We have a situation where a transaction is started on an NHibernate session, some rows are populated into a couple of tables, and a query is executed which performs a join on the two tables.
Models:
public class A
{
public virtual string ID { get; set; } // Primary key
public IList<B> Bs { get; set; }
}
public class B
{
public virtual string ID { get; set; } // Foreign key
}
NHibernate maps:
public class AMap: ClassMap<A>
{
public AMap()
{
Table("dbo.A");
Id(x => x.ID).Not.Nullable();
HasMany(u => u.Bs).KeyColumn("ID");
}
}
public class BMap: ClassMap<B>
{
public BMap()
{
Table("dbo.B");
Map(x => x.ID, "ID").Not.Nullable();
}
}
A transaction is started and the following code is executed:
var a1 = new A
{
ID = "One"
};
session.Save(a1);
var a2 = new A
{
ID = "Two"
};
session.Save(a2);
session.Flush();
var b1 = new B
{
ID = a1.ID
};
session.Save(b1);
var b2 = new B
{
ID = a2.ID
};
session.Save(b2);
session.Flush();
A a = null;
B b = null;
var result = _session.QueryOver(() => a)
.JoinQueryOver(() => a.Bs, () => b,JoinType.LeftOuterJoin)
.List();
The result is a list of A. In the list, objects of A do not have Bs populated.
Although this example is simplified, the actual objects in question have additional properties associated with corresponding table columns; all those properties populate as expected; the issue is confined to the property mapped as HasMany (foreign key association).
If the table is populated first, and then the query is performed (either as separate processes or in consecutive transactions), the objects of A do have their Bs correctly populated. In other words, it seems as though queries executed in a transaction are not able to see the complete effect of inserts previously performed within the same transaction.
Inspection of the SQL generated by NHibernate confirms that it correctly performed all the inserts and correctly formulated the join query; it appears that it simply did not correctly populate the objects from the query result.
Are there any special steps required to ensure that database inserts/updates performed via NHibernate are fully visible to subsequent fetches in the same transaction?
HasMany(u => u.Bs).KeyColumn("ID");
looks wrong to me. The id of a one-to-many relation should be A_ID.
You do lots of strange things in your code. I hope your real code doesn't look like this. You should not set foreign keys directly. They are managed by NH. You should not Flush all the time. Normally you never flush.
Also note that the left outer join is not used to populate the list of Bs in A. (There is no information for NHibernate that this would be a valid option.) There are mapping tricks to load entities and one of its collections in one query, but this is most of the time not such a good idea and I suggest to not try this unless you really know NH and how queries are processed very well. You'll only get the same A multiple times and some performance problems if you do not break it completely. If you are afraid of the N+1 problem (I hope you are), use batch-size instead.
Figured out the solution. The gist of it is to add the "child" items to the "parent" and then save that.
So... classes now look like:
public class A
{
public virtual string ID { get; set; } // Primary key
public virtual IList<B> Bs { get; set; }
}
public class B
{
public virtual A A { get; set; } // Foreign key now expressed as reference to "parent" object instead of property containing key value
}
ClassMaps for both parent and child express the relationship as object/list:
public class AMap: ClassMap<A>
{
public AMap()
{
Table("dbo.A");
Id(x => x.ID).Not.Nullable();
HasMany(u => u.Bs).KeyColumn("ID").Cascade.SaveUpdate();
}
}
public class BMap: ClassMap<B>
{
public BMap()
{
Table("dbo.B");
Map(x => x.ID, "ID").Not.Nullable();
References(x => x.A, "ID").Not.Nullable();
}
}
Finally, data is saved by constructing the objects and their relationship before saving them i.e. relationships are saved with the objects:
var a1 = new A
{
ID = "One"
};
var b1 = new B
{
A = a1
};
a1.Bs = new []{b1};
session.Save(a1);
var a2 = new A
{
ID = "Two"
};
var b2 = new B
{
A = a2
};
a2.Bs = new []{b2};
session.Save(a2);
session.Flush();
This query:
A a = null;
B b = null;
var result = _session.QueryOver(() => a)
.JoinQueryOver(() => a.Bs, () => b,JoinType.LeftOuterJoin)
.List();
Now returns the expected result, and within the same session/transaction.
