We Keep Coding

Linq select where has at least one entry in another table

I have the following structure that I wan't to query using Linq, specifically Linq to Entities (Enitity Framework).
Table1: RouteMeta
Table2: SitePage
Multiple SitePages can link to the same RouteMeta.
I'm querying the Route Meta to select a number of rows. I'm using a generic repository, currently like this:
return r.Find().ToList();
There's nothing special about it - the Find method accepts an optional linq expression, so I could do something like this:
return r.Find(x => x.Status=1).ToList();
However, what I actually want to do is to select rows from RouteMeta where at least one linked row exists in SitePages with a property IsPublished = true.
return r.Find(x => x.SitePages("where y => y.IsPublished = true");
Obviously, the above isn't correct, I'm just trying to explain the scenario better.
Any advice appreciated.

try something like
return r.Find(x=>x.Sitepages.Any(y=>y.Published))?
I'd also suggesting using a profiler if possible to check that this translates properly into SQL. It probably should do but it depends on how your repository works.

SQL generated from LINQ not consistent

I am using Telerik Open/Data Access ORM against an ORACLE.
Why do these two statements result in different SQL commands?
Statement #1
IQueryable<WITransmits> query = from wiTransmits in uow.DbContext.StatusMessages
select wiTransmits;
query = query.Where(e=>e.MessageID == id);
Results in the following SQL
SELECT
a."MESSAGE_ID" COL1,
-- additional fields
FROM "XFE_REP"."WI_TRANSMITS" a
WHERE
a."MESSAGE_ID" = :p0
Statement #2
IQueryable<WITransmits> query = from wiTransmits in uow.DbContext.StatusMessages
select new WITransmits
{
MessageID = wiTranmits.MessageID,
Name = wiTransmits.Name
};
query = query.Where(e=>e.MessageID == id);
Results in the following SQL
SELECT
a."MESSAGE_ID" COL1,
-- additional fields
FROM "XFE_REP"."WI_TRANSMITS" a
The query generated with the second statement #2 returns, obviously EVERY record in the table when I only want the one. Millions of records make this prohibitive.

Telerik Data Access will try to split each query into database-side and client-side (or in-memory LINQ if you prefer it).
Having projection with select new is sure trigger that will make everything in your LINQ expression tree after the projection to go to the client side.
Meaning in your second case you have inefficient LINQ query as any filtering is applied in-memory and you have already transported a lot of unnecessary data.
If you want compose LINQ expressions in the way done in case 2, you can append the Select clause last or explicitly convert the result to IEnumerable<T> to make it obvious that any further processing will be done in-memory.

The first query returns the full object defined, so any additional limitations (like Where) can be appended to it before it is actually being run. Therefore the query can be combined as you showed.
The second one returns a new object, which can be whatever type and contain whatever information. Therefore the query is sent to the database as "return everything" and after the objects have been created all but the ones that match the Where clause are discarded.
Even though the type were the same in both of them, think of this situation:
var query = from wiTransmits in uow.DbContext.StatusMessages
select new WITransmits
{
MessageID = wiTranmits.MessageID * 4 - 2,
Name = wiTransmits.Name
};
How would you combine the Where query now? Sure, you could go through the code inside the new object creation and try to move it outside, but since there can be anything it is not feasible. What if the checkup is some lookup function? What if it's not deterministic?
Therefore if you create new objects based on the database objects there will be a border where the objects will be retrieved and then further queries will be done in memory.

Case-insensitive "contains" in Linq

I have a mvc project which I use linq in it.
In my database there is some records, for example "Someth ing","SOmeTH ing","someTh ing","SOMETH ING","someTH ING"
I want to do this:
SELECT * FROM dbo.doc_dt_records WHERE name LIKE '%' + #records.Name + '%'
However if I run this code, list.Count returns 0. What should I do?
records.Name = "someth ing"; //for example
var rec = db.Records.ToList();
var lists = rec.Where(p => p.Name.Contains(records.Name)).ToList();
if (lists.Count > 0)
{
// do sthng
}
Thanks for your helps...

the easy way is to use ToLower() method
var lists = rec.Where(p => p.Name.ToLower().Contains(records.Name.ToLower())).ToList();
a better solution (based on this post: Case insensitive 'Contains(string)')
var lists = rec.Where(p =>
CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.CompareInfo.IndexOf
(p.Name, records.Name, CompareOptions.IgnoreCase) >= 0).ToList();

That is totally not a LINQ issue.
Case sensitiivty on the generated SQL depends on the collation relevant for the table. Which in your case likely is case insensitive.
You would get the same result from any SQL you emit.

use IndexOf and StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase:
p.Name.IndexOf(records.Name, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) >= 0;
You can create an extension function like this:
public static bool Contains(this string src, string toCheck, StringComparison comp)
{
return src.IndexOf(toCheck, comp) >= 0;
}

