I need help with Linq Contains method. Here's the code below.
This code does work but outputs an empty sets.
var query = _context.RegistrationCodes.Select(x => x);
if (request.OperatorId != null && request.OperatorId != Guid.Empty)
{
var checkOperator = _context.Operators.Include(a => a.OperatorLevel).Include(a => a.City).Include("City.StateRegion.Country").FirstOrDefault(a => a.Id == request.OperatorId);
List<String> Cities = new List<String>();
if (checkOperator.OperatorLevel.Name == "City")
{
Cities = await _context.Cities
.Where(a => (checkOperator.CityId) == (a.Id))
.Select(a => a.Code)
.ToListAsync();
}
else if (checkOperator.OperatorLevel.Name == "Regional")
{
Cities = await _context.Cities
.Where(a => checkOperator.City.StateRegionId == a.StateRegionId)
.Select(a => a.Code)
.ToListAsync();
}
else if (checkOperator.OperatorLevel.Name == "National")
{
List<Guid> StateRegion = await _context.StateRegions
.Where(a => checkOperator.City.StateRegion.CountryId == a.CountryId)
.Select(a => a.Id)
.ToListAsync();
Cities = await _context.Cities
.Where(a => StateRegion.Contains(a.StateRegionId))
.Select(a => a.Code)
.ToListAsync();
}
var nullableStrings = Cities.Cast<String?>().ToList();
query = query.Where(a => nullableStrings.Contains(a.Code));
}
I need to compare nullableStrings to a.Code which is something like this, but does not work.
query = query.Where(a => a.Code.Contains(nullableStrings));
Error : Argument 1: cannot convert from 'System.Collections.Generic.List' to 'char'
I need a method that would replace
query = query.Where(a => nullableStrings.Contains(a.Code));
A help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Looking at the code, my guess is the requirement is to get a list of operators depending on the current (check) operator's level. I suspect the issue you are encountering is that some cities may not have a code. You then want to apply all found codes to another query that you are building up.
My guess is that the crux of the problem is that some cities might not have a code, hence the concern for null-able strings, while others might have multiple codes hacked into a single-code intended field. The solution there would typically be to remove any null values
Firstly, this line:
var checkOperator = _context.Operators.Include(a => a.OperatorLevel).Include(a => a.City).Include("City.StateRegion.Country").FirstOrDefault(a => a.Id == request.OperatorId);
can be simplified to:
var checkOperator = _context.Operators
.Select(a => new
{
Level = a.OperatorLevel.Name,
CityId = a.City.Id,
CityCode = a.City.Code,
StateRegionId = a.City.StateRegion.Id,
CountryId = a.City.StateRegion.Country.Id
}).FirstOrDefault(a => a.Id == request.OperatorId);
This builds a faster query, rather than fetching an entire operator object graph, just select the fields from the object graph that we need.
Now to handle the operator level. Here I don't recommend trying to force every scenario into a single pattern. The goal is just to apply a filter to the built query, so have the scenarios do just that:
select (checkOperator.Level)
{
case "City":
query = query.Where(a => a.Code == checkOperator.CityCode);
break;
case "Regional":
var cityCodes = await _context.Cities
.Where(a => a.Code != null && a.StateRegion.Id == checkOperator.StateRegionId)
.Select(a => a.Code)
.ToListAsync();
query = query.Where(a => cityCodes.Contains(a.Code));
break;
case "Country":
var cityCodes = await _context.Cities
.Where(a => a.Code != null && a.StateRegion.Country.Id == checkOperator.CountryId)
.Select(a => a.Code)
.ToListAsync();
query = query.Where(a => cityCodes.Contains(a.Code));
break;
}
Now based on the comments it sounds like your data with cities and codes is breaking proper normalization where Code was intended as a 1-to-1 but later hacked to handle one city having multiple codes, so multiple values were concatenated with hyphens. (I.e. ABC-DEF) If this represents 2 Codes for the city then you will need to handle this..
private List<string> splitCityCodes(List<string> cityCodes)
{
if (cityCodes == null) throw NullReferenceException(nameof(cityCodes));
if (!cityCodes.Any()) throw new ArgumentException("At least one city code is expected.");
var multiCodes = cityCodes.Where(x => x.Contains("-")).ToList();
if (!multiCodes.Any())
return cityCodes;
var results = new List<string>(cityCodes);
results.RemoveRange(multiCodes);
foreach(var multiCode in multiCodes)
{
var codes = multiCode.Split("-");
results.AddRange(codes);
}
return results.Distinct();
}
That can probably be optimized, but the gist is to take the city codes, look for hyphenated values and split them up, then return a distinct list to remove any duplicates.
