I've the following Entity Model : Employee has a Company and a Company has Employees.
When using the Include statement like below:
var query = context.Employees.Include(e => e.Company);
query.Dump();
All related data is retrieved from the database correctly. (Using LEFT OUTER JOIN on Company table)
The problem is hat when I use the GroupBy() from System.Linq.Dynamic to group by Company.Name, the Employees are missing the Company data because the Include is lost.
Example:
var groupByQuery = query.GroupBy("new (Company.Name as CompanyName)", "it");
groupByQuery.Dump();
Is there a way to easily retrieve the applied Includes on the 'query' as a string collection, so that I can include them in the dynamic GroupBy like this:
var groupByQuery2 = query.GroupBy("new (Company, Company.Name as CompanyName)", "it");
groupByQuery2.Dump();
I thought about using the ToString() functionality to get the SQL Command like this:
string sql = query.ToString();
And then use RegEx to extract all LEFT OUTER JOINS, but probably there is a better solution ?
if you're creating the query in the first place - I'd always opt to save the includes (and add to them if you're making a composite query/filtering).
e.g. instead of returning just 'query' return new QueryContext {Query = query, Includes = ...}
I'd like to see a more elegant solution - but I think that's your best bet.
Otherwise you're looking at expression trees, visitors and all those nice things.
SQL parsing isn't that straight either - as queries are not always that simple (often a combo of things etc.).
e.g. there is a `span' inside the query object (if you traverse a bit) which seems to be holding the 'Includes' but it's not much help.
In the table ReservationWorkerPeriods there are records of all workers that are planned to work on a given period on any possible machine.
The additional table WorkerOnMachineOnConstructionSite contains columns workerId, MachineId and ConstructionSiteId.
From the table ReservationWorkerPeriods I would like to retrieve just workers who work on selected machine.
In order to retrieve just relevant records from WorkerOnMachineOnConstructionSite table I have written the following code:
var relevantWorkerOnMachineOnConstructionSite = (from cswm in currentConstructionSiteSchedule.ContrustionSiteWorkerOnMachine
where cswm.MachineId == machineId
select cswm).ToList();
workerOnMachineOnConstructionSite = relevantWorkerOnMachineOnConstructionSite as List<ContrustionSiteWorkerOnMachine>;
These records are also used in the application so I don't want to bypass the above code even if is possible to directly retrieve just workerPeriods for workers who work on selected machine. Anyway I haven't figured out how it is possible to retrieve the relevant workerPeriods once we know which userIDs are relevant.
I have tried the following code:
var userIDs = from w in workerOnMachineOnConstructionSite select new {w.WorkerId};
List<ReservationWorkerPeriods> workerPeriods = currentConstructionSiteSchedule.ReservationWorkerPeriods.ToList();
allocatedWorkers = workerPeriods.Where(wp => userIDs.Contains(wp.WorkerId));
but it seems to be incorrect and don't know how to fix it. Does anyone know what is the problem and how it is possible to retrieve just records which contain userIDs from the list?
Currently, you are constructing an anonymous object on the fly, with one property. You'll want to grab the id directly with (note the missing curly braces):
var userIDs = from w in workerOnMachineOnConstructionSite select w.WorkerId;
Also, in such cases, don't call ToList on it - the variable userIDs just contains the query, not the result. If you use that variable in a further query, the provider can translate it to a single sql query.
I have created a linq query that returns my required data, I now have a new requirement and need to add an extra field into the returned results. My entity contains an ID field that I am trying to map against another table without to much luck.
This is what I have so far.
Dictionary<int, string> itemDescriptions = new Dictionary<int, string>();
foreach (var item in ItemDetails)
{
itemDescriptions.Add(item.ItemID, item.ItemDescription);
}
DB.TestDatabase db = new DB.TestDatabase(Common.GetOSConnectionString());
List<Transaction> transactionDetails = (from t db.Transactions
where t.CardID == CardID.ToString()
select new Transaction
{
ItemTypeID= t.ItemTypeID,
TransactionAmount = t.TransactionAmount,
ItemDescription = itemDescriptions.Select(r=>r.Key==itemTypeID).ToString()
}).ToList();
What I am trying to do is key the value from the dictonary where the key = itemTypeID
I am getting this error.
Local sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL implementations of query operators except the Contains operator.