Related
In .NET Core 2.2 I'm stuck with filtering IQueryable built as:
_context.Ports.Include(p => p.VesselsPorts)
.ThenInclude(p => p.Arrival)
.Include(p => p.VesselsPorts)
.ThenInclude(p => p.Departure)
.OrderBy(p => p.PortLocode);
in many-to-many relation. And the entity models are such as:
public class PortModel
{
[Key]
public string PortLocode { get; set; }
public double? MaxKnownLOA { get; set; }
public double? MaxKnownBreadth { get; set; }
public double? MaxKnownDraught { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<VesselPort> VesselsPorts { get; set; }
}
public class VesselPort
{
public int IMO { get; set; }
public string PortLocode { get; set; }
public DateTime? Departure { get; set; }
public DateTime? Arrival { get; set; }
public VesselModel VesselModel { get; set; }
public PortModel PortModel { get; set; }
}
Based on this this SO answer I managed to create LINQ like that:
_context.Ports.Include(p => p.VesselsPorts).ThenInclude(p => p.Arrival).OrderBy(p => p.PortLocode)
.Select(
p => new PortModel
{
PortLocode = p.PortLocode,
MaxKnownBreadth = p.MaxKnownBreadth,
MaxKnownDraught = p.MaxKnownDraught,
MaxKnownLOA = p.MaxKnownLOA,
VesselsPorts = p.VesselsPorts.Select(vp => vp.Arrival > DateTime.UtcNow.AddDays(-1)) as ICollection<VesselPort>
}).AsQueryable();
BUT what I need is to find all port records, where:
VesselsPorts.Arrival > DateTime.UtcNow.AddDays(-1) quantity is greater than int x = 5 value (for the example). And I have no clue how to do it :/
Thanks to #GertArnold comment, I ended up with query:
ports = ports.Where(p => p.VesselsPorts.Where(vp => vp.Arrival > DateTime.UtcNow.AddDays(-1)).Count() > x);
When using entity framework people tend to use Include instead of Select to save them some typing. It is seldom wise to do so.
The DbContext holds a ChangeTracker. Every complete row from any table that you fetch during the lifetime of the DbContext is stored in the ChangeTracker, as well as a clone. You get a reference to the copy. (or maybe a reference to the original). If you change properties of the data you got, they are changed in the copy that is in the ChangeTracker. During SaveChanges, the original is compared to the copy, to see if the data must be saved.
So if you are fetching quite a lot of data, and use include, then every fetched items is cloned. This might slow down your queries considerably.
Apart from this cloning, you will probably fetch more properties than you actually plan to use. Database management systems are extremely optimized in combining tables, and searching rows within tables. One of the slower parts is the transfer of the selected data to your local process.
For example, if you have a database with Schools and Students, with the obvious one to many-relation, then every Student will have a foreign key to the School he attends.
So if you ask for School [10] with his 2000 Students, then every Student will have a foreign key value of [10]. If you use Include, then you will be transferring this same value 10 over 2000 times. What a waste of processing power!
In entity framework, when querying data, always use Select to select the properties, and Select only the properties that you actually plan to use. Only use Include if you plan to change the fetched items.
Certainly don't use Include to save you some typing!
Requirement: Give me the Ports with their Vessels
var portsWithTheirVessels = dbContext.Ports
.Where(port => ...) // if you don't want all Ports
.Select(port => new
{
// only select the properties that you want:
PortLocode = port.PortLoCode,
MaxKnownLOA = port.MaxKnownLOA,
MaxKnownBreadth = prot.MaxKnownBreadth,
MaxKnownDraught = ports.MaxKnownDraught,
// The Vessels in this port:
Vessels = port.VesselsPort.Select(vessel => new
{
// again: only the properties that you plan to use
IMO = vessel.IMO,
...
// do not select the foreign key, you already know the value!
// PortLocode = vessle.PortLocode,
})
.ToList(),
});
Entity framework knows your one-to-many relation, and knows that if you use the virtual ICollection that it should do a (Group-)Join.
Some people prefer to do the Group-Join themselves, or they use a version of entity framework that does not support using the ICollection.
var portsWithTheirVessels = dbContext.Ports.GroupJoin(dbContext.VesselPorts,
port => port.PortLocode, // from every Port take the primary key
vessel => vessel.PortLocode, // from every Vessel take the foreign key to Port
// parameter resultSelector: take every Port with its zero or more Vessels to make one new
(port, vesselsInThisPort) => new
{
PortLocode = port.PortLoCode,
...