List<string> cityCodes = new List<string>();
select (checkOperator.Level)
{
case "City":
cityCodes = splitCityCodes(new []{checkOperator.CityCode}.ToList());
if(cityCodes.Count == 1)
query = query.Where(a => a.Code == cityCodes[0]);
else
query = query.Where(a => cityCodes.Contains(a.Code));
break;
case "Regional":
cityCodes = await _context.Cities
.Where(a => a.Code != null && a.StateRegion.Id == checkOperator.StateRegionId)
.Select(a => a.Code)
.ToListAsync();
cityCodes = splitCityCodes(cityCodes);
query = query.Where(a => cityCodes.Contains(a.Code));
break;
case "Country":
cityCodes = await _context.Cities
.Where(a => a.Code != null && a.StateRegion.Country.Id == checkOperator.CountryId)
.Select(a => a.Code)
.ToListAsync();
cityCodes = splitCityCodes(cityCodes);
query = query.Where(a => cityCodes.Contains(a.Code));
break;
}
... and I suspect that would about do it for handling the possibility of a city code containing multiple values.
If your search argument is in the form "ABC-DEF" and you want that to match "ABC" OR "DEF" then it can be done, but it is not clear from your data setup how that scenario comes about.
Lets assume these codes are airport codes, and that a city that has multiple airports has the City.Code as a hyphenated list of the Airport codes, then if the checkOperator is in Australia, and their OperatorLevel is "National" then this might build the following nullableStrings:
var Cities = new List<string> {
"PER",
"ADE",
"DRW",
"MEL-AVV",
"SYD",
"BNE",
"OOL",
"HBA"
};
If then your query is a listing of AirPorts and you want to search the airports by these codes, specifically to match both "MEL" and "AVV" then you can use syntax like this
var nullableStrings = Cities.Cast<String?>().ToList();
query = query.Where(ap => nullableStrings.Any(n => n.Contains(ap.Code)));
But if you intend this to be translated to SQL via LINQ to Entities (so be executed server-side) then we can make this query more efficient buy normalizing the search args so we can do an exact match lookup:
var nullableStrings = Cities.Where(x => !String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace (x))
.SelectMany(x => x.Split('-'))
.Cast<String?>()
.ToList();
query = query.Where(ap => nullableStrings.Contains(ap.Code));
As this routine is called as part of a larger set and your checkOperator goes out of scope, you should try to reduce the fields that you retrieve from the database to the specific set that this query needs through a projection
Using .Select() to project out specific fields can help improve the overall efficiency of the database, not just each individual query. If the additional fields are minimal or natural surrogate keys, and your projections are common to other query scenarios then they can make good candidates for specific index optimizations.
Instead of loading SELECT * from all these table in this include list:
var checkOperator = _context.Operators.Include(a => a.OperatorLevel)
.Include(a => a.City.StateRegion.Country)
.FirstOrDefault(a => a.Id == request.OperatorId);
So instead of all the fields from OperatorLevel, City, StateRegion, Country we can load just the fields that our logic needs:
var checkOperator = _context.Operators.Where(o => o.Id == request.OperatorId)
.Select(o => new {
OperatorLevelName = o.OperatorLevel.Name,
o.CityId,
o.City.StateRegionId,
o.City.StateRegion.CountryId
})
.FirstOrDefault();
So many of the EF has poor performance opinions out there stem from a lot of poorly defined examples that proliferate the web. Eagerly loading is the same as executing SELECT * FROM ... for simple tables it's only a bandwidth and memory waste, but for complex tables that have computed columns or custom expressions there can be significant server CPU costs.
It cannot be overstated the improvements that you can experience if you use projections to expose only the specific sub-set of the data that you need, especially if you will not be attempting to modify the results of the query.
Be a good corporate citizen, only take what you need!