What do I need to modify?
This is a duplicate of this question. The problem you're having is because you're trying to match an in-memory collection (itemDescriptions) with a DB table. Because of the way LINQ2SQL works it's trying to do this in the DB which is not possible.
There are essentially three options (unless I'm missing something)
1) refactor your query so you pass a simple primitive object to the query that can be passed accross to the DB (only good if itemDescriptions is a small set)
2) In your query use:
from t db.Transactions.ToList()
...
3) Get back the objects you need as you're doing, then populate ItemDescription in a second step.
Bear in mind that the second option will force LINQ to evaluate the query and return all transactions to your code that will then be operated on in memory. If the transaction table is large this will not be quick!
I have two tables, one parent "Point" and one child "PointValue", connected by a single foreign key "PointID", making a one-to-many relation in SQL Server 2005.
I have a LINQ query:
var points = from p in ContextDB.Points
//join v in ContextDB.PointValues on p.PointID equals v.PointID
where p.InstanceID == instanceId
orderby p.PointInTime descending
select new
{
Point = p,
Values = p.PointValues.Take(16).ToList()
};
As you can see from the commented out join and the "Values" assignment, the "Point" table has a relation to "PointValue" (called "Points" and "PointValues" by LINQ).
When iterating through the "var points" IQueryable (say, when binding it to a GridView, etc.) the initial query is very fast, however iterating through the "Values" property is very slow. SQL Profiler shows me that for each value in the "points" IQueryable another query is executed.
How do I get this to be one query?
Interestingly, the initial query becomes very slow when the join is uncommented.
I think you want to use the DataLoadOptions.LoadWith method, described here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.linq.dataloadoptions.loadwith.aspx
In your case you would do something like the following, when creating your DataContext:
DataLoadOptions options = new DataLoadOptions();
ContextDB.LoadOptions = options;
options.LoadWith((Point p) => p.PointValues);
You should make sure that the PointValues table has an index on the PointID column.
See also this SO question: Does Foreign Key improve query performance?
Let's say I have an Order table which has a FirstSalesPersonId field and a SecondSalesPersonId field. Both of these are foreign keys that reference the SalesPerson table. For any given order, either one or two salespersons may be credited with the order. In other words, FirstSalesPersonId can never be NULL, but SecondSalesPersonId can be NULL.
When I drop my Order and SalesPerson tables onto the "Linq to SQL Classes" design surface, the class builder spots the two FK relationships from the Order table to the SalesPerson table, and so the generated Order class has a SalesPerson field and a SalesPerson1 field (which I can rename to SalesPerson1 and SalesPerson2 to avoid confusion).
Because I always want to have the salesperson data available whenever I process an order, I am using DataLoadOptions.LoadWith to specify that the two salesperson fields are populated when the order instance is populated, as follows:
dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Order>(o => o.SalesPerson1);
dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<Order>(o => o.SalesPerson2);
The problem I'm having is that Linq to SQL is using something like the following SQL to load an order:
SELECT ...
FROM Order O
INNER JOIN SalesPerson SP1 ON SP1.salesPersonId = O.firstSalesPersonId
INNER JOIN SalesPerson SP2 ON SP2.salesPersonId = O.secondSalesPersonId
This would make sense if there were always two salesperson records, but because there is sometimes no second salesperson (secondSalesPersonId is NULL), the INNER JOIN causes the query to return no records in that case.
What I effectively want here is to change the second INNER JOIN into a LEFT OUTER JOIN. Is there a way to do that through the UI for the class generator? If not, how else can I achieve this?
(Note that because I'm using the generated classes almost exclusively, I'd rather not have something tacked on the side for this one case if I can avoid it).
Edit: per my comment reply, the SecondSalesPersonId field is nullable (in the DB, and in the generated classes).
The default behaviour actually is a LEFT JOIN, assuming you've set up the model correctly.
Here's a slightly anonymized example that I just tested on one of my own databases:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (TestDataContext context = new TestDataContext())
{
DataLoadOptions dlo = new DataLoadOptions();
dlo.LoadWith<Place>(p => p.Address);
context.LoadOptions = dlo;
var places = context.Places.Where(p => p.ID >= 100 && p.ID <= 200);
foreach (var place in places)
{
Console.WriteLine(p.ID, p.AddressID);
}
}
}
}
This is just a simple test that prints out a list of places and their address IDs. Here is the query text that appears in the profiler:
SELECT [t0].[ID], [t0].[Name], [t0].[AddressID], ...
