We Keep Coding

How Dapper.NET works internally with .Count() and SingleOrDefault()?

I am new to Dapper though I am aware about ORMs and DAL and have implemented DAL with NHibernate earlier.
Example Query: -
string sql = "SELECT * FROM MyTable";
public int GetCount()
{
var result = Connection.Query<MyTablePoco>(sql).Count();
return result;
}
Will Dapper convert this query (internally) to SELECT COUNT(*) FROM MyTable looking at .Count() at the end?
Similarly, will it convert to SELECT TOP 1 * FROM MyTable in case of SingleOrDefault()?
I came from NHibernate world where it generates query accordingly. I am not sure about Dapper though. As I am working with MS Access, I do not see a way to check the query generated.

No, dapper will not adjust your query. The immediate way to tell this is simply: does the method return IEnumerable... vs IQueryable...? If it is the first, then it can only use local in-memory mechanisms.
Specifically, by default, Query will actually return a fully populated List<>. LINQ's Count() method recognises that and just accesses the .Count property of the list. So all the data is fetched from the database.
If you want to ask the database for the count, ask the database for the count.
As for mechanisms to view what is actually sent to the database: we use mini-profiler for this. It works great.
Note: when you are querying exactly one row: QueryFirstOrDefault (and the other variants you would expect) exist and have optimizations internally (including hints to ADO.NET, although not all providers can act on those things) to do things as efficiently as possible, but it does not adjust your query. In some cases the provider itself (not dapper) can help, but ultimately: if you only want the first row, ask the database for the first row (TOP or similar).

EF LINQ ToList is very slow

I am using ASP NET MVC 4.5 and EF6, code first migrations.
I have this code, which takes about 6 seconds.
var filtered = _repository.Requests.Where(r => some conditions); // this is fast, conditions match only 8 items
var list = filtered.ToList(); // this takes 6 seconds, has 8 items inside
I thought that this is because of relations, it must build them inside memory, but that is not the case, because even when I return 0 fields, it is still as slow.
var filtered = _repository.Requests.Where(r => some conditions).Select(e => new {}); // this is fast, conditions match only 8 items
var list = filtered.ToList(); // this takes still around 5-6 seconds, has 8 items inside
Now the Requests table is quite complex, lots of relations and has ~16k items. On the other hand, the filtered list should only contain proxies to 8 items.
Why is ToList() method so slow? I actually think the problem is not in ToList() method, but probably EF issue, or bad design problem.
Anyone has had experience with anything like this?
EDIT:
These are the conditions:
_repository.Requests.Where(r => ids.Any(a => a == r.Student.Id) && r.StartDate <= cycle.EndDate && r.EndDate >= cycle.StartDate)
So basically, I can checking if Student id is in my id list and checking if dates match.

Your filtered variable contains a query which is a question, and it doesn't contain the answer. If you request the answer by calling .ToList(), that is when the query is executed. And that is the reason why it is slow, because only when you call .ToList() is the query executed by your database.
It is called Deferred execution. A google might give you some more information about it.
If you show some of your conditions, we might be able to say why it is slow.

In addition to Maarten's answer I think the problem is about two different situation
some condition is complex and results in complex and heavy joins or query in your database
some condition is filtering on a column which does not have an index and this cause the full table scan and make your query slow.
I suggest start monitoring the query generated by Entity Framework, it's very simple, you just need to set Log function of your context and see the results,
using (var context = new MyContext())
{
context.Database.Log = Console.Write;
// Your code here...
}
if you see something strange in generated query try to make it better by breaking it in parts, some times Entity Framework generated queries are not so good.
if the query is okay then the problem lies in your database (assuming no network problem).
run your query with an SQL profiler and check what's wrong.
UPDATE
I suggest you to:
add index for StartDate and EndDate Column in your table (one for each, not one for both)

ToList executes the query against DB, while first line is not.
Can you show some conditions code here?
To increase the performance you need to optimize query/create indexes on the DB tables.