So lets put this back into your logic:
if (request.OperatorId != null && request.OperatorId != Guid.Empty)
{
var checkOperator = _context.Operators.Where(o => o.Id == request.OperatorId)
.Select(o => new {
OperatorLevelName = o.OperatorLevel.Name,
o.CityId,
o.City.StateRegionId,
o.City.StateRegion.CountryId
})
.FirstOrDefault();
IQueryable<City> cityQuery = null;
if (checkOperator.OperatorLevelName == "City")
cityQuery = _context.Cities
.Where(a => checkOperator.CityId == a.Id);
else if (checkOperator.OperatorLevelName == "Regional")
cityQuery = _context. Cities
.Where(a => checkOperator.StateRegionId == a.StateRegionId);
else if (checkOperator.OperatorLevelName == "National")
cityQuery = _context. Cities
.Where(c => c.StateRegion.CountryId == checkOperator.CountryId);
// TODO: is there any default filter when operator level is something else?
if (cityQuery != null)
{
var nullableStrings = cityQuery.Select(a => a.Code)
.ToList()
.Where(x => !String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(x))
.SelectMany(x => x.Split('-'))
.Cast<String?>()
.ToList();
query = query.Where(ap => nullableStrings.Contains(ap.Code));
}
}
If you don't want or need to normalize the strings, then you can defer this whole expression without realizing the city query at all:
// No nullable string, but we can still remove missing Codes
cityQuery = cityQuery.Where(c => c.Code != null);
query = query.Where(ap => cityQuery.Any(c => c.Code.Contains(ap.Code)));
Related
Currently I am doing a keyword search on the Plates table (Name column) but also have a Search (searching on SearchTerm column) table which contains Plat Id's that I also want to search and return the corresponding platforms.
The code below works but I'd like to simplify the logic using an .Include statement if possible although I'm not quite sure how. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(request.Keyword))
{
var searchTermPlateIds = await _db.Search
.Where(x=> x.SearchTerm.ToLower().Contains(request.Keyword.Trim().ToLower()))
.Select(x => x.PlatformId)
.ToListAsync(ct);
var plateFromPlateIds = await _db.Plate
.OrderBy(x => x.Name)
.Where(x => searchTermPlateIds.Contains(x.Id) && x.Status != PlateStatus.Disabled)
.ToListAsync(ct);
plates = await _db.Plates
.OrderBy(x => x.Name)
.Where(x => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(request.Keyword.Trim()) && x.Name.ToLower().Contains(request.Keyword.Trim().ToLower()) && x.Status != PlateStatus.Disabled)
.ToListAsync(ct);
plates = plates.Union(platesFromPlateIds).ToList();
}
Remember simple thing, Include ONLY for loading related data, not for filtering.
What we can do here - optimize query, to make only one request to database, instead of three.
var query = _db.Plates
.Where(x => x.Status != PlateStatus.Disabled);
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(request.Keyword))
{
// do not materialize Ids
var searchTermPlateIds = _db.Search
.Where(x => x.SearchTerm.ToLower().Contains(request.Keyword.Trim().ToLower()))
.Select(x => x.PlatformId);
// queryable will be combined into one query
query = query
.Where(x => searchTermPlateIds.Contains(x.Id);
}
// final materialization, here you can add Includes if needed.
var plates = await query
.OrderBy(x => x.Name)
.ToListAsync(ct);
I have the following Entity Framework 2.0 query:
var user = context.Users.AsNoTracking()
.Include(x => x.UserSkills).ThenInclude(x => x.Skill)
.Include(x => x.UserSkills).ThenInclude(x => x.SkillLevel)
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Id == userId);
var userSkills = user.UserSkills.Select(z => new {
SkillId = z.SkillId,
SkillLevelId = z.SkillLevelId
}).ToList()
Then I tried the following query:
var lessons = _context.Lessons.AsNoTracking()
.Where(x => x.LessonSkills.All(y =>
userSkills.Any(z => y.SkillId == z.SkillId && y.SkillLevelId <= z.SkillLevelId)))
.ToList();
This query evaluates locally and I get the message:
The LINQ expression 'where (([y].SkillId == [z].SkillId) AndAlso ([y].SkillLevelId <= [z].SkillLevelId))' could not be translated and will be evaluated locally.'.
I tried to solve it using userSkills instead of user.UserSkills but no luck.
Is there a way to run this query on the server?
You should try limiting the usage of in-memory collections inside LINQ to Entities queries to basically Contains on primitive value collection, which currently is the only server translatable construct.
