I'm trying to implement a search function, and I want to select all elements that are common in variable A and B and remove the rest.
My code looks like this:
A.ForEach(y =>
{
temp = temp.Where(x => x.Id== y.Id);
});
The problem is if A has some values that temp doesn't contain, I'll get an empty temp.
I hope I'm clear enough, but just to make sure:
If A contains 6, 10 and
temp contains 10, 7. I want to just have 10.
What's correct join or any other Linq statement for this? I'm not able to use intersect since two variables are from different tables.
You would want to use a Join.
A.Join(B, a => a.Id, b => b.Id, (a,b) => new { A = a, B = b });
This will result in an enumerable with the rows where A and B are joined and an anonymous type of:
public class AnonymousType {
AType A;
BType B;
}
Join information from C# Joins/Where with Linq and Lambda
You can try this solution, it works fine for me which return the shared elements by id between two sets: IEnumerable SetA and IEnumerable SetB:
IEnumerable<MyClassTypeA> SetA;
IEnumerable<MyClassTypeB> SetB;
Dictionary<Id, MyClassTypeA> entriesOfSetA= SetA.ToDictionary(x=>x.id);
var result= SetB.Where(x=> entriesOfSetA.ContainsKey(x.id));
Related
I need to union these rows on two ids without using an IEqualityComparer, as those are not supported in LINQ to Entities.
In result I need every unique combination of BizId and BazId, with the value from foos if the id pair came from there, else the value should be zero. This is a greatly simplified example and in reality these tables are very large and these operations cannot be done in memory. Because of this, this query needs to work with LINQ to Entities so that it can be translated to valid SQL and execute on the database. I suspect this can be done with some combination of where, join, and DefaultIfEmpty() instead of the Union and Distinct() but I am at a loss for now.
var foos = from f in Context.Foos where f.isActive select new { BizId = f.bizId, BazId = f.BazId, Value = f.Value };
var bars = from b in Context.Bars where b.isEnabled select new { BizId = b.bizId, BazId = b.BazId, Value = 0 };
var result = foos.Union(bars).Distinct(); //I need this to compare only BizId and BazId
You can group by the two fields and then get the first item of each group:
foos.Union(bars).GroupBy(x => new { x.bizId, x.bazId })
.Select(g => g.FirstOrDefault())
I'm new to C#.
I have the following struct.
struct Foo
{
string key;
Bar values;
}
I have two lists of Foo, L1 and L2 of equal size both contain same set of keys.
I have to merge the corresponding Foo instances in L1 and L2.
Foo Merge(Foo f1, Foo f2)
{
// merge f1 and f2.
return result.
}
I wrote the following to achieve this.
resultList = L1.Join(L2, f1 => f1.key, f2 => f2.key, (f1, f2) => Merge(f1, f2)
).ToList())
My problem is that my key is not unique. I have n number of elements in L1 with the same key (say "key1") (which are also appearing in L2 somewhere). So, the above join statement selects n matching entries from L2 for each "key1" from L1 and I get n*n elements with key "key1" in the result where I want only n. (So, this is kind of crossproduct for those set of elements).
I want to use Join and still select an element from L1 with "key1" and force the Linq to use the first available 'unused' "key1" element from L2. Is this possible? Is join a bad idea here?
(Also, the I want to preserve the order of the keys as in L1. I tried to handle all elements with such keys before the join and removed those entries from L1 and L2. This disturbed the order of the keys and it looked ugly).
I'm looking for a solution without any explicit for loops.
From your comment to ElectricRouge answer, you could do something like
var z = list1.Join(list2.GroupBy(m => m.Id),
m => m.Id,
g => g.Key,
(l1, l2) => new{l1, l2});
this would give you a list of all keys in l1, and the corresponding grouped keys in l2.
Not sure it's really readable.
I need to find the corresponding entries in two lists and do some operation on them. That is my preliminary requirement.
For this you can do something like this.
var z=S1.Select(i=>i.Key).Tolist(); //make a list of all keys in S1
List<Foo> result=new List<Foo>();
foreach(var item in z) // Compare with S2 using keys in z
{
var x=item.Where(i=>i.Key==item.Key)
result.Add(x);
}
Is this what you are looking for?
I want to use Join and still select an element from L1 with "key1" and force the Linq to use the first available 'unused' "key1" element from L2. Is this possible?
When combining elements from the two lists you want to pick the first element in the second list having the same key as the element in the first list. (Previously, I interpreted you question differently, and a solution to this different problem is available in the edit history of this answer.)