To my understanding, this question does not have an unambiguous answer. The matter is that the best way of doing this depends on details which aren't provided in the question. For instance, what exact ORM do you use and what precise DB server you are connected to. For example, if you use Entity Framework against MS SQL Server, you better do not touch your LINQ expression at all. All you need to do is to set the case-insensitive collation on the database/table/column you compare your string with. That will do the trick much better than any change of your LINQ expression. The matter is that when LINQ is translated to SQL, it better be the straight comparison of the column having case-insensitive collation to your string than anything else. Just because it usually works quicker and it is the natural way to do the trick.
You do not want the final query to be something like:
SELECT *
FROM AspNetUsers U
WHERE UPPER(U.Name) LIKE '%SOMETHING%';
It is much better to come up with something like:
SELECT *
FROM AspNetUsers U
WHERE U.Name LIKE '%SOMETHING%';
But with a case-insensitive collation of [Name] column. The difference is that if you have let's say index containing [Name] column, the second query might use it, the first one would do the full scan of the table anyway.
So if let's say records references to DBSet<T> and the record is just one object of type T. You code would be like this:
var lists = records.Where(p => p.Name.Contains(record.Name)).ToList();
And you do the rest on SQL-server. Or if all you need to know is there any value in the list and do not need these values, it would be even better to do like this:
if (records.Any(p => p.Name.Contains(record.Name)))
{
// do something
}
Generally speaking, if you use any sort of ORM connected to any sort of SQL server, you better do case-insensitivity by setting up appropriate parameters of your server/database/table/column. And only if it is impossible or by far too expensive, you consider other possibilities. Otherwise, you might bang into some unexpected and very unpleasant behaviour. For instance, Entity Framework Core 2.x if it cannot translate your LINQ expression straightway into SQL query, is doing different tricks replacing server-side operations with client-side ones. So you can end up with a solution which fetches all data from the table to the client and filter it there. It might be quite a problem if your table is big enough.
As for the situation when LINQ query is processed locally, there are a lot of ways to do the trick. My favourite one is the next:
var lists = records.Where(p => p.Name
.Contains(record.Name, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
.ToList();

try this
var lists = rec.Where(p => String.Equals(p.Name,records.Name,StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).ToList();
refer here for documentation

Linq with multiple contains

In our UI the users can free text a search that is applied to a number of fields.
q = q.Where(p => p.Account.Contains(query)
|| p.AccountName.Contains(query)
|| p.AccountAKA.Contains(query)
|| p.AccountRef.Contains(query));
This translates into SQL. Is there a more optimal way to querying, as this is slow.
There are about 20,000 rows. Database disk size doesn't matter, memory usage does.

Since all these are text fields each of the values translates to Account LIKE '%'+ query+ '%'. All queries with wildcards on both sides will be slow, unfortunately there is not too much that can be done.
Maybe it is possible to use StartsWith() instead of Contains()? This would translate to `LIKE query + '%' which is generally much faster?

A better solution would be to change your data model and use a Description column that has ALL the account name info in it so you can do your query against a single column. Updates to the record result in an update to this Description column.

Linq To SQL: Sort Query by Arbitrary Property(Column) Name

I have a larger/more complex problem, but for simplicity sake, let us consider the following:
Let us say that I have table in the SQL DataBase called Product, having two columns, ID (int, primary key) and Name (varchar/string). I also have a simple LINQ DataContext.
I have a query constructed and handed to “my” function. Let us say it is something like: (though it may be a bit more complex)
IQueryable<Product> query = from p in db.Products select p;
Once my method gets this query, passed in as a parameter, it has to change the sort order e.g.
IQueryable<Product> sortedQuery = query.OrderBy(x => x.Name);
I would like to make this more generic i.e. to specify the field to sort on. Normally, I can do a switch statement that takes a string. However I would like to know if there is a way to pass the parameter directly. I intend to extend this to other Database tables, so these switch statements would get tedious.
I was trying something like:
IQueryable<Product> sortedQuery = query.OrderBy(x => (typeof(Product)).GetProperty(“Name”));
But this does not work. I also want to ensure that the LINQ to SQL is maintained i.e. the sort to be done on the SQL Server. Hence if I debug, I should get a SQL query from this LINQ query.
Thank you in advance for your help.

You could use Dynamic Linq for this purpose.
See here Dynamic LINQ (Part 1: Using the LINQ Dynamic Query Library)
Then you can make calls like this:
var query = DBContext.Users.Where( "Age > 3" ).OrderBy( "Name asc" );

Try this out instead:
query.OrderBy(x => x.GetType().GetProperty(“Name”).GetValue(x, null));
You can't just grab the property. You need to grab the value off of that property, hence the call to GetValue.

It is not as easy as it seems. The LINQ to SQL engine parses the expression you pass to the OrderBy method in order to obtain the name of the property you are referencing, then uses this information to compose a plain SQL order by clause.
I guess that maybe it can be done by using reflection, anyway. Maybe you can get something useful from the accepted answer of this SO question.