linq to sql batch delete - linq

I have the following DB:
Posts which have an Id, Tags also with Id, and TagsToPosts table which have TagsToPosts.PostId => Posts.Id and TagsToPosts.TagId => Tags.Id FK relations.
I need to delete multiple items from TagsToPosts in following way.
I'm creating IList<Tag> newTags by parsing a string. Each tag have it's name. I want to delete all TagsToPosts items pointing to single post (TagsToPosts.PostId == mypostid) and which points to Tag with name which not in my newTags.
For instance I have one post with Id = 1, three tags: 1 => "tag1", 2 => "tag2", 3 => "tag3" And ManyToMany relations table TagsToPosts: 1 => 1, 1 => 2, 1 => 3
So all three tags are linked to my post.
After that I'll create a new IList<Tag> newList = new List<Tag>() by parsing a string. newList contains: 0 => "tag1", 0 => "tag2".
Now I want to remove third relation from table TagsToPosts because my new list of tags doesn't contain tag with name "tag3". So I need to find a difference. I know I can find similar items using JOIN but how to find difference?
I want this to happend in one DB query without iterating over each item to delete it.

You can't do this with LINQ-to-SQL.
LINQ-to-SQL is not good for batch operations - it can't do batch inserts, it can't do batch updates, and it can't do batch deletes. Every object in your collection is treated individually. You can do all the operations in one transaction, but there will always be a query for each record.
MSDN
A better option is to write a stored procedure that will do what you want.

Have you looked at the Linq Except operator?
For example:
var toDelete = (from t in TagsToPost
select t).Except(from nt in newList
select nt, new TagComparer());
class TagComparer: IEqualityComparer<TagsToPosts>
{
public bool Equals(TagsToPosts x, TagsToPosts y)
{
return x.Tag.Equals(y.Tag, CompareOptions.Ordinal);
}
}

PLINQO supports batch delete operations without retrieving the entities first.
var delete = from t in TagsToPost
select t).Except(from nt in newList
select nt, new TagComparer())
context.Tags.Delete(delete);
http://plinqo.com

My solution which lets you make deletions determined by a class field:
public static void DeleteByPropertyList<T, R>(List<T> listToDelete, Expression<Func<T, R>> getField, DataContext context) where T : class {
List<List<string>> partitionedDeletes = listToDelete.Select(d => string.Format("'{0}'", getField.Compile()(d).ToString())).ToList().Partition<string>(2000).ToList();
Func<Expression<Func<T, R>>, string> GetFieldName = propertyLambda => ((MemberExpression)propertyLambda.Body).Member.Name;
MetaTable metaTable = context.Mapping.GetTable(typeof(T));
string tableName = string.Format("{0}.{1}", metaTable.Model.DatabaseName, metaTable.TableName);
foreach (List<string> partitionDelete in partitionedDeletes) {
string statement = "delete from {0} where {1} in ({2})";
statement = string.Format(statement, tableName, GetFieldName(getField), string.Join(",", partitionDelete));
context.ExecuteCommand(statement);
}
}
public static IEnumerable<List<T>> Partition<T>(this IList<T> source, int size) {
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Ceiling(source.Count / (double)size); i++)
yield return new List<T>(source.Skip(size * i).Take(size));
}
Usage:
List<OrderItem> deletions = new List<OrderItem>();
// populate deletions
LinqToSqlHelper.DeleteByPropertyList<OrderItem, long>(deletions, oi => oi.OrderItemId, context);
It only works with a single field, but it could be extended to composite fields easily enough.

