Is there a way to retrieve multiple single items from a dbset query. I'm trying to build a get multiplenumbereditems controller directive.
I take a string an convert it into an array of id's. I then sort the ids ascending.
I just don't know of a propper way to build my list or añ optimal dbset seek method that will sequentially take my id's and only return list built out of these items. Or is returning multiple single items my only option. My table is small enough to just grab them all but I want to build something now should the database grow.
The table has an auto generated I'd list and will stay sequential or am I making an assumption about speed here.
Any guidance. Thank you.
It sounds like you need to use the Contains method. For example, lets assume you have a list of ids like this:
var ids = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
You cn use that list directly like this:
var elements = context.Items.Where(i => ids.Contains(i.Id));
Related
I have a web part in SharePoint, and I am trying to populate a drop-down control with the unique/distinct values from a particular field in a list.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the system, it is a text field, so there is no other definitive source to get the data values (i.e., if it were a choice field, I could get the field definition and just get the values from there), and I am using the chosen value of the drop-down in a subsequent CAML query, so the values must be accurate to what is present on the list items. Currently the list has arpprox. 4K items, but it is (and will continue) growing slowly.
And, it's part of a sandbox solution, so it is restricted by the user code service time limit - and it's timing out more often than not. In my dev environment I stepped through the code in debug, and it seems like the line of LINQ where I actually get the distinct values is the most time consuming, and I then commented out the call to this method entirely, and the timeouts stop, so I am fairly certain this is where the problem is.
Here's my code:
private void AddUniqueValues(SPList list, SPField filterField, DropDownList dropDownControl)
{
SPQuery query = new SPQuery();
query.ViewFields = string.Format("<FieldRef Name='{0}' />", filterField.InternalName);
query.ViewFieldsOnly = true;
SPListItemCollection results = list.GetItems(query); // retrieves ~4K items
List<string> uniqueValues = results.Cast<SPListItem>().Select(item => item[filterField.Id].ToString()).Distinct().ToList(); // this takes too long with 4K items
uniqueValues.Sort();
dropDownControl.Items.AddRange(uniqueValues.Select(itm => new ListItem(itm)).ToArray());
}
As far as I am aware, there's no way to get "distinct" values directly in a CAML query, so how can I do this more quickly? Is there a way to restructure the LINQ to run faster?
Is there an easy/fast way to do this from the client side? (REST would be preferred, but I'd do JSOM if necessary).
Thought I'd add some extra information here since I did some further testing and found some interesting results.
First, to address the questions of whether the Cast() and Select() are needed: yes, they are.
SPListItemCollection is IEnumerable but not IEnumerable<T>, so we need to cast just to be able to get to use LINQ at all.
Then after it's cast to IEnumerable<SPListItem>, SPListItem is a fairly complex object, and I am looking to find distinct values from just one property of that object. Using Distinct() directly on the IEnumerable<SPListItem> yields.. all of them. So I have to Select() just the single values I want to compare.
So yes, the Cast() and Select() are absolutely necessary.
As noted in the comments by M.kazem Akhgary, in my original line of code, calling ToString() every time (for 4K items) did add some time. But in testing some other variations:
// original
List<string> uniqueValues = results.Cast<SPListItem>().Select(item => item[filterField.Id].ToString()).Distinct().ToList();
// hash set alternative
HashSet<object> items = new HashSet<object>(results.Cast<SPListItem>().Select(itm => itm[filterField.Id]));
// don't call ToString(), just deal with base objects
List<object> obs = results.Cast<SPListItem>().Select(itm => itm[filterField.Id]).Distinct().ToList();
// alternate LINQ syntax from Pieter_Daems answer, seems to remove the Cast()
var things = (from SPListItem item in results select item[filterField.Id]).Distinct().ToList();
I found that all of those methods took multiple tens of seconds to complete. Strangely, the DataTable/DataView method from Pieter_Daems answer, to which I added a bit to extract the values I wanted:
DataTable dt = results2.GetDataTable();
DataView vw = new DataView(dt);
DataTable udt = vw.ToTable(true, filterField.InternalName);
List<string> rowValues = new List<string>();
foreach (DataRow row in udt.Rows)
{
rowValues.Add(row[filterField.InternalName].ToString());
}
rowValues.Sort();
took only 1-2 seconds!
In the end, I am going with Thriggle's answer, because it deals nicely with SharePoint's 5000 item list view threshold, which I will probably be dealing with some day, and it is only marginally slower (2-3 seconds) than the DataTable method. Still much, much faster than all the LINQ.
Interesting to note, though, that the fastest way to get distinct values from a particular field from a SPListItemCollection seems to be the DataTable/DataView conversion method.
You're potentially introducing a significant delay by retrieving all items first before checking for distinctness.
