I have 2 tables which in simplified form look like this:
Products(
id: int,
name: varchar
);
ProductSpecs(
product_id: int,
spec_name: varchar,
spec_value: int
);
Now I need to sort products (in linq to sql) by value of some specification item (eg. "price"). So I do something like this
var products = from p in db.Products
from ps in p.ProductsSpecs
where ps.spec_name == "price"
orderby ps.spec_value
select p;
The problem is that if there's no such ProductSpec with spec_name "price" the product is not included at all. I can add these products with Union or Concat but this way the sorting of the first part is not preserved.
What is the best way to deal with this?
Thanks.
First, I would recommend that you either do this in pure SQL as a function or Stored Procedure and then access this through linq, or add a price column to your product table. It seems like price would be a normal attribute to add to all of your products even if that price is NULL.
SQL:
select p.*
from products p
left outer join productspecs ps on
p.id = ps.product_id
and ps.spec_name = 'Price'
order by ps.spec_value
With that said, here's the weird bit of LINQ that should work on your table (I might have some of the column names spelled incorrectly):
var products = from p in db.Products
join ps in (from pss in db.ProductSpecs
where pss.spec_name== "Price"
select pss
) on p.id equals ps.product_id into temp
from t in temp.DefaultIfEmpty()
orderby t.spec_value
select p;
I tested this on some tables setup like above and created 5 products, three with prices in different value orders and this LINQ ordered them just like the SQL above and returned the null result rows as well.
Hope this works!
In ordinary SQL, you'd use an LEFT OUTER JOIN. This preserves rows that appear in the left-hand table (the one listed first), even when there's no matching row in the right-hand table (the second one listed, and the one that is outer joined). You end up with nulls for the values that should be, but weren't, present in the right-hand table. So, the price for those items missing a price would appear as NULL.
What that translates to in LINQ to SQL is another matter.
You might care to think about whether it is reasonable to have products that do not have a price. You're emulating something called EAV - Entity, Attribute, Value - tables, and they are generally regarded as 'not a good thing'.
Can you not just do a simple join?
var products =
from p in db.Products
join ps in db.ProductSpecs on p.id equals ps.product_id
where ps.spec_name == "price"
orderby ps.spec_value
select p;
Related
I have one table, 'a', with id and timestamp. Another table, 'b', has N multiple rows referring to id, and each row has 'type', and "some other data".
I want a LINQ query to produce a single row with id, timestamp, and "some other data" x N. Like this:
1 | 4671 | 46.5 | 56.5
where 46.5 is from one row of 'b', and 56.5 is from another row; both with the same id.
I have a working query in SQLite, but I am new to LINQ. I dont know where to start - I don't think this is a JOIN at all.
SELECT
a.id as id,
a.seconds,
COALESCE(
(SELECT b.some_data FROM
b WHERE
b.id=a.id AND b.type=1), '') AS 'data_one',
COALESCE(
(SELECT b.some_data FROM
b WHERE
b.id=a.id AND b.type=2), '') AS 'data_two'
FROM a first
WHERE first.id=1
GROUP BY first.ID
you didn't mention if you are using Linq to sql or linq to entities. However following query should get u there
(from x in a
join y in b on x.id equals y.id
select new{x.id, x.seconds, y.some_data, y.type}).GroupBy(x=>new{x.id,x.seconds}).
Select(x=>new{
id = x.key.id,
seconds = x.Key.seconds,
data_one = x.Where(z=>z.type == 1).Select(g=>g.some_data).FirstOrDefault(),
data_two = x.Where(z=>z.type == 2).Select(g=>g.some_data).FirstOrDefault()
});
Obviously, you have to prefix your table names with datacontext or Objectcontext depending upon the underlying provider.
What you want to do is similar to pivoting, see Is it possible to Pivot data using LINQ?. The difference here is that you don't really need to aggregate (like a standard pivot), so you'll need to use Max or some similar method that can simulate selecting a single varchar field.
I have two classes: Property and PropertyValue. A property has several values where each value is a new revision.
When retrieving a set of properties I want to include the latest revision of the value for each property.
in T-SQL this can very efficiently be done like this:
SELECT
p.Id,
pv1.StringValue,
pv1.Revision
FROM dbo.PropertyValues pv1
LEFT JOIN dbo.PropertyValues pv2 ON pv1.Property_Id = pv2.Property_Id AND pv1.Revision < pv2.Revision
JOIN dbo.Properties p ON p.Id = pv1.Property_Id
WHERE pv2.Id IS NULL
ORDER BY p.Id
The "magic" in this query is to join on the lesser than condition and look for rows without a result forced by the LEFT JOIN.
How can I accomplish something similar using LINQ to EF?
The best thing I could come up with was:
from pv in context.PropertyValues
group pv by pv.Property into g
select g.OrderByDescending(p => p.Revision).FirstOrDefault()
It does produce the correct result but is about 10 times slower than the other.