Related

LINQ GroupBy on single property

I am just not understanding the LINQ non-query syntax for GroupBy.
I have a collection of objects that I want to group by a single property. In this case Name
{ Id="1", Name="Bob", Age="23" }
{ Id="2", Name="Sally", Age="41" }
{ Id="3", Name="Bob", Age="73" }
{ Id="4", Name="Bob", Age="34" }
I would like to end up with a collection of all the unique names
{ Name="Bob" }
{ Name="Sally" }
Based on some examples I looked at I thought this would be the way to do it
var uniqueNameCollection = Persons.GroupBy(x => x.Name).Select(y => y.Key).ToList();
But I ended up with a collection with one item. So I though maybe I was over complicating things with the projection. I tried this
var uniqueNameCollection = Persons.GroupBy(x => x.Name).ToList();
Same result. I ended up with a single item in the collection. What am I doing wrong here? I am just looking to GroupBy the Name property.
var names = Persons.Select(p => p.Name).Distinct().ToList()
If you just want names
LINQ's GroupBy doesn't work the same way that SQL's GROUP BY does.
GroupBy takes a sequence and a function to find the field to group by as parameters, and return a sequence of IGroupings that each have a Key that is the field value that was grouped by and sequence of elements in that group.
IEnumerable<IGrouping<TSource>> GroupBy<TSource, TKey>(
IEnumerable<TSource> sequence,
Func<TSource, TKey> keySelector)
{ ... }
So if you start with a list like this:
class Person
{
public string Name;
}
var people = new List<Person> {
new Person { Name = "Adam" },
new Person { Name = "Eve" }
}
Grouping by name will look like this
IEnumerable<IGrouping<Person>> groups = people.GroupBy(person => person.Name);
You could then select the key from each group like this:
IEnumerable<string> names = groups.Select(group => group.Key);
names will be distinct because if there were multiple people with the same name, they would have been in the same group and there would only be one group with that name.
For what you need, it would probably be more efficient to just select the names and then use Distinct
var names = people.Select(p => p.Name).Distinct();
var uniqueNameCollection = Persons.GroupBy(x => x.Name).Select(y => y.Key).ToList();
Appears valid to me. .net Fiddle showing proper expected outcome: https://dotnetfiddle.net/2hqOvt
Using your data I ran the following code statement
var uniqueNameCollection = people.GroupBy(x => x.Name).Select(y => y.Key).ToList();
The return results were List
Bob
Sally
With 2 items in the List
run the following statement and your count should be 2.
people.GroupBy(x => x.Name).Select(y => y.Key).ToList().Count();
Works for me, download a nugget MoreLinq
using MoreLinq
var distinctitems = list.DistinctBy( u => u.Name);

