Multiple "order by" in LINQ - linq

I have two tables, movies and categories, and I want to get an ordered list by categoryID first and then by Name.
The movie table has three columns ID, Name and CategoryID.
The category table has two columns ID and Name.
I tried something like the following, but it didn't work.
var movies = _db.Movies.OrderBy( m => { m.CategoryID, m.Name })

This should work for you:
var movies = _db.Movies.OrderBy(c => c.Category).ThenBy(n => n.Name)

Using non-lambda, query-syntax LINQ, you can do this:
var movies = from row in _db.Movies
orderby row.Category, row.Name
select row;
[EDIT to address comment] To control the sort order, use the keywords ascending (which is the default and therefore not particularly useful) or descending, like so:
var movies = from row in _db.Movies
orderby row.Category descending, row.Name
select row;

Add "new":
var movies = _db.Movies.OrderBy( m => new { m.CategoryID, m.Name })
That works on my box. It does return something that can be used to sort. It returns an object with two values.
Similar, but different to sorting by a combined column, as follows.
var movies = _db.Movies.OrderBy( m => (m.CategoryID.ToString() + m.Name))

Use the following line on your DataContext to log the SQL activity on the DataContext to the console - then you can see exactly what your LINQ statements are requesting from the database:
_db.Log = Console.Out
The following LINQ statements:
var movies = from row in _db.Movies
orderby row.CategoryID, row.Name
select row;
AND
var movies = _db.Movies.OrderBy(m => m.CategoryID).ThenBy(m => m.Name);
produce the following SQL:
SELECT [t0].ID, [t0].[Name], [t0].CategoryID
FROM [dbo].[Movies] as [t0]
ORDER BY [t0].CategoryID, [t0].[Name]
Whereas, repeating an OrderBy in LINQ, appears to reverse the resulting SQL output:
var movies = from row in _db.Movies
orderby row.CategoryID
orderby row.Name
select row;
AND
var movies = _db.Movies.OrderBy(m => m.CategoryID).OrderBy(m => m.Name);
produce the following SQL (Name and CategoryId are switched):
SELECT [t0].ID, [t0].[Name], [t0].CategoryID
FROM [dbo].[Movies] as [t0]
ORDER BY [t0].[Name], [t0].CategoryID

I have created some extension methods (below) so you don't have to worry if an IQueryable is already ordered or not. If you want to order by multiple properties just do it as follows:
// We do not have to care if the queryable is already sorted or not.
// The order of the Smart* calls defines the order priority
queryable.SmartOrderBy(i => i.Property1).SmartOrderByDescending(i => i.Property2);
This is especially helpful if you create the ordering dynamically, f.e. from a list of properties to sort.
public static class IQueryableExtension
{
public static bool IsOrdered<T>(this IQueryable<T> queryable) {
if(queryable == null) {
throw new ArgumentNullException("queryable");
}
return queryable.Expression.Type == typeof(IOrderedQueryable<T>);
}
public static IQueryable<T> SmartOrderBy<T, TKey>(this IQueryable<T> queryable, Expression<Func<T, TKey>> keySelector) {
if(queryable.IsOrdered()) {
var orderedQuery = queryable as IOrderedQueryable<T>;
return orderedQuery.ThenBy(keySelector);
} else {
return queryable.OrderBy(keySelector);
}
}
public static IQueryable<T> SmartOrderByDescending<T, TKey>(this IQueryable<T> queryable, Expression<Func<T, TKey>> keySelector) {
if(queryable.IsOrdered()) {
var orderedQuery = queryable as IOrderedQueryable<T>;
return orderedQuery.ThenByDescending(keySelector);
} else {
return queryable.OrderByDescending(keySelector);
}
}
}

There is at least one more way to do this using LINQ, although not the easiest.
You can do it by using the OrberBy() method that uses an IComparer. First you need to
implement an IComparer for the Movie class like this:
public class MovieComparer : IComparer<Movie>
{
public int Compare(Movie x, Movie y)
{
if (x.CategoryId == y.CategoryId)
{
return x.Name.CompareTo(y.Name);
}
else
{
return x.CategoryId.CompareTo(y.CategoryId);
}
}
}
Then you can order the movies with the following syntax:
var movies = _db.Movies.OrderBy(item => item, new MovieComparer());
If you need to switch the ordering to descending for one of the items just switch the x and y inside the Compare()
method of the MovieComparer accordingly.

