I've been developing a webapp using Linq to NHibernate for the past few months, but haven't profiled the SQL it generates until now. Using NH Profiler, it now seems that the following chunk of code hits the DB more than 3,000 times when the Linq expression is executed.
var activeCaseList = from c in UserRepository.GetCasesByProjectManagerID(consultantId)
where c.CompletionDate == null
select new { c.PropertyID, c.Reference, c.Property.Address, DaysOld = DateTime.Now.Subtract(c.CreationDate).Days, JobValue = String.Format("£{0:0,0}", c.JobValue), c.CurrentStatus };
Where the Repository method looks like:
public IEnumerable<Case> GetCasesByProjectManagerID(int projectManagerId)
{
return from c in Session.Linq<Case>()
where c.ProjectManagerID == projectManagerId
select c;
}
It appears to run the initial Repository query first, then iterates through all of the results checking to see if the CompletionDate is null, but issuing a query to get c.Property.Address first.
So if the initial query returns 2,000 records, even if only five of them have no CompletionDate, it still fires off an SQL query to bring back the address details for the 2,000 records.
The way I had imagined this would work, is that it would evaluate all of the WHERE and SELECT clauses and simply amalgamate them, so the inital query would be like:
SELECT ... WHERE ProjectManager = #p1 AND CompleteDate IS NOT NULL
Which would yield 5 records, and then it could fire the further 5 queries to obtain the addresses. Am I expecting too much here, or am I simply doing something wrong?
Anthony
Change the declaration of GetCasesByProjectManagerID:
public IQueryable<Case> GetCasesByProjectManagerID(int projectManagerId)
You can't compose queries with IEnumerable<T> - they're just sequences. IQueryable<T> is specifically designed for composition like this.
Since I can't add a comment yet. Jon Skeet is right you'll want to use IQueryable, this is allows the Linq provider to Lazily construct the SQL. IEnumerable is the eager version.
Related
What is the explanation for EF downloading all result rows when AsEnumerable() is used?
What I mean is that this code:
context.Logs.AsEnumerable().Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).Take(100).ToList();
will download all the rows from the table before passing any row to the Where() method and there could be millions of rows in the table.
What I would like it to do, is to download only enough to gather 100 rows that would satisfy the Id % 2 == 0 condition (most likely just around 200 rows).
Couldn't EF do on demand loading of rows like you can with plain ADO.NET using Read() method of SqlDataReader and save time and bandwidth?
I suppose that it does not work like that for a reason and I'd like to hear a good argument supporting that design decision.
NOTE: This is a completely contrived example and I know normally you should not use EF this way, but I found this in some existing code and was just surprised my assumptions turned out to be incorrect.
The short answer: The reason for the different behaviors is that, when you use IQueryable directly, a single SQL query can be formed for your entire LINQ query; but when you use IEnumerable, the entire table of data must be loaded.
The long answer: Consider the following code.
context.Logs.Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0)
context.Logs is of type IQueryable<Log>. IQueryable<Log>.Where is taking an Expression<Func<Log, bool>> as the predicate. The Expression represents an abstract syntax tree; that is, it's more than just code you can run. Think of it as being represented in memory, at runtime, like this:
Lambda (=>)
Parameters
Variable: x
Body
Equals (==)
Modulo (%)
PropertyAccess (.)
Variable: x
Property: Id
Constant: 2
Constant: 0
The LINQ-to-Entities engine can take context.Logs.Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0) and mechanically convert it into a SQL query that looks something like this:
SELECT *
FROM "Logs"
WHERE "Logs"."Id" % 2 = 0;
If you change your code to context.Logs.Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).Take(100), the SQL query becomes something like this:
SELECT *
FROM "Logs"
WHERE "Logs"."Id" % 2 = 0
LIMIT 100;
This is entirely because the LINQ extension methods on IQueryable use Expression instead of just Func.
Now consider context.Logs.AsEnumerable().Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0). The IEnumerable<Log>.Where extension method is taking a Func<Log, bool> as a predicate. That is only runnable code. It cannot be analyzed to determine its structure; it cannot be used to form a SQL query.
Entity Framework and Linq use lazy loading. It means (among other things) that they will not run the query until they need to enumerate the results: for instance using ToList() or AsEnumerable(), or if the result is used as an enumerator (in a foreach for instance).
Instead, it builds a query using predicates, and returns IQueryable objects to further "pre-filter" the results before actually returning them. You can find more infos here for instance. Entity framework will actually build a SQL query depending on the predicates you have passed it.