Scalable Contains method for LINQ against a SQL backend

I'm looking for an elegant way to execute a Contains() statement in a scalable way. Please allow me to give some background before I come to the actual question.
The IN statement
In Entity Framework and LINQ to SQL the Contains statement is translated as a SQL IN statement. For instance, from this statement:
var ids = Enumerable.Range(1,10);
var courses = Courses.Where(c => ids.Contains(c.CourseID)).ToList();
Entity Framework will generate
SELECT
[Extent1].[CourseID] AS [CourseID],
[Extent1].[Title] AS [Title],
[Extent1].[Credits] AS [Credits],
[Extent1].[DepartmentID] AS [DepartmentID]
FROM [dbo].[Course] AS [Extent1]
WHERE [Extent1].[CourseID] IN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Unfortunately, the In statement is not scalable. As per MSDN:
Including an extremely large number of values (many thousands) in an IN clause can consume resources and return errors 8623 or 8632
which has to do with running out of resources or exceeding expression limits.
But before these errors occur, the IN statement becomes increasingly slow with growing numbers of items. I can't find documentation about its growth rate, but it performs well up to a few thousands of items, but beyond that it gets dramatically slow. (Based on SQL Server experiences).
Scalable
We can't always avoid this statement. A JOIN with the source data in stead would generally perform much better, but that's only possible when the source data is in the same context. Here I'm dealing with data coming from a client in a disconnected scenario. So I have been looking for a scalable solution. A satisfactory approach turned out to be cutting the operation into chunks:
var courses = ids.ToChunks(1000)
.Select(chunk => Courses.Where(c => chunk.Contains(c.CourseID)))
.SelectMany(x => x).ToList();
(where ToChunks is this little extension method).
This executes the query in chunks of 1000 that all perform well enough. With e.g. 5000 items, 5 queries will run that together are likely to be faster than one query with 5000 items.
But not DRY
But of course I don't want to scatter this construct all over my code. I am looking for an extension method by which any IQueryable<T> can be transformed into a chunky executing statement. Ideally something like this:
var courses = Courses.Where(c => ids.Contains(c.CourseID))
.AsChunky(1000)
.ToList();
But maybe this
var courses = Courses.ChunkyContains(c => c.CourseID, ids, 1000)
.ToList();
I've given the latter solution a first shot:
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> ChunkyContains<TEntity, TContains>(
this IQueryable<TEntity> query,
Expression<Func<TEntity,TContains>> match,
IEnumerable<TContains> containList,
int chunkSize = 500)
{
return containList.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select (chunk => query.Where(x => chunk.Contains(match)))
.SelectMany(x => x);
}
Obviously, the part x => chunk.Contains(match) doesn't compile. But I don't know how to manipulate the match expression into a Contains expression.
Maybe someone can help me make this solution work. And of course I'm open to other approaches to make this statement scalable.
I’ve solved this problem with a little different approach a view month ago. Maybe it’s a good solution for you too.
I didn’t want my solution to change the query itself. So a ids.ChunkContains(p.Id) or a special WhereContains method was unfeasible. Also should the solution be able to combine a Contains with another filter as well as using the same collection multiple times.
db.TestEntities.Where(p => (ids.Contains(p.Id) || ids.Contains(p.ParentId)) && p.Name.StartsWith("Test"))
So I tried to encapsulate the logic in a special ToList method that could rewrite the Expression for a specified collection to be queried in chunks.
var ids = Enumerable.Range(1, 11);
var result = db.TestEntities.Where(p => Ids.Contains(p.Id) && p.Name.StartsWith ("Test"))
.ToChunkedList(ids,4);
To rewrite the expression tree I discovered all Contains Method calls from local collections in the query with a view helping classes.
private class ContainsExpression
{
public ContainsExpression(MethodCallExpression methodCall)
{
this.MethodCall = methodCall;
}
public MethodCallExpression MethodCall { get; private set; }
public object GetValue()
{
var parent = MethodCall.Object ?? MethodCall.Arguments.FirstOrDefault();
return Expression.Lambda<Func<object>>(parent).Compile()();
}
public bool IsLocalList()
{
Expression parent = MethodCall.Object ?? MethodCall.Arguments.FirstOrDefault();
while (parent != null) {
if (parent is ConstantExpression)
return true;
var member = parent as MemberExpression;
if (member != null) {
parent = member.Expression;
} else {
parent = null;
}
}
return false;
}
}
private class FindExpressionVisitor<T> : ExpressionVisitor where T : Expression
{
public List<T> FoundItems { get; private set; }
public FindExpressionVisitor()
{
this.FoundItems = new List<T>();
}
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
var found = node as T;
if (found != null) {
this.FoundItems.Add(found);
}
return base.Visit(node);
}
}
public static List<T> ToChunkedList<T, TValue>(this IQueryable<T> query, IEnumerable<TValue> list, int chunkSize)
{
var finder = new FindExpressionVisitor<MethodCallExpression>();
finder.Visit(query.Expression);
var methodCalls = finder.FoundItems.Where(p => p.Method.Name == "Contains").Select(p => new ContainsExpression(p)).Where(p => p.IsLocalList()).ToList();
var localLists = methodCalls.Where(p => p.GetValue() == list).ToList();
If the local collection passed in the ToChunkedList method was found in the query expression, I replace the Contains call to the original list with a new call to a temporary list containing the ids for one batch.
if (localLists.Any()) {
var result = new List<T>();
var valueList = new List<TValue>();
var containsMethod = typeof(Enumerable).GetMethods(BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public)
.Single(p => p.Name == "Contains" && p.GetParameters().Count() == 2)