Since Contains is not applicable here, you should not use the memory collection, but the corresponding server side subquery:
var userSkills = context.UserSkills
.Where(x => x.UserId == userId);
var lessons = context.Lessons.AsNoTracking()
.Where(x => x.LessonSkills.All(y =>
userSkills.Any(z => y.SkillId == z.SkillId && y.SkillLevelId <= z.SkillLevelId)))
.ToList();
or even embed the first subquery into the main query:
var lessons = context.Lessons.AsNoTracking()
.Where(x => x.LessonSkills.All(y =>
context.UserSkills.Any(z => z.UserId == userId && y.SkillId == z.SkillId && y.SkillLevelId <= z.SkillLevelId)))
.ToList();
Use Contains on the server then filter further on the client:
var userSkillIds = userSkills.Select(s => s.SkillId).ToList();
var lessons = _context.Lessons.AsNoTracking()
.Where(lsn => lsn.LessonSkills.All(lsnskill => userSkillIds.Contains(lsnskill.SkillId)))
.AsEnumerable() // depending on EF Core translation, may not be needed
.Where(lsn => lsn.LessonSkills.All(lsnskill => userSkills.Any(uskill => uskill.SkillId == lsnskill.SkillId && lsnskill.SkillLevelId <= uskill.SkillLevelId)))
.ToList();
I have a following working SQL query:
SELECT * FROM truck t
WHERE t.currentlocationdbid IN (SELECT dbid FROM location WHERE name = 'Los Angeles')
OR t.nextdestinationdbid IN (SELECT dbid FROM location WHERE name = 'Chicago' OR name = 'New York');
I'd like to write this in NHibernate. With multiple trips to DB for each entity it works, of course, but I'd like to make it a one trip. Looked into examples with detached queries like this, this or this but none worked for me. Tried to do it also with aliases and criterias.
One of dozens of attempts:
var subQuery1 = QueryOver.Of<LocationEntity>().Where(l => l.Name == LocationNameEnum.LA);
var subQuery2 = QueryOver.Of<LocationEntity>().Where(l => l.Name == LocationNameEnum.CHG || l.Name == LocationNameEnum.NY);
var poc = session.QueryOver<TruckEntity>()
.WithSubquery.WhereProperty(t => t.CurrentLocation).In(subQuery1)
.WithSubquery.WhereProperty(t => t.NextDestination).In(subQuery2)
.List<TruckEntity>();
Thanks in advance for any suggestion.
You got it almost right, you are only missing the .Where(Restrictions.Disjunction()...) for the or in SQL.
Based on your code (assuming that you have a property Id in LocationEntity):
// get IDs to look for in CurrentLocation
var subQuery1 = QueryOver.Of<LocationEntity>()
.Where(l => l.Name == LocationNameEnum.LA)
.Select(x => x.Id);
// get IDs to look for in NextDestination
var subQuery2 = QueryOver.Of<LocationEntity>()
.Where(l => l.Name == LocationNameEnum.CHG || l.Name == LocationNameEnum.NY)
.Select(x => x.Id);
var poc = session.QueryOver<TruckEntity>()
.Where(Restrictions.Disjunction() // this takes care of the OR
.Add(Subqueries.WhereProperty<TruckEntity>(x => x.CurrentLocation.Id).In(subQuery1))
.Add(Subqueries.WhereProperty<TruckEntity>(x => x.NextDestination.Id).In(subQuery2))
)
.List<TruckEntity>();
I want to retrieve a list of games from my database and the count the number of games that a specified team won and lost and put it into an object with a win and loss property. I was trying this but it doesn't seem to be correct.
var winLoss = _teamService.GetGames()
.Where(x => x.Result != "Tie")
.GroupBy(x => x.Result)
.Select(x => new
{
Wins = x.Count(a => a.Result == "Hello"),
Losses = x.Count(a => a.Result != "Hello")
});
The return type for this is an IQueryable whereas I want it to just be a single object with a Win and Loss property.
Doing a GroupBy on the Results would put all the Wins for the current team into one group and then separate groups for each team they lost to in their own separate group.
Using a LINQ query you're going to end up with a collection, but what you care about is essentially a list of keys and values. I believe this will supply you the information you're looking for:
var winLoss = _teamService.GetGames()
.Where(x => x.Result != "Tie").GroupBy(x => x.Result)
.ToDictionary(e => e.Key, e => e.Count());
int wins = 0;
int losses = 0;
winLoss.TryGetValue("WIN", out wins);
winLoss.TryGetValue("LOSS", out losses);
I just went with two simple count calls to the SQL database.
