I have the following lambda statement:
var resources = Db.Resource.Where(w => w.ResValue.Any(a => a.ApplicationFk == applicationPk) && w.CategoryFk == (categoryId ?? w.CategoryFk ) && w.IsEditable);
if (cultureIdsMissing!= null)
{
resources = resources.Where(w => w.ResValue.Any(a => cultureIdsMissing.Any(aa => aa == a.CultureFk) && a.Value == string.Empty));
}
This is not returning the result which I want, which is returned by:
SELECT Resource.ResourcePk, Resource.CategoryFk, Resource.Name, Resource.IsEditable, ResValue.ApplicatieFk, ResValue.CultureFk, ResValue.Value
FROM Resource
INNER JOIN ResValue ON Resource.ResourcePk = ResValue.ResourceFk
WHERE (ResValue.ApplicatieFk = 6)
AND (Resource.IsEditable = 1)
AND (ResValue.Value = '')
AND (ResValue.CultureFk = 1 OR ResValue.CultureFk = 2)
Not that cultureIdsMissing is a List containing both the numbers 1 and 2.
What am I missing or doing wrong with the lambda query?
I think you have to remove && w.CategoryFk == (categoryId ?? w.CategoryFk ) from your linq lemda expression. if categoryId = 1 then it will take only records with value 1. So try after remove that. Your linq code should be this.
var resources = Db.Resource.Where(w => w.ResValue.Any(a => a.ApplicationFk == applicationPk)&& w.IsEditable);
if (cultureIdsMissing!= null)
{
resources = resources.Where(w => w.ResValue.Any(a => cultureIdsMissing.Any(aa => aa == a.CultureFk) && a.Value == string.Empty));
}
You should take it from your sql statement :
Db.Resource
.Join(Db.ResValue
, rs => rs.ResourcePk
, resV => resv.resourceFk
, (rs, resv) => new { res = rs, resV = resV })
.Where(w => w.resv.ApplicatieFk == 6
&& w.res ==1
&& resv.Value == string.empty()
&& (resv.CultureFk == 1 || resv.CultureFk == 2))
It's not tested so maybe it won't work on first try.
I would translate the SQL to query comprehension syntax. In general, convert phrases in query comprehension order, use table aliases as range variables (or create range variables), and put unary/overall aggregate functions (such as TOP, DISTINCT or SUM) as function calls outside the whole query. For your SQL,
var ans = from r in Resource
where r.IsEditable == 1
join rv in ResValue on r.ResourcePk equals rv.ResourceFk
where rv.ApplicatieFk == 6 && rv.Value == "" && (rv.CultureFk == 1 || rv.CultureFk == 2)
select new { r.ResourcePk, r.CategoryFk, r.Name, r.IsEditable, rv.ApplicatieFk, rv.CultureFk, rv.Value };
Related
I am declaring this variable to get data from my database(example)
var products = _context.Products();
and I need to use like this example
if(ctId == -1)
{
// get project list
var products = _context.Products().where(a => a.categoryId == 2);
}
else
{
//get category list
var products = _context.Products().where(a => a.categoryId == 1);
}
but my problem how to declare var products
to using like this
if(ctId == -1)
{
// get project list
products = _context.Products().where(a => a.categoryId == 2);
}
else
{
//get category list
products = _context.Products().where(a => a.categoryId == 1);
}
To the initial problem, you would declare an IQueryable<Product> outside the if scope
IQueryable<Product> products = null;
if(ctId == -1)
products = _context.Products().where(a => a.categoryId == 2);
else
products = _context.Products().where(a => a.categoryId == 1);
However, you could also use a ternary conditional operator
The conditional operator ?:, also known as the ternary conditional
operator, evaluates a Boolean expression and returns the result of one
of the two expressions, depending on whether the Boolean expression
evaluates to true or false.
The syntax for the conditional operator is as follows:
condition ? consequent : alternative
Example
var id = ctId == -1 ? 2 : 1;
var products = _context.Products().where(a => a.categoryId == id);
or potentially
var products = _context.Products().where(a => a.categoryId == (ctId == -1 ? 2 : 1));
In my query I am getting records based on RoleId and LocationId, some times the user may not pass location in that case I want to remove that filter and get information from all locations.
Currently I am doing this way
if(loc > 0)
{
var myResult = (from x in CSDB.Allocations
join s in CSDB.Managers
on x.ManagerId equals s.Id
Where x.RoleId == 2 && s.LocationId == loc
select new
{
x.name,
x.Date
}).ToList();
}
else
{
var myResult = (from x in CSDB.Allocations
join s in CSDB.Managers
on x.ManagerId equals s.Id
Where x.RoleId == 2
select new
{
x.name,
x.Date
}).ToList();
}
I am seeing if I can check if loc is null or not inside the query instead of using if else.