In your example:
context.Logs.AsEnumerable().Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).Take(100).ToList();
From the Logs table in the context, it fetches all, returns a IEnumerable with the results, then filters the result, takes the first 100, then lists the results as a List.
On the other hand, just removing the AsEnumerable solves your problem:
context.Logs.Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).Take(100).ToList();
Here it will build a query/filter on the result, then only once the ToList() is executed, query the database.
It also means that you can dynamically build a complex query without actually running it on the DB it until the end, for instance:
var logs = context.Logs.Where(a); // first filter
if (something) {
logs = logs.Where(b); // second filter
}
var results = logs.Take(100).ToList(); // only here is the query actually executed
Update
As mentionned in your comment, you seem to already know what I just wrote, and are just asking for a reason.
It's even simpler: since AsEnumerable casts the results to another type (a IQueryable<T> to IEnumerable<T> in this case), it has to convert all the results rows first, so it has to fetch the data first. It's basically a ToList in this case.
Clearly, you understand why it's better to avoid using AsEnumerable() the way you do in your question.
Also, some of the other answers have made it very clear why calling AsEnumerable() changes the way the query is performed and read. In short, it's because you are then invoking IEnumrable<T> extension methods rather than the IQueryable<T> extension methods, the latter allowing you to combine predicates before executing the query in the database.
However, I still feel that this doesn't answer your actual question, which is a legitimate question. You said (emphasis mine):
What I mean is that this code:
context.Logs.AsEnumerable().Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).Take(100).ToList();
will download all the rows from the table before passing any row to the Where() method and there could be millions of rows in the table.
My question to you is: what made you conclude that this is true?
I would argue that, because you are using IEnumrable<T> instead of IQueryable<T>, it's true that the query being performed in the database will be a simple:
select * from logs
... without any predicates, unlike what would have happened if you had used IQueryable<T> to invoke Where and Take.
However, the AsEnumerable() method call does not fetch all the rows at that moment, as other answers have implied. In fact, this is the implementation of the AsEnumerable() call:
public static IEnumerable<TSource> AsEnumerable<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source)
{
return source;
}
There is no fetching going on there. In fact, even the calls to IEnumerable<T>.Where() and IEnumerable<T>.Take() don't actually start fetching any rows at that moment. They simply setup wrapping IEnumerables that will filter results as they are iterated on. The fetching and iterating of the results really only begins when ToList() is called.
So when you say:
Couldn't EF do on demand loading of rows like you can with plain ADO.NET using Read() method of SqlDataReader and save time and bandwidth?
... again, my question to you would be: doesn't it do that already?
If your table had 1,000,000 rows, I would still expect your code snippet to only fetch up to 100 rows that satisfy your Where condition, and then stop fetching rows.
To prove the point, try running the following little program:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var list = PretendImAOneMillionRecordTable().Where(i => i < 500).Take(10).ToList();
}
private static IEnumerable<int> PretendImAOneMillionRecordTable()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("fetching {0}", i);
yield return i;
}
}
... when I run it, I only get the following 10 lines of output:
fetching 0
fetching 1
fetching 2
fetching 3
fetching 4
fetching 5
fetching 6
fetching 7
fetching 8
fetching 9
It doesn't iterate through the whole set of 1,000,000 "rows" even though I am chaining Where() and Take() calls on IEnumerable<T>.
Now, you do have to keep in mind that, for your little EF code snippet, if you test it using a very small table, it may actually fetch all the rows at once, if all the rows fit within the value for SqlConnection.PacketSize. This is normal. Every time SqlDataReader.Read() is called, it never only fetches a single row at a time. To reduce the amount of network call roundtrips, it will always try to fetch a batch of rows at a time. I wonder if this is what you observed, and this mislead you into thinking that AsEnumerable() was causing all rows to be fetched from the table.
Even though you will find that your example doesn't perform nearly as bad as you thought, this would not be a reason not to use IQueryable. Using IQueryable to construct more complex database queries will almost always provide better performance, because you can then benefit from database indexes, etc to fetch results more efficiently.
AsEnumerable() eagerly loads the DbSet<T> Logs
You probably want something like
context.Logs.Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).AsEnumerable();
The idea here is that you're applying a predicate filter to the collection before actually loading it from the database.
An impressive subset of the world of LINQ is supported by EF. It will translate your beautiful LINQ queries into SQL expressions behind the scenes.
I have come across this before.