An alternative approach would be to perform multiple CAML queries against SharePoint; this would result in one query per unique value (plus one final query that returns no results).
Make sure your list has column indexing applied to the field whose values you want to enumerate.
In your initial CAML query, sort by the field you want to enumerate and impose a row limit of one item.
Get the value of the field from the item returned by that query and add it to your collection of unique values.
Query the list again, sorting by the field and imposing a row limit of 1, but this time add a filter condition such that it only retrieves items where the field value is greater than the field value you just detected.
Add the value of the field in the returned item to your collection of unique values.
Repeat steps 4 and 5 until the query returns an empty result set, at which point your collection of unique values should contain all current values of the field (assuming more haven't been added since you started).
Will this be any faster? That depends on your data, and how frequently duplicate values occur.
If you have 4000 items and only 5 unique values, you'll be able to gather those 5 values in only 6 lightweight CAML queries, returning a total of 5 items. This makes a lot more sense than querying for all 4000 items and enumerating through them one at a time to look for unique values.
On the other hand, if you have 4000 items and 3000 unique values, you're looking at querying the list 3001 times. This might well be slower than retrieving all the items in a single query and using post-processing to find the unique values.
var distinctItems = (from SPListItem item in items select item["EmployeeName"]).Distinct().ToArray();
Or convert your results to DataView and do something like:
SPList oList = SPContext.Current.Web.Lists["ListName"];
SPQuery query = new SPQuery();
query.Query = "<OrderBy><FieldRef Name='Name' /></OrderBy>";
DataTable dtcamltest = oList.GetItems(query).GetDataTable();
DataView dtview = new DataView(dtcamltest);
DataTable dtdistinct = dtview.ToTable(true, "Name");
Source: https://sharepoint.stackexchange.com/questions/77988/caml-query-on-sharepoint-list-without-duplicates
Duplicate maybe?
.Distinct is an O(n) call.
You can't get any faster than that.
This being said, maybe you want to check if you need the cast + select for getting uniques - I'd try a HashSet.
Suppose I have a List containing one string value. Suppose I also have an IQueryable that contains several strings from a database. I want to be able to concatenate these two containers into one list and then be able to call methods such as .Skip or .Take on the list. I want to be able to do this in such a way that when I combine the two containers I don't load all of the DB data into memory (only after I call .Skip and .Take). Basically, I want to do something like this (pseudocode):
IQueryable someQuery = myEntities.GetDBQuery(); // Gets "test2", "test3"
IList inMemoryList = new List();
inMemoryList.Add("test");
IList finalList = inMemoryList.Union(someQuery) // Can I do something like this without loading DB data into memory? finalList should contain all 3 strings.
// At this point it is fine to load the filtered query into memory.
foreach (string myString in finalList.Skip(100).Take(200))
{
// Do work...
}
How can I achieve this?
If I didn't misunderstand, you are trying to query the data, part of which comes from memory and others from database, like this:
//the following code will not compile, just for example
var dbQuery = BuildDbQuery();
var list = BuildListInMemory();
var myQuery = (dbQuery + list).OrderBy(aa).Skip(bb).Take(cc).Select(dd);
//and you don't want to load all records into memory by dbQuery
//because you only need some of them
The short answer is NO, you can't. Consider the .OrderBy method, all data have to be in a same "place", otherwise the code can't sort them. So the code loads all records in database by dbQuery into memory(now they are in a same place) and then sorts all of them including those in list. That probably causes a memory issue when dbQuery gives thousands of rows.
HOW TO RESOLVE
Pass the data in list into database (as parameters of dbQuery) so that the query happens in database. This is easy if your list has only a few items.
If list also has lots of records that will makes dbQuery too complex, you can try to query twice, one for dbQuery and one for list. For example, you have 10,000 users in database and 1,000 users in your memory list, and you want to get the top 10 youngest users. You don't need to load 10,000 users into memory and then find the youngest 10. Instead, you find 10 youngest (ResultA) in dbQuery and load into memory, and 10 youngest (ResultB) in memory list, and then compare between ResultA and ResultB.
I entirely agree with Danny's answer when he says you need to somehow find a way to include in memory user list into db so that you achieve what you want. As for the example which you sought in your comment, without knowing data structure of your User object, seems difficult. However assuming you would be able to connect the dots. Here is my suggested approach:
Create temporary table with identical structure that of your regular user table in your db and insert all your inmemory users into it
Write a query to Union temporary and regular table both identical in structure so that should be easy.
Return the result in your application and use it performing standard Linq operations
If you want exact code which you can use as it is then you will have to provide your User object structure - fields type etc in db to enable me to write the code.
You specify that your query and your list are both sequences of strings. someQuery can be performed completely on the database side (not in-memory)
Let's make your sequences less generic:
IQueryable<string> someQuery = ...
IList<string> myList = ...