.MakeGenericMethod(typeof(TValue));
var queryExpression = query.Expression;
foreach (var item in localLists) {
var parameter = new List<Expression>();
parameter.Add(Expression.Constant(valueList));
if (item.MethodCall.Object == null) {
parameter.AddRange(item.MethodCall.Arguments.Skip(1));
} else {
parameter.AddRange(item.MethodCall.Arguments);
}
var call = Expression.Call(containsMethod, parameter.ToArray());
var replacer = new ExpressionReplacer(item.MethodCall,call);
queryExpression = replacer.Visit(queryExpression);
}
var chunkQuery = query.Provider.CreateQuery<T>(queryExpression);
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Ceiling((decimal)list.Count() / chunkSize); i++) {
valueList.Clear();
valueList.AddRange(list.Skip(i * chunkSize).Take(chunkSize));
result.AddRange(chunkQuery.ToList());
}
return result;
}
// if the collection was not found return query.ToList()
return query.ToList();
Expression Replacer:
private class ExpressionReplacer : ExpressionVisitor {
private Expression find, replace;
public ExpressionReplacer(Expression find, Expression replace)
{
this.find = find;
this.replace = replace;
}
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
if (node == this.find)
return this.replace;
return base.Visit(node);
}
}
Please allow me to provide an alternative to the Chunky approach.
The technique involving Contains in your predicate works well for:
A constant list of values (no volatile).
A small list of values.
Contains will do great if your local data has those two characteristics because these small set of values will be hardcoded in the final SQL query.
The problem begins when your list of values has entropy (non-constant). As of this writing, Entity Framework (Classic and Core) do not try to parameterize these values in any way, this forces SQL Server to generate a query plan every time it sees a new combination of values in your query. This operation is expensive and gets aggravated by the overall complexity of your query (e.g. many tables, a lot of values in the list, etc.).
The Chunky approach still suffers from this SQL Server query plan cache pollution problem, because it does not parametrizes the query, it just moves the cost of creating a big execution plan into smaller ones that are more easy to compute (and discard) by SQL Server, furthermore, every chunk adds an additional round-trip to the database, which increases the time needed to resolve the query.
An Efficient Solution for EF Core
🎉 NEW! QueryableValues EF6 Edition has arrived!
For EF Core keep reading below.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a way of composing local data in your query in a way that's SQL Server friendly? Enter QueryableValues.
I designed this library with these two main goals:
It MUST solve the SQL Server's query plan cache pollution problem ✅
It MUST be fast! ⚡
It has a flexible API that allows you to compose local data provided by an IEnumerable<T> and you get back an IQueryable<T>; just use it as if it were another entity of your DbContext (really), e.g.:
// Sample values.
IEnumerable<int> values = Enumerable.Range(1, 1000);
// Using a Join (query syntax).
var query1 =
from e in dbContext.MyEntities
join v in dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values) on e.Id equals v
select new
{
e.Id,
e.Name
};
// Using Contains (method syntax)
var query2 = dbContext.MyEntities
.Where(e => dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values).Contains(e.Id))
.Select(e => new
{
e.Id,
e.Name
});
You can also compose complex types!
It goes without saying that the provided IEnumerable<T> is only enumerated at the time that your query is materialized (not before), preserving the same behavior of EF Core in this regard.
How Does It Works?
Internally QueryableValues creates a parameterized query and provides your values in a serialized format that is natively understood by SQL Server. This allows your query to be resolved with a single round-trip to the database and avoids creating a new query plan on subsequent executions due to the parameterized nature of it.
Useful Links
Nuget Package
GitHub Repository
Benchmarks
SQL Server Cache Pollution Problem
QueryableValues is distributed under the MIT license
Linqkit to the rescue! Might be a better way that does it directly, but this seems to work fine and makes it pretty clear what's being done. The addition being AsExpandable(), which lets you use the Invoke extension.
using LinqKit;
public static IEnumerable<TEntity> ChunkyContains<TEntity, TContains>(
this IQueryable<TEntity> query,
Expression<Func<TEntity,TContains>> match,
IEnumerable<TContains> containList,
int chunkSize = 500)
{
return containList
.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select (chunk => query.AsExpandable()
.Where(x => chunk.Contains(match.Invoke(x))))
.SelectMany(x => x);
}
You might also want to do this:
containsList.Distinct()
.ToChunks(chunkSize)
...or something similar so you don't get duplicate results if something this occurs:
query.ChunkyContains(x => x.Id, new List<int> { 1, 1 }, 1);
Another way would be to build the predicate this way (of course, some parts should be improved, just giving the idea).
public static Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> ContainsPredicate<TEntity, TContains>(this IEnumerable<TContains> chunk, Expression<Func<TEntity, TContains>> match)
{
return Expression.Lambda<Func<TEntity, bool>>(Expression.Call(
typeof (Enumerable),
"Contains",
new[]
{
typeof (TContains)
},
Expression.Constant(chunk, typeof(IEnumerable<TContains>)), match.Body),
match.Parameters);
}
which you could call in your ChunkContains method
return containList.ToChunks(chunkSize)
.Select(chunk => query.Where(ContainsPredicate(chunk, match)))
.SelectMany(x => x);
Using a stored procedure with a table valued parameter could also work well. You in effect write a joint In the stored procedure between your table / view and the table valued parameter.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/data/adonet/sql/table-valued-parameters