Maybe this can help. Where db is the database context:
(
from pv1 in db.PropertyValues
from pv2 in db.PropertyValues.Where(a=>a.Property_Id==pv1.Property_Id && pv1.Revision<pv2.Revision).DefaultIfEmpty()
join p in db.Properties
on pv1.Property_Id equals p.Id
where pv2.Id==null
orderby p.Id
select new
{
p.Id,
pv1.StringValue,
pv1.Revision
}
);
Next to optimizing a query in Linq To Entities, you also have to be aware of the work it takes for the Entity Framework to translate your query to SQL and then map the results back to your objects.
Comparing a Linq To Entities query directly to a SQL query will always result in lower performance because the Entity Framework does a lot more work for you.
So it's also important to look at optimizing the steps the Entity Framework takes.
Things that could help:
Precompile your query
Pre-generate views
Decide for yourself when to open the database connection
Disable tracking (if appropriate)
Here you can find some documentation with performance strategies.
if you want to use multiple conditions (less than expression) in join you can do this like
from pv1 in db.PropertyValues
join pv2 in db.PropertyValues on new{pv1.Property_ID, Condition = pv1.Revision < pv2.Revision} equals new {pv2.Property_ID , Condition = true} into temp
from t in temp.DefaultIfEmpty()
join p in db.Properties
on pv1.Property_Id equals p.Id
where t.Id==null
orderby p.Id
select new
{
p.Id,
pv1.StringValue,
pv1.Revision
}
I have two tables in the database one contains a list of all possible grocery values. For Example
Milk
Cheese
Bread
Meat
the second table contains Items from Grocery that are selected. For Example:
Milk
Cheese
I want a result that has all possible grocery items with Milk and Cheese selected.
Any ideas?
Here are the tables.
The GroceryList Table:
ID INT PK
Description Varchar(50)
The ShoppingList Table:
ID INT PK
GroceryListID int FK to GroceryList.ID
So the resulting Entity would be all items from GroceryList and if they exist in ShoppingList then selected is marked as true:
ShoppingList.ID
Grocerylists.Description
Selected
Based on understanding you can do something like this
//first get the list of product which satisfy your condition
var ids = (from p ShoppingList
select p.GroceryListID ).ToList();
//second filter the Grocery products by using contains
var myProducts = from p in GroceryList
where ids.Contains(p.ID)
Select p;
or
if you want to get info about join than this image would help you
Inner Join
Outer Join
Try to understand and which may help you to resolve your query
Edit: Still sounds like you want to do a left join. In your case:
var LINQResult = from g in Datacontext.GroceryList
from s in DataContext.ShoppingList
.Where(c=>c.ID == g.ID)
.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new {
g.ID,
g.Description,
s.ID // Will be null if not selected.
};
For more examples:
Left Join on multiple tables in Linq to SQL
For the sake of this question, let's assume I have tables 'A' and 'B' and there is a 1:1 relationship between them. In a Linq query, I can do the following:
from row in A
where row.B.Description = someValue
select A
Where row.B is the reference to table 'B'.
However, let's now assume there is a 1:M relationship between 'A' and 'B'. The above query no longer works. It seems I need to explicitly use 'join' as follows:
from row in A
join row1 in B on row.BId = row1.BId
where row1.Description = someValue
select A
My question is this. Am I correct that for 1:M relationships, 'join' is required? Or is there are way to do this query, without using join, like in the 1:1 case?
You don't have to join explicitly, select many will do the trick
from row in A
from row1 in row.B
where row1.Description == someValue
select row
alternatively (although I really don't like it)
from row in A
where row.B.Any(b => b.Description == someValue)
select row
With the first option you will need to do a Distinct() on the result if there are many B's that have the same description.
In theory, you should always use Join, if nothing else, then for clarity and readability. But in any 1:M case, you need to specify how the tables relate to each other. Just as you would have to do in SQL.
I have the following Linq statement:
(from order in Orders.AsEnumerable()
join component in Components.AsEnumerable()
on order.ORDER_ID equals component.ORDER_ID
join detail in Detailss.AsEnumerable()
on component.RESULT_ID equals detail.RESULT_ID
where orderRestrict.ORDER_MNEMONIC == "MyOrderText"
select new
{
Mnemonic = detail.TEST_MNEMONIC,
OrderID = component.ORDER_ID,
SeqNumber = component.SEQ_NUM
}).ToList()
I expect this to put out the following query:
select *
from Orders ord (NoLock)
join Component comp (NoLock)
on ord .ORDER_ID = comp.ORDER_ID
join Details detail (NoLock)
on comp.RESULT_TEST_NUM = detail .RESULT_TEST_NUM
where res.ORDER_MNEMONIC = 'MyOrderText'
but instead I get 3 seperate queries that select all rows from the tables. I am guessing that Linq is then filtering the values because I do get the correct values in the end.
The problem is that it takes WAY WAY too long because it is pulling down all the rows from all three tables.
Any ideas how I can fix that?
Remove the .AsEnumerable()s from the query as these are preventing the entire query being evaluated on the server.