Vessels = vesselsInThisPort.Select(vessel => new
{
...
})
.ToList(),
});
Alternative:
var portsWithTheirVessels = dbContext.Ports.Select(port => new
{
PortLocode = port.PortLoCode,
...
Vessels = dbContext.VesselPorts.Where(vessel => vessel.PortLocode == port.PortLocode)
.Select(vessel => new
{
...
}
.ToList(),
});
Entity framework will translate this also to a GroupJoin.
I used SQLite-Net Extensions
in the following code to retrieve 1000 rows with their children relationships from an Sqlite database:
var list =
SQLiteNetExtensions.Extensions.ReadOperations.GetAllWithChildren<DataModel>(connection);
The problem is that the performance is awkward. Because GetAllWithChildren() returns a List not an Enumerable. Does exist any way to load the records in to an Enumerable using Sqlite.net extensions?
I now use Table() method from Sqlite.net, loads the fetched rows in to the Enumerable but I dont want to use it because it does not understand the relationships and does not load the children entities at all.
GetAllWithChildren suffers from the N+1 problem, and in your specific scenario this performs specially bad. It's not clear in your question what you're trying, but you could try these solutions:
Use the filterparameter in GetAllWithChildren:
Instead of loading all the objects to memory and then filter, you can use the filter property, that internally performs a Table<T>().Where(filter) query, and SQLite-Net will convert to a SELECT-WHERE clause, so it's very efficient:
var list = connection.GetAllWithChildren<DataModel>(d => d.Name == "Jason");
Perform the query and then load the relationships
If you look at the GetAllWithChildren code you'll realize that it just performs the query and then loads the existing relationships. You can do that by yourself to avoid automatically loading unwanted relationships:
// Load elements from database
var list = connection.Table<DataModel>().Where(d => d.Name == "Jason").toList();
// Iterate elements and load relationships
foreach (DataModel element in list) {
connection.GetChildren(element, recursive = false);
}
Load relationships manually
To completely workaround the N+1 problem you can manually fetch relationships using a Contains filter with the foreign keys. This highly depends on you entity model, but would look like this:
// Load elements from database
var list = connection.Table<DataModel>().Where(d => d.Name == "Jason").toList();
// Get list of dependency IDs
var dependencyIds = list.Select(d => d.DependencyId).toList();
// Load all dependencies from database on a single query
var dependencies = connection.Table<Dependency>.Where(d => dependencyIds.Contains(d.Id)).ToList();
// Assign relationships back to the elements
foreach (DataModel element in list) {
element.Dependency = dependencies.FirstOrDefault(d => d.Id == element.DependencyId);
}
This solution solves the N+1 problem, because it performs only two database queries.
Another method to load relationships manually
Imagine we have these classes:
public class Parent
{
[PrimaryKey, AutoIncrement] public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<Child> children { get; set; }
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return obj != null && Id.Equals(((BaseModel) obj).Id);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return Id.GetHashCode();
}
}
and
public class Child
{
[PrimaryKey, AutoIncrement] public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int ParentId { get; set; }
}
Hint these classes have one-to-many relation. Then inner join between them would be:
var parents = databaseSync.Table<Parent>().ToList();
var children = databaseSync.Table<Child>().ToList();
List<Parent> parentsWithChildren = parents.GroupJoin(children, parent => parent.Id, child => child.ParentId,
(parent, children1) =>
{
parent.children = children1.ToList();
return parent;
}).Where(parent => parent.children.Any()).ToList();
In my project I've implemented N-to-N relation between records using this tutorial on OrchardProject web-site. I have 2 parts: MaterialPart & CategoryPart and association record.
Material part
public class MaterialPartRecord : ContentPartRecord {
public MaterialPartRecord() {
Categories = new List<ContentMaterialCategoryRecord>();
}
}
public class MaterialPart : ContentPart<MaterialPartRecord> {
public IEnumerable<CategoryPartRecord> Categories {
get { return Record.Categories.Select(cmcr => cmcr.CategoryPartRecord); }
}
}
CategoryPartRecord
public class CategoryPartRecord : ContentPartRecord {
...