Linq to Entities, Take(3) from Joined table

I am trying to populate a ViewModel in an MVC app with data from a parent table joined with a child table. The only data I want from the child table is a comma diliminated string from the Nomenclature field of the top three records and put them into a string field in the ViewModel. Here is what I have tried without success:
public IEnumerable<ReqHeaderVM> GetOpenReqs(string siteCode)
{
var openReqs = from h in context.ReqHeaders
join l in context.ReqLineItems on h.ID equals l.ReqID into reqLineItems
select new ReqHeaderVM
{
ReqID = h.ID,
ShopCode = h.ShopCode
Nomenclatures = reqLineItems.Select(x => x.Nomenclature).Take(3) // This doesn't work
};
return (openReqs.ToList());
}
Here is the ViewMdel:
public class ReqHeaderVM
{
[Editable(false)]
public string ReqID { get; set; }
public string ShopCode { get; set; }
public string Nomenclatures {get; set;}
}
Assuming that you have proper relationship (foreign key) between ReqHeaders and ReqLineItems, this should give you what you are looking for...
public IEnumerable<ReqHeaderVM> GetOpenReqs(string siteCode)
{
var openReqs = from h in context.ReqHeaders
select new
{
ReqID = h.ID,
ShopCode = h.ShopCode
Nomenclatures = h.ReqLineItems
.OrderBy(x => x.SomeColumn)
.Select(x => x.Nomenclature)
.Take(3)
};
var openReqsTran = from oreq in openReqs.AsEnumerable()
select new ReqHeaderVM
{
oreq.ReqID,
oreq.ShopCode,
Nomenclatures = string.Join(", ", oreq.Nomenclatures)
};
return (openReqsTran);
}
Note that Nomenclatures is a list of type of Nomenclature.
Yes, the join creates a single Cartesian result set. (think tabular data) what you are attempting to do. To get the results you want you have a few choices.
use lazy loading and iterate over each header querying the line items individually.
pro - simple queries
con - select n+1
query all headers and all line items, but build view model with only the top 3
pro - single query
con - large Cartesian result set query too much data
query all headers and all associated lines individuals
pro - 2 smaller, simpler queries
con - query too many line details.
query all headers and top 3 lines per header in 2 queries
pro - get only the information you require
con - complex query for top 3 lines per header.

Complex foreach loop possible to shorten to linq?