The context command is not executed until a linq function is called, because you have done
context.Logs.AsEnumerable()
it has assumed you have finished with the query and therefore compiled it and returns all rows.
If you changed this to:
context.Logs.Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).AsEnumerable()
It would compile a SQL statement that would get only the rows where the id is modular 2.
Similarly if you did
context.Logs.Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).Take(100).ToList();
that would create a statement that would get the top 100...
I hope that helps.
LinQ to Entities has a store expression formed by all the Linq methods before It goes to an enumeration.
When you use AsEnumerable() and then Where() like this:
context.Logs.Where(...).AsEnumerable()
The Where() knows that the previous chain call has a store expression so he appends his predicate to It for lazy loading.
The overload of Where that is being called is different if you call this:
context.Logs.AsEnumerable().Where(...)
Here the Where() only knows that his previous method is an enumeration (it could be any kind of "enumerable" collection) and the only way that he can apply his condition is iterating over the collection with the IEnumerable implementation of the DbSet class, which must to retrieve the records from the database first.
I don't think you should ever use this:
context.Logs.AsEnumerable().Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).Take(100).ToList();
The correct way of doing things would be:
context.Logs.AsQueryable().Where(x => x.Id % 2 == 0).Take(100).ToList();
Answer with explanations here:
What's the difference(s) between .ToList(), .AsEnumerable(), AsQueryable()?
Why use AsQueryable() instead of List()?
I'm using NHibernate 3.2 and I have a repository method that looks like:
public IEnumerable<MyModel> GetActiveMyModel()
{
return from m in Session.Query<MyModel>()
where m.Active == true
select m;
}
Which works as expected. However, sometimes when I use this method I want to filter it further:
var models = MyRepository.GetActiveMyModel();
var filtered = from m in models
where m.ID < 100
select new { m.Name };
Which produces the same SQL as the first one and the second filter and select must be done after the fact. I thought the whole point in LINQ is that it formed an expression tree that was unravelled when it's needed and therefore the correct SQL for the job could be created, saving my database requests.
If not, it means all of my repository methods have to return exactly what is needed and I can't make use of LINQ further down the chain without taking a penalty.
Have I got this wrong?
Updated
In response to the comment below: I omitted the line where I iterate over the results, which causes the initial SQL to be run (WHERE Active = 1) and the second filter (ID < 100) is obviously done in .NET.
Also, If I replace the second chunk of code with
var models = MyRepository.GetActiveMyModel();
var filtered = from m in models
where m.Items.Count > 0
select new { m.Name };
It generates the initial SQL to retrieve the active records and then runs a separate SQL statement for each record to find out how many Items it has, rather than writing something like I'd expect:
SELECT Name
FROM MyModel m
WHERE Active = 1
AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM Items WHERE MyModelID = m.ID) > 0
You are returning IEnumerable<MyModel> from the method, which will cause in-memory evaluation from that point on, even if the underlying sequence is IQueryable<MyModel>.
If you want to allow code after GetActiveMyModel to add to the SQL query, return IQueryable<MyModel> instead.
You're running IEnumerable's extension method "Where" instead of IQueryable's. It will still evaluate lazily and give the same output, however it evaluates the IQueryable on entry and you're filtering the collection in memory instead of against the database.
When you later add an extra condition on another table (the count), it has to lazily fetch each and every one of the Items collections from the database since it has already evaluated the IQueryable before it knew about the condition.
(Yes, I would also like to be the extensive extension methods on IEnumerable to instead be virtual members, but, alas, they're not)
I'm wondering about the best usage of the delete method in nhibernate.
If you go the entity than just call delete and send it, but if not you need to query it or write a query and send it to delete method.
I'm wondering if its possible to write a linq expression and send it to delete.
Is it possible to perform a Linq transformation to hql and than call session.Delete(query)
with the generated hql?
I want to call Session.Delete, and give it a linq so it can know what to delete without selecting the data. Do you know a class that can convert linq expression to hql?
You now can directly in linq with NHibernate 5.0
//
// Summary:
// Delete all entities selected by the specified query. The delete operation is
// performed in the database without reading the entities out of it.
//
// Parameters:
// source:
// The query matching the entities to delete.
//
// Type parameters:
// TSource:
// The type of the elements of source.
//
// Returns:
// The number of deleted entities.
public static int Delete<TSource>(this IQueryable<TSource> source);
Exemple:
var tooOldDate = System.DateTime.Now.AddYears(5);
session.Query<User>()
.Where(u => u.LastConnection <= tooOldDate)
.Delete();
The Q in LINQ stands for "Query". So, no, you can't use a LINQ expression for delete.