}
public class CategoryPart : ContentPart<CategoryPartRecord> {
...
}
association record:
public class ContentMaterialCategoryRecord {
public virtual int Id { get; set; }
public virtual MaterialPartRecord MaterialPartRecord { get; set; }
public virtual CategoryPartRecord CategoryPartRecord { get; set; }
}
Now I need to select MaterialItems which are linked to certain category. So far I have this method to extract them. It works but I'm not sure that it is correct way to do this.
public IEnumerable<MaterialPart> GetMaterialsByCategory(int catId) {
var cs = new CategoriesService(_oServices);
CategoryPartRecord cat = cs.GetItem(catId).Record;
return _oServices.ContentManager
.Query(VersionOptions.Latest, _contentType)
.Join<CommonPartRecord>()
.OrderByDescending(cpr => cpr.PublishedUtc);
.List()
.Where(ci => ci.IsPublished())
.Select(ci => ci.As<MaterialPart>())
.Where(mp => mp.Categories.Contains(cat)); // < ---- ?
}
So my question is: what is correct way to select materials for required category, which produces optimal SQL query, as we simply need to inner join associated record table with required CategoryPartRecord_Id field value.
thaks!
In case, of M : N with pairing object, we can use QueryOver and subquery. The biggest benefit would be, that we recieve the plain set of material Items, which we can use for paging (Take(), Skip())
var session = ... // get curretn session
CategoryPartRecord category = null;
ContentMaterialCategoryRecord pair = null;
MaterialPartRecord material = null;
var subquery = QueryOver.Of<ContentMaterialCategoryRecord>(() => pair)
// now we will join Categories to be able to filter whatever property
.JoinQueryOver(() => pair.CategoryPartRecord, () => category)
// here is the filter
// there could be IN, >= <= ...
.Where(() => category.ID == 1)
// or
.WhereRestrictionOn(c => c.category.ID).IsIn(new[] {1, 2, 3})
...
// now we will return IDs of the Material we are interested in
.Select(x => pair.MaterialPartRecord.Id);
// finally the clean query over the Materials...
var listOfUsers = session.QueryOver<MaterialPartRecord>(() => material )
.WithSubquery
.WhereProperty(() => material.Id)
.In(subquery)
// paging
.Take(10)
.Skip(10)
.List<MaterialPartRecord>();
So, this will produce the most effective SQL Script, with one subselect, and clean select from material table
NOTE: similar stuff could be done even with LINQ. But QueryOver is NHibernate most native way I'd say. Anyhow, the principe - subquery to filter by category, and main query to load materials will remain the same. Only ONE SQL Select call
I am trying to add new record into SQL database using EF. The code looks like
public void Add(QueueItem queueItem)
{
var entity = queueItem.ApiEntity;
var statistic = new Statistic
{
Ip = entity.Ip,
Process = entity.ProcessId,
ApiId = entity.ApiId,
Result = entity.Result,
Error = entity.Error,
Source = entity.Source,
DateStamp = DateTime.UtcNow,
UserId = int.Parse(entity.ApiKey),
};
_statisticRepository.Add(statistic);
unitOfWork.Commit();
}
There is navigation Api and User properties in Statistic entity which I want to load into new Statistic entity. I have tried to load navigation properties using code below but it produce large queries and decrease performance. Any suggestion how to load navigation properties in other way?
public Statistic Add(Statistic statistic)
{
_context.Statistic.Include(p => p.Api).Load();
_context.Statistic.Include(w => w.User).Load();
_context.Statistic.Add(statistic);
return statistic;
}
Some of you may have question why I want to load navigation properties while adding new entity, it's because I perform some calculations in DbContext.SaveChanges() before moving entity to database. The code looks like
public override int SaveChanges()
{
var addedStatistics = ChangeTracker.Entries<Statistic>().Where(e => e.State == EntityState.Added).ToList().Select(p => p.Entity).ToList();
var userCreditsGroup = addedStatistics
.Where(w => w.User != null)
.GroupBy(g => g.User )
.Select(s => new
{
User = s.Key,
Count = s.Sum(p=>p.Api.CreditCost)
})
.ToList();
//Skip code
}
So the Linq above will not work without loading navigation properties because it use them.