If use generic repository
> lstModule = _ModuleRepository.GetAll().OrderBy(x => new { x.Level,
> x.Rank}).ToList();
else
> _db.Module.Where(x=> ......).OrderBy(x => new { x.Level, x.Rank}).ToList();

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);

Distinct by Attribute inside the item on my collection

I have an IEnumerable<MyObject> collection, with N MyObject elements.
MyObject is a class with a Title, a Description and an ID (as string).
I'd like to have my collection with distinct list of MyObject, due to the ID field.
So if 2 MyObject have got the same ID, one should be deleted (don't care which, I need unique ID).
How can I do it with LINQ?
Tried :
myList = myList.GroupBy(o => o.ID);
but seems I need a cast?
You can implement a custom IEqualityComparer<MyObject>. Then you can use Enumerable.Distinct to filter out duplicates.
class DistinctIdComparer : IEqualityComparer<MyObject> {
public bool Equals(MyObject x, MyObject y) {
return x.Id == y.Id;
}
public int GetHashCode(MyObject obj) {
return obj.Id.GetHashCode();
}
}
Now it's simple:
IEnumerable<MyObject> distinct = myObjects.Distinct(new DistinctIdComparer());
Or you can use Enumerable.GroupBy what is even simpler:
distinct = myObjects.GroupBy(o => o.ID)
.Select(g => g.First());
If you wants only unique id then you can try.
var uniqueIds = myObjects.Select(x=>x.ID).Distinct();
Or for Unique ID Objects
List<MyObject> objs = new List<MyObject> ();
myObjects.ForEach(x=>{
if(objs.Find(y=>y.ID == x.ID)== null)
objs.Add(x);
});

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!

linq: Using methods in select clause

I'm breaking my head with this and decided to share my problem with you
I want to create an anonymous select from several tables, some of them may contain more than one result. i want to concatenate these results into one string
i did something like this:
var resultTable = from item in dc.table
select new
{
id= item.id,
name= CreateString((from name in item.Ref_Items_Names
select name.Name).ToList()),
};
and the CreateString() is:
private string CreateString(List<string> list)
{
StringBuilder stringedData = new StringBuilder();
for (int i = 0; i < list.Count; i++)
{
stringedData.Append(list[i] + ", ");
}
return stringedData.ToString();
}
my intentions were to convert the "name" query to list and then sent it to CreateString() to convert it to one long concatenated string.
I tried using .Aggregate((current,next) => current + "," + next);
but when i try to convert my query to DataTable like below:
public DataTable ToDataTable(Object query)
{
DataTable dt = new DataTable();
IDbCommand cmd = dc.GetCommand(query as IQueryable);
SqlDataAdapter adapter = new SqlDataAdapter();
adapter.SelectCommand = (SqlCommand)cmd;
cmd.Connection.Open();
adapter.Fill(dt);
cmd.Connection.Close();
return dt;
}
I'm getting exception that "dc.GetCommand()" can't understand query with Aggregate method
later I tried to even use this simple query:
var resultTable = from itemin dc.table
select new
{
name = CreateString()
};
When CreateString() returns "success", nothing was inserted to "name"
why there is no way of using methods in select clause?
Thank you
Yotam
There is difference between LINQ to objects and LINQ to some-db-provider. Generally speaking, when using IQueryable, you can't use any methods, except the ones your provider understands.
What you can do is to retrieve the data from the database and then do the formatting using LINQ to objects:
var data = from item in dc.table
where /* some condition */
select item;
var result = from item in data.AsEnumerable()
select new
{
name = SomeFunction(item)
}
The AsEnumerable() extension method forces processing using LINQ to objects.
Forgive me if I've miss interpreted your question. It seems that what you are trying to do is abstract your select method for reuse. If this is the case, you may consider projection using a lambda expression. For example:
internal static class MyProjectors
{
internal static Expression<Func<Object1, ReturnObject>> StringDataProjector
{
get
{
return d => new Object1()
{
//assignment here
}
}
}
}
Now you can select your datasets as such:
dc.Table.Select(MyProjectors.StringDataProjector)
As for the concatenation logic, what about selecting to some base class with an IEnumerable<string> property and a read-only property to handle the concatenation of the string?

Linq to NHibernate - select count problem

Given the classes A and B where
class A
{
string Name;
Ilist<B> BList;
}
class B
{
string Name;
}
With FluentNH mapping, relationship is many-to-many which is HasManyToMany(x => x.B) for A. B has no reference to A. NH version is 2.1.2.4000.
What should be the linq query to select the collection where each row contains B.Name and count of A's containing that B? Result must be the List of anonymous type who has 2 fields: Name and Count. Result also should include all B's, hence it should be outer join.
My intend is to get the result with minimum round-trips to database, possibly in one go.
If you want to do it in Linq in one hit in code, you could do this...
var result = Session.Linq<A>()
.SelectMany(a => a.BList, (a, b) => new { b.Name, A = a.Id })
.ToList()
.GroupBy(x => x.Name)
.Select(x => new { Name = x.Key, Count = x.Count() })
.ToList();
NHibernate.Linq (2.1.2.4000) can't handle a GroupBy after a SelectMany it seems, so the first ToList pulls all the data into memory. This is inefficient -- a SQL count would be better.
Alternatively, you could add a lazy loaded collection to your B class that goes back to A. If you're using a many-to-many table in the middle, that should be easy.
public class B
{
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual IList<A> AList { get; private set; }
}
Your query simply becomes...
var result = Session.Linq<B>()
.Where(b => b.AList.Count > 0)
.Select(b => new { b.Name, b.AList.Count }
.ToList();
Which produces very efficient SQL from Linq (using a count) and gives the same result.

Resources