That said, NH's query language, HQL, does support that.
In the same way that you can say "from Foo where Bar = :something" to get all the foos matching a condition, you can do this:
session.CreateQuery("delete Foo where Bar = :something")
.SetParameter("something", ...)
.ExecuteUpdate();
I have submitted a pull request for NH-3659 - Strongly Typed Delete. The link is available at nhibernate.jira.com/browse/NH-3659.
I know this is an old question but for those reading this now. NHibernate 5 released Oct 10, 2017 has added a Delete Linq extension
from documentation 17.6.3. Deleting entities
Delete method extension expects a queryable defining the entities to delete. It immediately deletes them.
session.Query<Cat>()
.Where(c => c.BodyWeight > 20)
.Delete();
I'm sure it would be possible to do what you want but the bottom line is that it doesn't make a lot of sense (not sure why you want to give NHibernate the select criteria when you can do it in a single statement, your approach would end up causing 2 hits to the database), having said that, one easy option you could do, is query the IDs using LINQ and pass those to NHibernate
int[] deleteIds = (from c in Customer where {some condition} select c.Id).ToArray<int>();
session.CreateQuery("delete Customer c where c.id in (:deleteIds)")
.SetParameterList("deleteIds", deleteIds)
.ExecuteUpdate();
DynamicObject LINQ query with the List compiles fine:
List<string> list = new List<string>();
var query = (from dynamic d in list where d.FirstName == "John" select d);
With our own custom class that we use for the "usual" LINQ compiler reports the error "An expression tree may not contain a dynamic
operation":
DBclass db = new DBclass();
var query = (from dynamic d in db where d.FirstName == "John" select d);
What shall we add to handle DynamicObject LINQ?
Does DBClass implement IEnumerable? Perhaps there is a method on it you should be calling to return an IEnumerable collection?
You could add a type, against which to write the query.
I believe your problem is, that in the first expression, where you are using the List<>, everything is done in memory using IEnumerable & Link-to-Objects.
Apparently, your DBClass is an IQueryable using Linq-to-SQL. IQueryables use an expression tree to build an SQL statement to send to the database.
In other words, despite looking much alike, the two statements are doing radically different things, one of which is allowed & one which isn't. (Much in the way var y = x * 5; will either succeed or fail depending on if x is an int or a string).
Further, your first example may compile, but as far as I can tell, it will fail when you run it. That's not a particular good benchmark for success.
The only way I see this working is if the query using dynamic is made on IEnumerables using Link-to-Objects. (Load the full table into a List, and then query on the list)
If I were to select some rows based on certain criteria I can use ICriterion object in NHibernate.Criterion, such as this:
public List<T> GetByCriteria()
{
SimpleExpression newJobCriterion =
NHibernate.Criterion.Expression.Eq("LkpStatu", statusObject);
ICriteria criteria = Session.GetISession().CreateCriteria(typeof(T)).SetMaxResults(maxResults);
criteria.Add(newJobCriterion );
return criteria.List<T>();
}
Or I can use LINQ's where clause to filter what I want:
public List<T> GetByCriteria_LINQ()
{
ICriteria criteria = Session.GetISession().CreateCriteria(typeof(T)).SetMaxResults(maxResults);
return criteria.Where(item=>item.LkpStatu=statusObject).ToList();
}
I would prefer the second one, of course. Because
It gives me strong typing
I don't need to learn yet-another-syntax in the form of NHibernate
The issue is is there any performance advantage of the first one over the second one? From what I know, the first one will create SQL queries, so it will filter the data before pass into the memory. Is this kind of performance saving big enough to justify its use?
As usual it depends. First note that in your second snippet there is .List() missing right after return criteria And also note that you won't get the same results on both examples. The first one does where and then return top maxResults, the second one however first selects top maxResults and then does where.
If your expected result set is relatively small and you are likely to use some of the results in lazy loads then it's actually better to take the second approach. Because all entities loaded through a session will stay in its first level cache.
Usually however you don't do it this way and use the first approach.
Perhaps you wanted to use NHibernate.Linq (located in Contrib project ). Which does linq translation to Criteria for you.
I combine the two and made this:
var crit = _session.CreateCriteria(typeof (T)).SetMaxResults(100);
return (from x in _session.Linq<T>(crit) where x.field == <something> select x).ToList();