does Linq-To-Sql support composable queries there was discussion on how to compose/concat where clauses dynamically. This appears to be done with an "AND" (i.e. the first where clause and the second where clause are joined by an AND). What I am wondering is if there is a way to compose Linq queries with an OR.
Example:
var people = from p in Person
where p.age < 18
select p
var otherPeople = from p in people
where p.firstName equals "Daniel"
select p
This gives people with a first name of "Daniel" and that are under 18. I'm looking for the syntax to join these to find people who have a first name of "Daniel" or are under 18.
Note: I am using ADO.net Data Services so I do not have .Contains() available to me.
EDIT: The Union Suggestion (by Garry Shutler) is exactly what I am looking for functionality-wise. I did run into two possible issues with it:
It looks like it would make multiple database hits if I was to do a third condition (union seems to take an IEnumerable as its parameter) - I was hoping to build up multiple AND and OR statements in code and then execute one request.
Union is not supported by ADO.Net Data Services (very disappointing)
Is what you want as simple as:
var people = from p in Person
where p.age < 18 || p.firstName == "Daniel"
select p;
or have you just given a simple example?
In which case you can use:
var under18 = from p in Person
where p.age < 18
select p;
var daniels = from p in Person
where p.firstName == "Daniel"
select p;
var combined = under18.Union(daniels);
LinqToSql may be intelligent enough to convert that to an OR but I'm not so sure.
What about using PredicateBuilder by Joe Albahari?
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Person>();
predicate = predicate.Or(p => p.age < 18);
predicate = predicate.Or(p => p.firstName == "Daniel");
var query = Person.Where(predicate);
The predicate option is the way to go. The Union option DOES NOT build good sql. Reference http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/linqprojectgeneral/thread/925b245d-5529-4a64-8cd4-4bc83ee6fe7a/
I wrote about how to achieve queries which search for a key value within a set on my blog .
Here are the relevant links.
Contains Operations in ADO.NET Data Services Part I
Contains Operations in ADO.NET Data Services Part II
Using this , you can write queries which look like this
//The set in which we have to search for a match
List<string> citiesIWillVisit = new List<string>() {"London","Berlin","Prague"};
var customersAround = nwContext.Customers
.IsIn<Customers>(citiesIWillVisit, c=> c.City);
foreach (Customers localCustomer in customersAround) {
System.Console.WriteLine(localCustomer.ContactName);
}