Your first line of code only returns an IQueryable. This is a representation of a query that you want to run not the result of the query. The query itself is only runs on the databse when you call .ToList() on your IQueryable, because its the first point that you have actually asked for data.
Your adjustment to add the .Select only adds to the existing IQueryable query definition. It doesnt change what conditions have to execute. You have essentially changed the following, where you get back 8 records:
select * from Requests where [some conditions];
to something like:
select '' from Requests where [some conditions];
You will still have to perform the full query with the conditions giving you 8 records, but for each one, you only asked for an empty string, so you get back 8 empty strings.
The long and the short of this is that any performance problem you are having is coming from your "some conditions". Without seeing them, its is difficult to know. But I have seen people in the past add .Where clauses inside a loop, before calling .ToList() and inadvertently creating a massively complicated query.

Jaanus. The most likely reason of this issue is complecity of generated SQL query by entity framework. I guess that your filter condition contains some check of other tables.
Try to check generated query by "SQL Server Profiler". And then copy this query to "Management Studio" and check "Estimated execution plan". As a rule "Management Studio" generatd index recomendation for your query try to follow these recomendations.

Querying with many (~100) search terms with Entity Framework

I need to do a query on my database that might be something like this where there could realistically be 100 or more search terms.
public IQueryable<Address> GetAddressesWithTown(string[] towns)
{
IQueryable<Address> addressQuery = DbContext.Addresses;
addressQuery.Where( x => towns.Any( y=> x.Town == y ) );
return addressQuery;
}
However when it contains more than about 15 terms it throws and exception on execution because the SQL generated is too long.
Can this kind of query be done through Entity Framework?
What other options are there available to complete a query like this?

Sorry, are we talking about THIS EXACT SQL?
In that case it is a very simple "open your eyes thing".
There is a way (contains) to map that string into an IN Clause, that results in ONE sql condition (town in ('','',''))
Let me see whether I get this right:
addressQuery.Where( x => towns.Any( y=> x.Town == y ) );
should be
addressQuery.Where ( x => towns.Contains (x.Town)
The resulting SQL will be a LOT smaller. 100 items is still taxing it - I would dare saying you may have a db or app design issue here and that requires a business side analysis, I have not me this requirement in 20 years I work with databases.

This looks like a scenario where you'd want to use the PredicateBuilder as this will help you create an Or based predicate and construct your dynamic lambda expression.
This is part of a library called LinqKit by Joseph Albahari who created LinqPad.
public IQueryable<Address> GetAddressesWithTown(string[] towns)
{
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Address>();
foreach (string town in towns)
{
string temp = town;
predicate = predicate.Or (p => p.Town.Equals(temp));
}
return DbContext.Addresses.Where (predicate);
}

You've broadly got two options:
You can replace .Any with a .Contains alternative.
You can use plain SQL with table-valued-parameters.
Using .Contains is easier to implement and will help performance because it translated to an inline sql IN clause; so 100 towns shouldn't be a problem. However, it also means that the exact sql depends on the exact number of towns: you're forcing sql-server to recompile the query for each number of towns. These recompilations can be expensive when the query is complex; and they can evict other query plans from the cache as well.
Using table-valued-parameters is the more general solution, but it's more work to implement, particularly because it means you'll need to write the SQL query yourself and cannot rely on the entity framework. (Using ObjectContext.Translate you can still unpack the query results into strongly-typed objects, despite writing sql). Unfortunately, you cannot use the entity framework yet to pass a lot of data to sql server efficiently. The entity framework doesn't support table-valued-parameters, nor temporary tables (it's a commonly requested feature, however).
A bit of TVP sql would look like this select ... from ... join #townTableArg townArg on townArg.town = address.town or select ... from ... where address.town in (select town from #townTableArg).
You probably can work around the EF restriction, but it's not going to be fast and will probably be tricky. A workaround would be to insert your values into some intermediate table, then join with that - that's still 100 inserts, but those are separate statements. If a future version of EF supports batch CUD statements, this might actually work reasonably.
Almost equivalent to table-valued paramters would be to bulk-insert into a temporary table and join with that in your query. Mostly that just means you're table name will start with '#' rather than '#' :-). The temp table has a little more overhead, but you can put indexes on it and in some cases that means the subsequent query will be much faster (for really huge data-quantities).
Unfortunately, using either temporary tables or bulk insert from C# is a hassle. The simplest solution here is to make a DataTable; this can be passed to either. However, datatables are relatively slow; the over might be relevant once you start adding millions of rows. The fastest (general) solution is to implement a custom IDataReader, almost as fast is an IEnumerable<SqlDataRecord>.
By the way, to use a table-valued-parameter, the shape ("type") of the table parameter needs to be declared on the server; if you use a temporary table you'll need to create it too.
Some pointers to get you started:
http://lennilobel.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/sql-server-2008-table-valued-parameters-and-c-custom-iterators-a-match-made-in-heaven/
SqlBulkCopy from a List<>