Wins = _teamService.GetGames().Count(x => x.Result == "Name");
Loses = _teamService.GetGames().IsNotTie().Count(x => x.Result != "Name");
It's not 100% what I wanted but to do it in one call involved more complicated LINQ and therefore more complicated SQL.
You need to count the wins and losses for each team:
var winLoss = _teamService.GetGames()
.GroupBy(x => x.Team)
.Where(gg => gg.Key == "Hello")
.Select(gg => new
{
Wins = gg.Count(g => g.Result == "Hello"),
Losses = gg.Count(g => g.Result != "Hello")
});
Add FirstOrDefault() at the end of your linq query so you will get only the first element:
var winLoss = _teamService.GetGames()
.Where(x => x.Result != "Tie").GroupBy(x => x.Result);
var win = winLoss.Select(x => x.Count(a => a.Result == "Hello")).FirstOrDefault();
var loose = winLoss.Select(x => x.Count(a => a.Result != "Hello")).FirstOrDefault();
I'm working on a report right now that runs great with our on-premises DB (just refreshed from PROD). However, when I deploy the site to Azure, I get a SQL Timeout during its execution. If I point my development instance at the SQL Azure instance, I get a timeout as well.
Goal: To output a list of customers that have had an activity created during the search range, and when that customer is found, get some other information about that customer regarding policies, etc. I've removed some of the properties below for brevity (as best I can)...
UPDATE
After lots of trial and error, I can get the entire query to run fairly consistently within 1000MS so long as this block of code is not executed.
CurrentStatus = a.Activities
.Where(b => b.ActivityType.IsReportable)
.OrderByDescending(b => b.DueDateTime)
.Select(b => b.Status.Name)
.FirstOrDefault(),
With this code in place, things begin to go haywire. I think this Where clause is a big part of it: .Where(b => b.ActivityType.IsReportable). What is the best way to grab the status name?
EXISTING CODE
Any thoughts as to why SQL Azure would timeout whereas on-premises would turn this around in less than 100MS?
return db.Customers
.Where(a => a.Activities.Where(
b => b.CreatedDateTime >= search.BeginDateCreated
&& b.CreatedDateTime <= search.EndDateCreated).Count() > 0)
.Where(a => a.CustomerGroup.Any(d => d.GroupId== search.GroupId))
.Select(a => new CustomCustomerReport
{
CustomerId = a.Id,
Manager = a.Manager.Name,
Customer = a.FirstName + " " + a.LastName,
ContactSource= a.ContactSource!= null ? a.ContactSource.Name : "Unknown",
ContactDate = a.DateCreated,
NewSale = a.Sales
.Where(p => p.Employee.IsActive)
.OrderByDescending(p => p.DateCreated)
.Select(p => new PolicyViewModel
{
//MISC PROPERTIES
}).FirstOrDefault(),
ExistingSale = a.Sales
.Where(p => p.CancellationDate == null || p.CancellationDate <= myDate)
.Where(p => p.SaleDate < myDate)
.OrderByDescending(p => p.DateCreated)
.Select(p => new SalesViewModel
{
//MISC PROPERTIES
}).FirstOrDefault(),
CurrentStatus = a.Activities
.Where(b => b.ActivityType.IsReportable)
.OrderByDescending(b => b.DueDateTime)
.Select(b => b.Disposition.Name)
.FirstOrDefault(),
CustomerGroup = a.CustomerGroup
.Where(cd => cd.GroupId == search.GroupId)
.Select(cd => new GroupViewModel
{
//MISC PROPERTIES
}).FirstOrDefault()
}).ToList();
I cannot give you a definite answer but I would recommend approaching the problem by:
Run SQL profiler locally when this code is executed and see what SQL is generated and run. Look at the query execution plan for each query and look for table scans and other slow operations. Add indexes as needed.
Check your lambdas for things that cannot be easily translated into SQL. You might be pulling the contents of a table into memory and running lambdas on the results, which will be very slow. Change your lambdas or consider writing raw SQL.
Is the Azure database the same as your local database? If not, pull the data locally so your local system is indicative.
Remove sections (i.e. CustomerGroup then CurrentDisposition then ExistingSale then NewSale) and see if there is a significant performance improvement after removing the last section. Focus on the last removed section.
Looking at the line itself:
You use ".Count() > 0" on line 4. Use ".Any()" instead, since the former goes through every row in the database to get you an accurate count when you just want to know if at least one row satisfies the requirements.
Ensure fields referenced in where clauses have indexes, such as IsReportable.