You also specify that myList contains only one element.
string myOneAndOnlyString = myList.Single();
As your list is in-memory, this has to be performed in-memory. But because the list has only one element, this won't take any time.
The query that you request:
IQueryable<string> correctQuery = someQuery
.Where(item => item.Equals(myOneandOnlyString)
.Skip(skipCount)
.Take(takeCount)
Use your SQL server profiler to check the used SQL and see that the request is completely performed in one SQL statement.
Given two IEnumerable instances in C# (call them a and b), what's the best way to remove all values in a that are not in b and add all values of b that are not in a?
I know I could just set a = b, normally, but this is ultimately for persisting to the DB via Entity Framework CodeFirst in an MVC application so there's some wonkiness of state to watch out for. In fact, we're talking about updating a record based on stuff posted from the client.
The closest that seems to work involves about for foreach loops, one to iterate the 'a' list and populate a collection of 'items to be removed', another to iterate the 'b' list to identify the 'items to be added', and then one each on the 'items to be removed' and 'items to be added' collections to add and remove items, respectively (since you can't modify the 'a' collection while you're iterating on it.
That feels clunky, though; is there a better way?
UPDATE
For clarity, I'll make an example. Let's say I have an entity I fetch from the DB which represents a blog Post (since that example never gets tired...) and said Post has a collection of Tags. From the client, I get a list of Tags that should be now the 'canonical' list of tags, but none of them are entities, it's just an in-memory collection. What I want to do is ensure that Post.Tags matches the tags being posted by the client, without creating duplicate tags in the database.
You can use Intersect, Concat and Except:
a = a.Intersect(b).Concat(b.Except(a));
Intersect returns items that exist in both collections, so a.Intersect(b) will give you all items that are in a and b.
Except returns elements that are in first collection, but not in the other, so b.Except(a) returns elements that are in b but not in a.
Concat concatenates these two collections.
But I don't really get your questions, so I'm not sure it's what you're looking for.
It sounds like your enumerable a is actually a list, so I did it this way:
var a = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, };
var b = new List<int>() { 1, 3, 4, 5, };
foreach (var x in a.Except(b).ToArray())
{
a.Remove(x);
}
foreach (var x in b.Except(a).ToArray())
{
a.Add(x);
}
At the end a has the same elements as b.
However, you need to be careful if you have duplicates in b.
I have a list of objects each with its own id property. I need to create an icollection of ids from the stored objects. Is there an elegant way other than looping through the list of objects, grabbing the id value and dumping it into the collection?
LINQ is your friend :)
List<int> ids = entities.Select(x => x.Id).ToList();
or into an array if you must (as per question title):
int[] ids = entities.Select(x => x.Id).ToArray();
Of course that does just iterate over the collections, but it's code you don't have to write yourself...
Basically, whenever you find yourself wanting to do "something like this" - transforming, aggregating, filtering, flattening etc a collection - you should look at whether LINQ can help you.
how about using Linq (which will do the iteration for you) using a Select() projection with the properties you want (in your case just the Id):
var idCollection = someList.Select(x=> x.Id).ToList();
Linq to the rescue:
var names=Controls.Select(w=>w.Name).ToArray(); // where this is a form
I have tabluar data that passes through a C# program that I need to collect some metadata on before finishing. The metadata is always counts based on fields of the data. Also, I need them all grouped by one field in the data. Periodically, I need to add new counts to this collection of metadata.
I've been researching it for a little while, and I think what makes sense is to rework my program to store the data as a DataTable, then run LINQ queries on the table. The problem I'm having is being able to put the different counts into one table-like structure and then write that out.
I might run a query like this:
var query01 =
from record in records.AsEnumerable()
group record by record.Field<String>("Association Key") into associationsGroup
select new { AssociationKey = associationsGroup.Key, Count = associationsGroup.Count<DataRow>() };
To get a count of all of the records grouped by the field Association Key. I'm going to want another count, grouped in the same way:
var query02 =
from record in records.AsEnumerable()
where record.Field<String>("Number 9") == "yes"
group record by record.Field<String>("Association Key") into associationsGroup
select new { AssociationKey = associationsGroup.Key, Number9Count = associationsGroup.Count<DataRow>() };
And so on.
I thought about trying Union chain the queries but I was having trouble getting them to union since I'm projecting into anonymous types. I couldn't figure out how to do it differently to make a union work better.
So, how can I collect my metadata into one table-like structure?
Not going to union because you have different types. Add Number9Count and Count to both annonymous types and try union again.
I ended up solving the problem by creating a class that holds the set of records I need as a DataTable. A user can add queries through a method, taking an argument Func<DataRow, bool>. The method constructs the query supplying that argument as the where clause, maintaining the same grouping and properties in the resulting anonymous-typed object.
When retrieving the results, the class iterates over each query stored and enters the results into a new DataTable.