EF 4.0 make batch query to get count of resultset but return only top 5 records

Is there a way to get count of resultset but return only top 5 records while making just one db hit instead of 2 (one for count and second for data)

There is not a particularly good way to do this in Entity Framework, at least as of v4. #Tobias writes a single LINQ query, but his suspicions are correct. You'll see multiple queries roll by in SQL Profiler.
Ignoring EF for a minute, this is a relatively complicated problem for SQL Server. Well, it's complicated once your data size gets large or your query gets complicated. You can get a flavor for what's involved here.
With that said, I wouldn't worry about it being 2 queries just yet. Don't optimize until you know it is an actual performance problem. You'll likely end up working around EF, maybe using the EF extensions and creating a stored proc that can take advantage of windowed functions and CTE's. Or maybe it will just return two result sets in a single procedure.

This little query should do the trick (I'm not sure if that's really just one physical query though, and it could be that the grouping is done in the code rather than in the DB), but it's definitely more convenient:
var obj = (from x in entities.SomeTable
let item = new { N = 1, x }
group item by item.N into g
select new { Count = g.Count(), First = g.Take(5) }).FirstOrDefault();
Nonetheless, just doing this in two queries will definitely be much faster (especially if you define them in one stored procedure, as proposed here).

SQL slowness under ADO Entity Framework

I need to create a csv file that will contain all current Subscribers, plus a series of strings that came from the database.
to fetch all Subscribers I'm doing:
public IQueryble<Subscribers> ListAllSubscribersByCalendarId(Decimal cid)
{
return db.Subscribers.Where(x => x.calendar_id.Equals(cid));
}
pretty simple.
problem is that I already have more than 5000 and this takes forever (literally)!
even to show the last 30 records only, takes long long time, my query is:
public IQueryble<Subscribers> ListLast30SubscribersByCalendarId(Decimal cid)
{
return db.Subscribers
.Where(x => x.calendar_id.Equals(cid))
.Take(30)
.OrderByDescending(x => x.created_date);
}
What can I do to speed up this process?

Your expression is one that needs be checked on the client and cannot be converted to a SQL statement. So if you run SQL profiler, I bet you will see records trickling one by one to the client.
Change the condition to x.calendar_id == cid

two possible options:
create a nonclustered index for x.calendar_id:
or do the ordering in the application instead of sql:
public IQueryble<Subscribers> ListLast30SubscribersByCalendarId(Decimal cid)
{
return db.Subscribers
.Where(x => x.calendar_id.Equals(cid))
.Take(30)
}
var ordered = ListLast30SubscribersByCalendarId(1).ToList().OrderByDescending(x => x.created_date);

Aliostad's answer should help a lot. Also ensure that the calendar_id field is indexed correctly.
First, I'm just checking that you want to take the first 30 however the database determines which the first 30 are, and then sort those 30 by created date? If you want to grab the first 30 based on their creation date, then you'll want to include the created_date in your index appropriately so it can be used in the query.
Finally, this answer assumes you are using a tool that correctly maps these LINQ operators to an appropriate SQL query, and isn't just doing this entire operation on the entire record set in memory.

This should really happen in a stored procedure. Let the database server do what it's good at:like run queries crazy fast.