You can do something like this:
Where x.RoleId == 2 && (loc == null || s.LocationId == loc)
Also, you can do smth like this.
Where x.RoleId == 2 && (loc?.Equals(s.LocationId) ?? true)
If loc just int I would prefer to use a little bit changed #Salah Akbari answer:
Where x.RoleId == 2 && (loc == 0 || s.LocationId == loc)
Simply extract your managers and filter them if needed. That way you can as well easily apply more filters and code readability isn't hurt.
var managers = CSDB.Managers.AsQueryable();
if(loc > 0)
managers = managers.Where(man => man.LocationId == loc);
var myResult = from allocation in CSDB.Allocations
join manager in managers on allocation.ManagerId equals manager.Id
where allocation.RoleId == 2
select new
{
allocation.name,
allocation.Date
};
I am doing the below linq query which is costing me a lot and this query is in a loop which I can not avoid and I have to do it in C# which also I can not avoid. I have lot of logic above the linq query and after the query. I wanted to check if I can change anything on the query to improve the performance at least a little bit.
lstDataTable.Where(i => i.Field<int>("ALLL_Snapshot_ID") == 20 &&
i.Field<int>("ALLL_Analysis_Segment_Group_Column_ID") == 5 &&
i.Field<DateTime>("OriginationDate") > startingSnapshotDate &&
i.Field<DateTime>("OriginationDate") <= endingSnapshotDate &&
snapshotDataWithDate.Select(j => j.Field<string>
("MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")).Contains(i.Field<string>
("MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")) &&
snapshotDataWithDate.Select(j => j.Field<string>
("OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")).Contains(i.Field<string>
("OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")))
.Select(i => i.Field<Decimal>("BalanceOutstanding") + i.Field<Decimal>
("UndisbursedCommitmentAvailability")).Sum();
where lstDataTable and snapshotDataWithDate are IEnumerable of DataRow.
I tried above query using join but it is not joining properly. The difference between the two results is way high. Below is the query I tried using join
(from p in lstDataTable
join t in snapshotDataWithDate on p.Field<string>
("MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey") equals t.Field<string>
("MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey") &&
p.Field<string>("OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey") equals
t.Field<string>("OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")
where p.Field<int>("ALLL_Analysis_Segment_Group_Column_ID") ==
SegmentGroupCECLSurvivalRateObj.ALLL_Segment_Group_Column_ID &&
p.Field<DateTime>("OriginationDate") > startingSnapshotDate &&
p.Field<DateTime>("OriginationDate") <= endingSnapshotDate
select p.Field<Decimal>("BalanceOutstanding") + p.Field<Decimal>
("UndisbursedCommitmentAvailability")).Sum();
Try this query, I have changed some expressions in where clause.
lstDataTable.Where(i => i.Field<int>("ALLL_Snapshot_ID") == 20 &&
i.Field<int>("ALLL_Analysis_Segment_Group_Column_ID") == 5 &&
i.Field<DateTime>("OriginationDate") > startingSnapshotDate &&
i.Field<DateTime>("OriginationDate") <= endingSnapshotDate &&
snapshotDataWithDate.Any(j => j.Field<string>
("MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey") == i.Field<string>
("MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")) &&
snapshotDataWithDate.Any(j => j.Field<string>
("OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey") == i.Field<string>
("OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")))
.Select(i => i.Field<Decimal>("BalanceOutstanding") + i.Field<Decimal>
("UndisbursedCommitmentAvailability")).Sum();
Perhaps pulling out the Field accesses will provide a small amount of optimization?