I am also adding Statistic entity for full view
public class Statistic : Entity
{
public Statistic()
{
DateStamp = DateTime.UtcNow;
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Process { get; set; }
public bool Result { get; set; }
[Required]
public DateTime DateStamp { get; set; }
[MaxLength(39)]
public string Ip { get; set; }
[MaxLength(2083)]
public string Source { get; set; }
[MaxLength(250)]
public string Error { get; set; }
public int UserId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UserId")]
public virtual User User { get; set; }
public int ApiId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("ApiId")]
public virtual Api Api { get; set; }
}
As you say, the following operations against your context will generate large queries:
_context.Statistic.Include(p => p.Api).Load();
_context.Statistic.Include(w => w.User).Load();
These are materialising the object graphs for all statistics and associated api entities and then all statistics and associated users into the statistics context
Just replacing this with a single call as follows will reduce this to a single round trip:
_context.Statistic.Include(p => p.Api).Include(w => w.User).Load();
Once these have been loaded, the entity framework change tracker will fixup the relationships on the new statistics entities, and hence populate the navigation properties for api and user for all new statistics in one go.
Depending on how many new statistics are being created in one go versus the number of existing statistics in the database I quite like this approach.
However, looking at the SaveChanges method it looks like the relationship fixup is happening once per new statistic. I.e. each time a new statistic is added you are querying the database for all statistics and associated api and user entities to trigger a relationship fixup for the new statistic.
In which case I would be more inclined todo the following:
_context.Statistics.Add(statistic);
_context.Entry(statistic).Reference(s => s.Api).Load();
_context.Entry(statistic).Reference(s => s.User).Load();
This will only query for the Api and User of the new statistic rather than for all statistics. I.e you will generate 2 single row database queries for each new statistic.
Alternatively, if you are adding a large number of statistics in one batch, you could make use of the Local cache on the context by preloading all users and api entities upfront. I.e. take the hit upfront to pre cache all user and api entities as 2 large queries.
// preload all api and user entities
_context.Apis.Load();
_context.Users.Load();
// batch add new statistics
foreach(new statistic in statisticsToAdd)
{
statistic.User = _context.Users.Local.Single(x => x.Id == statistic.UserId);
statistic.Api = _context.Api.Local.Single(x => x.Id == statistic.ApiId);
_context.Statistics.Add(statistic);
}
Would be interested to find out if Entity Framework does relationship fixup from its local cache.
I.e. if the following would populate the navigation properties from the local cache on all the new statistics. Will have a play later.
_context.ChangeTracker.DetectChanges();
Disclaimer: all code entered directly into browser so beware of the typos.
Sorry I dont have the time to test that, but EF maps entities to objects. Therefore shouldnt simply assigning the object work:
public void Add(QueueItem queueItem)
{
var entity = queueItem.ApiEntity;
var statistic = new Statistic
{
Ip = entity.Ip,
Process = entity.ProcessId,
//ApiId = entity.ApiId,
Api = _context.Apis.Single(a => a.Id == entity.ApiId),
Result = entity.Result,
Error = entity.Error,
Source = entity.Source,
DateStamp = DateTime.UtcNow,
//UserId = int.Parse(entity.ApiKey),
User = _context.Users.Single(u => u.Id == int.Parse(entity.ApiKey)
};
_statisticRepository.Add(statistic);
unitOfWork.Commit();
}
I did a little guessing of your namings, you should adjust it before testing
How about make a lookup and load only necessary columns.
private readonly Dictionary<int, UserKeyType> _userKeyLookup = new Dictionary<int, UserKeyType>();
I'm not sure how you create a repository, you might need to clean up the lookup once the saving changes is completed or in the beginning of the transaction.
_userKeyLookup.Clean();
First find in the lookup, if not found then load from context.
public Statistic Add(Statistic statistic)
{
// _context.Statistic.Include(w => w.User).Load();
UserKeyType key;
if (_userKeyLookup.Contains(statistic.UserId))
{
key = _userKeyLookup[statistic.UserId];
}
else
{
key = _context.Users.Where(u => u.Id == statistic.UserId).Select(u => u.Key).FirstOrDefault();
_userKeyLookup.Add(statistic.UserId, key);
}
statistic.User = new User { Id = statistic.UserId, Key = key };
// similar code for api..