Short answer: use memory.
Long answer:
Because of either bad maintenance plans or limited hardware, running this query in one big lump is what's causing it to fail on Azure. Even if that weren't the case, because of all the navigation properties you're using, this query would generate a staggering number of joins. The answer here is to break it down in smaller pieces that Azure can run. I'm going to try to rewrite your query into multiple smaller, easier to digest queries that use the memory of your .NET application. Please bear with me as I make (more or less) educated guesses about your business logic/db schema and rewrite the query accordingly. Sorry for using the query form of LINQ but I find things such as join and group by are more readable in that form.
var activityFilterCustomerIds = db.Activities
.Where(a =>
a.CreatedDateTime >= search.BeginDateCreated &&
a.CreatedDateTime <= search.EndDateCreated)
.Select(a => a.CustomerId)
.Distinct()
.ToList();
var groupFilterCustomerIds = db.CustomerGroup
.Where(g => g.GroupId = search.GroupId)
.Select(g => g.CustomerId)
.Distinct()
.ToList();
var customers = db.Customers
.AsNoTracking()
.Where(c =>
activityFilterCustomerIds.Contains(c.Id) &&
groupFilterCustomerIds.Contains(c.Id))
.ToList();
var customerIds = customers.Select(x => x.Id).ToList();
var newSales =
(from s in db.Sales
where customerIds.Contains(s.CustomerId)
&& s.Employee.IsActive
group s by s.CustomerId into grouped
select new
{
CustomerId = grouped.Key,
Sale = grouped
.OrderByDescending(x => x.DateCreated)
.Select(new PolicyViewModel
{
// properties
})
.FirstOrDefault()
}).ToList();
var existingSales =
(from s in db.Sales
where customerIds.Contains(s.CustomerId)
&& (s.CancellationDate == null || s.CancellationDate <= myDate)
&& s.SaleDate < myDate
group s by s.CustomerId into grouped
select new
{
CustomerId = grouped.Key,
Sale = grouped
.OrderByDescending(x => x.DateCreated)
.Select(new SalesViewModel
{
// properties
})
.FirstOrDefault()
}).ToList();
var currentStatuses =
(from a in db.Activities.AsNoTracking()
where customerIds.Contains(a.CustomerId)
&& a.ActivityType.IsReportable
group a by a.CustomerId into grouped
select new
{
CustomerId = grouped.Key,
Status = grouped
.OrderByDescending(x => x.DueDateTime)
.Select(x => x.Disposition.Name)
.FirstOrDefault()
}).ToList();
var customerGroups =
(from cg in db.CustomerGroups
where cg.GroupId == search.GroupId
group cg by cg.CustomerId into grouped
select new
{
CustomerId = grouped.Key,
Group = grouped
.Select(x =>
new GroupViewModel
{
// ...
})
.FirstOrDefault()
}).ToList();
return customers
.Select(c =>
new CustomCustomerReport
{
// ... simple props
// ...
// ...
NewSale = newSales
.Where(s => s.CustomerId == c.Id)
.Select(x => x.Sale)
.FirstOrDefault(),
ExistingSale = existingSales
.Where(s => s.CustomerId == c.Id)
.Select(x => x.Sale)
.FirstOrDefault(),
CurrentStatus = currentStatuses
.Where(s => s.CustomerId == c.Id)
.Select(x => x.Status)
.FirstOrDefault(),
CustomerGroup = customerGroups
.Where(s => s.CustomerId == c.Id)
.Select(x => x.Group)
.FirstOrDefault(),
})
.ToList();
Hard to suggest anything without seeing actual table definitions, espectially the indexes and foreign keys on Activities entity.
As far I understand Activity (CustomerId, ActivityTypeId, DueDateTime, DispositionId). If this is standard warehousing table (DateTime, ClientId, Activity), I'd suggest the following:
If number of Activities is reasonably small, then force the use of CONTAINS by
var activities = db.Activities.Where( x => x.IsReportable ).ToList();
...
.Where( b => activities.Contains(b.Activity) )
You can even help the optimiser by specifying that you want ActivityId.
Indexes on Activitiy entity should be up to date. For this particular query I suggest (CustomerId, ActivityId, DueDateTime DESC)
precache Disposition table, my crystal ball tells me that it's dictionary table.
For similar task to avoid constantly hitting Activity table I made another small table (CustomerId, LastActivity, LastVAlue) and updated it as the status changed.