FROM [dbo].[Places] AS [t0]
LEFT OUTER JOIN (
SELECT 1 AS [test], [t1].[AddressID],
[t1].[StreetLine1], [t1].[StreetLine2],
[t1].[City], [t1].[Region], [t1].[Country], [t1].[PostalCode]
FROM [dbo].[Addresses] AS [t1]
) AS [t2] ON [t2].[AddressID] = [t0].[AddressID]
WHERE ([t0].[PlaceID] >= #p0) AND ([t0].[PlaceID] <= #p1)
This isn't exactly a very pretty query (your guess is as good as mine as to what that 1 as [test] is all about), but it's definitively a LEFT JOIN and doesn't exhibit the problem you seem to be having. And this is just using the generated classes, I haven't made any changes.
Note that I also tested this on a dual relationship (i.e. a single Place having two Address references, one nullable, one not), and I get the exact same results. The first (non-nullable) gets turned into an INNER JOIN, and the second gets turned into a LEFT JOIN.
It has to be something in your model, like changing the nullability of the second reference. I know you say it's configured as nullable, but maybe you need to double-check? If it's definitely nullable then I suggest you post your full schema and DBML so somebody can try to reproduce the behaviour that you're seeing.
If you make the secondSalesPersonId field in the database table nullable, LINQ-to-SQL should properly construct the Association object so that the resulting SQL statement will do the LEFT OUTER JOIN.
UPDATE:
Since the field is nullable, your problem may be in explicitly declaring dataLoadOptions.LoadWith<>(). I'm running a similar situation in my current project where I have an Order, but the order goes through multiple stages. Each stage corresponds to a separate table with data related to that stage. I simply retrieve the Order, and the appropriate data follows along, if it exists. I don't use the dataLoadOptions at all, and it does what I need it to do. For example, if the Order has a purchase order record, but no invoice record, Order.PurchaseOrder will contain the purchase order data and Order.Invoice will be null. My query looks something like this:
DC.Orders.Where(a => a.Order_ID == id).SingleOrDefault();
I try not to micromanage LINQ-to-SQL...it does 95% of what I need straight out of the box.
UPDATE 2:
I found this post that discusses the use of DefaultIfEmpty() in order to populated child entities with null if they don't exist. I tried it out with LINQPad on my database and converted that example to lambda syntax (since that's what I use):
ParentTable.GroupJoin
(
ChildTable,
p => p.ParentTable_ID,
c => c.ChildTable_ID,
(p, aggregate) => new { p = p, aggregate = aggregate }
)
.SelectMany (a => a.aggregate.DefaultIfEmpty (),
(a, c) => new
{
ParentTableEntity = a.p,
ChildTableEntity = c
}
)
From what I can figure out from this statement, the GroupJoin expression relates the parent and child tables, while the SelectMany expression aggregates the related child records. The key appears to be the use of the DefaultIfEmpty, which forces the inclusion of the parent entity record even if there are no related child records. (Thanks for compelling me to dig into this further...I think I may have found some useful stuff to help with a pretty huge report I've got on my pipeline...)
UPDATE 3:
If the goal is to keep it simple, then it looks like you're going to have to reference those salesperson fields directly in your Select() expression. The reason you're having to use LoadWith<>() in the first place is because the tables are not being referenced anywhere in your query statement, so the LINQ engine won't automatically pull that information in.
As an example, given this structure:
MailingList ListCompany
=========== ===========
List_ID (PK) ListCompany_ID (PK)
ListCompany_ID (FK) FullName (string)
I want to get the name of the company associated with a particular mailing list:
MailingLists.Where(a => a.List_ID == 2).Select(a => a.ListCompany.FullName)
If that association has NOT been made, meaning that the ListCompany_ID field in the MailingList table for that record is equal to null, this is the resulting SQL generated by the LINQ engine:
SELECT [t1].[FullName]
FROM [MailingLists] AS [t0]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [ListCompanies] AS [t1] ON [t1].[ListCompany_ID] = [t0].[ListCompany_ID]
WHERE [t0].[List_ID] = #p0