I have a cluttery piece of code that I would like to shorten using Linq. It's about the part in the foreach() loop that performs an additional grouping on the result set and builds a nested Dictionary.
Is this possible using a shorter Linq syntax?
var q = from entity in this.Context.Entities
join text in this.Context.Texts on new { ObjectType = 1, ObjectId = entity.EntityId} equals new { ObjectType = text.ObjectType, ObjectId = text.ObjectId}
into texts
select new {entity, texts};
foreach (var result in q)
{
//Can this grouping be performed in the LINQ query above?
var grouped = from tx in result.texts
group tx by tx.Language
into langGroup
select new
{
langGroup.Key,
langGroup
};
//End grouping
var byLanguage = grouped.ToDictionary(x => x.Key, x => x.langGroup.ToDictionary(y => y.PropertyName, y => y.Text));
result.f.Apply(x => x.Texts = byLanguage);
}
return q.Select(x => x.entity);
Sideinfo:
What basically happens is that "texts" for every language and for every property for a certain objecttype (in this case hardcoded 1) are selected and grouped by language. A dictionary of dictionaries is created for every language and then for every property.
Entities have a property called Texts (the dictionary of dictionaries). Apply is a custom extension method which looks like this:
public static T Apply<T>(this T subject, Action<T> action)
{
action(subject);
return subject;
}
isn't this far simpler?
foreach(var entity in Context.Entities)
{
// Create the result dictionary.
entity.Texts = new Dictionary<Language,Dictionary<PropertyName,Text>>();
// loop through each text we want to classify
foreach(var text in Context.Texts.Where(t => t.ObjectType == 1
&& t.ObjectId == entity.ObjectId))
{
var language = text.Language;
var property = text.PropertyName;
// Create the sub-level dictionary, if required
if (!entity.Texts.ContainsKey(language))
entity.Texts[language] = new Dictionary<PropertyName,Text>();
entity.Texts[language][property] = text;
}
}
Sometimes good old foreach loops do the job much better.
Language, PropertyName and Text have no type in your code, so I named my types after the names...

LINQ (Dynamic): OrderBy within a GroupBy using dynamic linq?

I had the following query using normal linq and it was working great (using anonymous type),
var result = from s in Items
group s by s.StartTime into groupedItems
select new {groupedItems.Key, Items= groupedItems.OrderBy(x => x.Name) };
But using Dynamic Linq I cannot get it to order by within the groupby.
result = Items.GroupBy("StartTime", "it").OrderBy("Name");
It states the Name isn't available. It is worth noting that if I take my OrderBy off, everything works great but items inside each "Key" are not ordered.
This is a good question!
I simulated your situation by creating a class called Item.
public class Item
{
public DateTime StartTime { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
and then created a basic list of items to do the groupby.
List<Item> Items = new List<Item>()
{
new Item() { StartTime = DateTime.Today, Name = "item2"},
new Item() { StartTime = DateTime.Today, Name = "item1"},
new Item() { StartTime = DateTime.Today.AddDays(-1), Name = "item3"},
};
Now the big difference in the 2 queries is where the order by is being performed. In the first query, when you perform groupedItems.OrderBy(x => x.Name) its being performed on a IGrouping<DateTime,Item> or a single entry as it iterates through all the groupings.
In the second query, the orderby is being performed after the fact. This means you're doing an orderby on a IEnumerable<IGrouping<DateTime,Item>> because the iterations have already happened.
Since Microsoft was nice they added something to help deal with this for expressions. This overload allows you to specify the item returned as it iterates through the collection. Here's an example of the code:
var expressionResult = Items.GroupBy(x => x.StartTime,
(key, grpItems) => new { key, Items = grpItems.OrderBy(y => y.Name) });
The second part of the GroupBy you can specify a lambda expression that takes a key and a grouping of items under that key and return an entry that you specify, which is the same as you're doing in the original query.
Hope this helps!

Resources