var snapshotDataConvertedMDB = snapshotDataWithDate.Select(r => r.Field<string>("MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")).ToList();
var snapshotDataConvertedODB = snapshotDataWithDate.Select(r => r.Field<string>("OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey")).ToList();
var ans = lstDataTable
.Select(r => new {
ALLL_Snapshot_ID = r.Field<int>("ALLL_Snapshot_ID"),
ALLL_Analysis_Segment_Group_Column_ID = r.Field<int>("ALLL_Analysis_Segment_Group_Column_ID"),
OriginationDate = r.Field<DateTime>("OriginationDate"),
MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey = r.Field<string>("MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey"),
OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey = r.Field<string>("OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey"),
BalanceOutstanding = r.Field<Decimal>("BalanceOutstanding"),
UndisbursedCommitmentAvailability = r.Field<Decimal>("UndisbursedCommitmentAvailability")
})
.Where(i => i.ALLL_Snapshot_ID == 20 &&
i.ALLL_Analysis_Segment_Group_Column_ID == 5 &&
i.OriginationDate > startingSnapshotDate &&
i.OriginationDate <= endingSnapshotDate &&
snapshotDataConvertedMDB.Contains(i.MaturityDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey) &&
snapshotDataConvertedODB.Contains(i.OriginationDateBorrowerIdNoteNumberKey))
.Select(i => i.BalanceOutstanding + i.UndisbursedCommitmentAvailability)
.Sum();
I have the following sql statement that calculate the sum of the column:
select coalesce(SUM(cdin_ActMortgageAmnt),0)
from CDIndex,company
where comp_companyid=cdin_companyid and comp_idcust like '%10319%'
and cdin_Deleted is null and cdin_startunstufdate is not null
and cdin_Status='InProgress'
gives me the output like this:
I tried to convert it to LINQ like this:
var sumation = (from com in db.Companies
join cd in db.CDIndexes on com.Comp_CompanyId equals cd.cdin_CompanyId
where
cd.cdin_Status == "InProgress" &&
cd.cdin_startunstufdate == null &&
cd.cdin_Deleted == null
select new {
sum = cd.cdin_ActMortgageAmnt
}
);
var summ = sumation.Sum(x => x.sum);
When I put tracePoint beside var summ in debug mode it gives me null when i point to it.
What is the problem?
On your case you are using coalesce(SUM(cdin_ActMortgageAmnt),0) because some values of cdin_ActMortgageAmnt can be null and you are giving the default value of 0, you need to do the same in your final query. Something like this when you do the select
cd.cdin_ActMortgageAmnt ?? 0
this query is appropriate your sql query
var sumation =db.Companies.Join(db.CDIndexes,
com=>com.Comp_CompanyId,
cd=>cd.cdin_companyid,
(com,cd)=>new {com,cd})
.Where(x=>x.com.comp_idcust.Contains("10319") && x.cd.cdin_Status== "InProgress" &&
cd.cdin_startunstufdate != null &&
cd.cdin_Deleted == null)
.Select(x=>new
{
sum=x.cd.cdin_ActMortgageAmnt ?? 0
}).ToList()
Here is one way:
var summ = db.Companies.Join(
db.CDIndexes,
cd => cd.cdin_CompanyId,
com => Comp_CompanyId,
(com, cd) => new { com, cd })
.Where(z=>z.com.comp_idcust.Contains("10319")) // Added "LIKE"
.Where(z=>z.cd.cdin_Status == "InProgress")
.Where(z=>z.cd.cdin_startunstufdate != null) // Reversed your condition
.Where(z=>z.cd.cdin_Deleted == null)
.Sum(z=>z.cd.cdin_ActMortgageAmnt);
You can also combine all the Wheres together, but I prefer not to in most cases like this:
var summ = db.Companies.Join(
db.CDIndexes,
cd => cd.cdin_CompanyId,
com => Comp_CompanyId,
(com, cd) => new { com, cd })
.Where(z=>z.com.comp_idcust.Contains("10319") // Added "LIKE"
&& z.cd.cdin_Status == "InProgress"
&& z.cd.cdin_startunstufdate != null // Reversed your condition
&& z.cd.cdin_Deleted == null)
.Sum(z=>z.cd.cdin_ActMortgageAmnt);
I am getting the following results for
string[] proj = Pid.Split(',');
"1032,1222" --> [0]=1032,[1]=1222
but I want to use in LINQ query. This is my LINQ query. Where to use it and how to use it?
string[] proj = Pid.Split(',');
var data2 = (from p in Db.emp.AsEnumerable()
join r in Db.use on p.EmployeeId equals r.EmployeeId
join q in Db.proo on p.EmployeeId equals q.EmpId
where (q.IsDelete == false && p.IsDelete == false && p.RoleID != 1 && p.RoleID != 2 && q.ProId == Convert.ToInt32(Pid))
select new GroupSelectedModel {
Text = CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.TextInfo.ToTitleCase(p.FirstName + " " + p.LastName),
Value = r.UserId.ToString(),
StatusId = Convert.ToInt32(p.Status)
})
.Distinct().ToList().OrderBy(r => r.Text);
return data2.OrderBy(p => p.StatusId).ToList();
Please check above mentioned code.
When you need IN, you have to invert it, and use Contains(). Your post is not very clear, but I think you're asking for something like this (note you need to use a List instead of an array):
List<string> proj = new List<string>(Pid.Split(','));
where (q.IsDelete == false && p.IsDelete == false && p.RoleID != 1 && p.RoleID != 2 && proj.Contains(q.ProId))