// _context.Statistic.Include(p => p.Api).Load();
_context.Statistic.Add(statistic);
return statistic;
}
Then change the grouping a little.
var userCreditsGroup = addedStatistics
.Where(w => w.User != null)
.GroupBy(g => g.User.Id)
.Select(s => new
{
User = s.Value.First().User,
Count = s.Sum(p=>p.Api.CreditCost)
})
.ToList();
I am using the Entity Framework 4.3, POCO, database first and I am getting the following error:
Internal .NET Framework Data Provider error 1025.
QUESTION: I think that my query expresses my intent but I seem to be hitting this error, so I am wondering if anyone knows how I could structure my query differently to get around this error?
Here is the scenario...
I have a SQL server 2008 database that has 2 tables - A and B:
A
AId (int - not null - identity - primary key)
AName (nvarchar(10) - not null)
B
BId (int - not null - identity - primary key)
SomeName (nvarchar(10) - not null)
AId (int - not null - foreign key connecting to AId in the table A)
I then define the context like so:
public class DatabaseContext : DbContext
{
public DatabaseContext(string name)
: base(name)
{
Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false;
As = Set<A>();
Bs = Set<B>();
}
public DbSet<A> As { get; private set; }
public DbSet<B> Bs { get; private set; }
}
And the entity classes like so:
public class A
{
public int AId { get; set; }
public string AName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<B> Bs { get; private set; }
public void AddB(B b)
{
if (b == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("b");
}
if (Bs == null)
{
Bs = new List<B>();
}
if (!Bs.Contains(b))
{
Bs.Add(b);
}
b.A = this;
}
}
public class B
{
public int BId { get; set; }
public A A { get; set; }
public string SomeName { get; set; }
}
Now for the query...
What I want is all of the As where every "B SomeName" is in the list of names supplied so I do this:
var names = new[] {"Name1", "Name2"};
var ctx = new DatabaseContext("EFPlayingEntities");
var res = ctx.As.Where(a => a.Bs.Select(b => b.SomeName).All(names.Contains));
// Here I evaluate the query and I get:
// Internal .NET Framework Data Provider error 1025.
Console.WriteLine(res.Count());
To be clear about what I mean, if the table data looks like this:
AId,AName
1,A1
2,A2
3,A3
4,A4
BId,SomeName,AId
1,Name1,1
2,Name2,1
3,Name1,2
4,Name1,3
5,Name3,3
6,Name1,4
7,Name2,4
I would expect to get back A1, A2 and A4 (so that count call above would return 3).
The reason why this happens is subtle.
Queryable.All need to be called with an Expression. Passing in just the method 'reference' creates a delegate, and subsequently, Enumerable.All becomes the candidate instead of the intended Queryable.All.
This is why your solution you posted as an answer works correctly.
EDIT
so if you write the statement as this, it will work without exception:
var res = ctx.As.Where(
a => a.Bs.Select(b => b.SomeName).All(b => names.Contains(b)));
I have worked out a solution to this, in case anyone is interested. Doing the following is equivalent and does not result in the exception in the question:
var res = ctx
.Bs
.GroupBy(b => b.A)
.Where(g => g.All(b => names.Contains(b.SomeName)))
.Select(g => g.Key);
I do not know if this is the best way though!?
The semantics of your query look good to me; clearly, getting an internal provider error is not the intended behaviour! I would have expected some more explicit mesage about EF not being able to translate your query into a store operation, if that's in fact what the problem is.
Another way to do what you want would be:
var names = new[] {"Name1", "Name2"};
var nameCount = names.Length;
var ctx = new DatabaseContext("EFPlayingEntities");
var result = ctx.As
.Where(a => a.Bs
.Select(b => b.SomeName)
.Intersect(names)
.Count() == a.Bs.Count());
(get every A such that intersecting its Bs' names with the fixed list gives all the Bs)
although I haven't tried this to see if EF can translate this successfully.
Another way:
var names = new[] {"Name1", "Name2"};
var ctx = new DatabaseContext("EFPlayingEntities");
var result = ctx.As
.Where(a => !a.Bs.Select(b => b.SomeName).Except(names).Any());
(get every A such that the list of its Bs' names is reduced to nothing by taking out the fixed list)
also untried.