For quick access to the desired values in the second list a dictionary is created providing lookup from keys to the desired value from the second list:
var dictionary2 = list2
.GroupBy(foo => foo.Key)
.ToDictionary(group => group.Key, group => group.First());
The use of First expresses the requirement that you want to pick the first element in the second list having the same key.
The merged list is now created by using projection over the first list:
var mergedList = list1.Select(
foo => Merge(
foo,
dictionary2[foo.Key]
)
);
When you use foreach to iterate mergedList or ToList() the desired result will be computed.
You could use Union to remove the duplicated keys.
Documentation at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb341731.aspx
List<int> list1 = new List<int> { 1, 12, 12, 5};
List<int> list2 = new List<int> { 12, 5, 7, 9, 1 };
List<int> ulist = list1.Union(list2).ToList();
Example taken from : how to merge 2 List<T> with removing duplicate values in C#
Or you can use Concat to merge a list of different types (Keeping all keys).
See the documentation her : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb302894(v=vs.110).aspx
var MyCombinedList = Collection1.Concat(Collection2)
.Concat(Collection3)
.ToList();
Example taken from same question : Merge two (or more) lists into one, in C# .NET
Finally I adapted Raphaƫl's answer as below.
public class FooComparer : IEqualityComparer<Foo>
{
public bool Equals(Foo o1, Foo o2)
{
return o1.key == o2.key;
}
public int GetHashCode(Foo obj)
{
return obj.key.GetHashCode();
}
}
resultList = L1.Join(L2.Select(m => m).Distinct(new FooComparer()).ToList(), f1 => f1.key, f2 => f2.key, (f1, f2) => Merge(f1, f2)
).ToList());
Short explanation:
L2.Select(m => m).Distinct(new FooComparer()).ToList()
creates a new list by removing the duplicate keys from L2. Join L1 with this new list to get the required result.
I'm wondering if its possible to join together IEnumerable's.
Basically I have a bunch of users and need to get their content from the database so I can search and page through it.
I'm using LINQ to SQL, my code at the moment it:
public IEnumerable<content> allcontent;
//Get users friends
IEnumerable<relationship> friends = from f in db.relationships
where f.userId == int.Parse(userId)
select f;
IEnumerable<relationship> freindData = friends.ToList();
foreach (relationship r in freindData)
{
IEnumerable<content> content = from c in db.contents
where c.userId == r.userId
orderby c.contentDate descending
select c;
// This is where I need to merge everything together
}
I hope that make some sense!
Matt
If I understand correctly what you are trying to do, why don't you try doing:
var result = from r in db.relationships
from c in db.contents
where r.userId == int.Parse(userId)
where c.userId == r.UserId
orderby c.contentDate descending
select new {
Relationship = r,
Content = c
}
This will give you an IEnumerable<T> where T is an anonymous type that has fields Relationship and Content.
If you know your users will have less than 2100 friends, you could send the keys from the data you already loaded back into the database easily:
List<int> friendIds = friendData
.Select(r => r.UserId)
.Distinct()
.ToList();
List<content> result = db.contents
.Where(c => friendIds.Contains(c.userId))
.ToList();
What happens here is that Linq translates each Id into a parameter and then builds an IN clause to do the filtering. 2100 is the maximum number of parameters that SQL server will accept... if you have more than 2100 friends, you'll have to break the ID list up and combine (Concat) the result lists.
Or, if you want a more literal answer to your question - Concat is a method that combines 2 IEnumerables together by creating a new IEnumerable which returns the items from the first and then the items from the second.
IEnumerable<content> results = Enumerable.Empty<content>();
foreach (relationship r in friendData)
{
IEnumerable<content> content = GetData(r);
results = results.Concat(content);
}
If you're doing an INNER join, look at the .Intersect() extension method.
Which things are you merging?
There are two main options you could use: .SelectMany(...) or .Concat(...)
I have IQueryable<someClass> baseList
and List<someOtherClass> someData
What I want to do is update attributes in some items in baseList.
For every item in someData, I want to find the corresponding item in baselist and update a property of the item.
someOtherClass.someCode == baseList.myCode
can I do some type of join with Linq and set baseList.someData += someOtherClass.DataIWantToConcantenate.
I could probably do this by iteration, but is there a fancy Linq way I can do this in just a couple lines of code?
Thanks for any tips,
~ck in San Diego
To pair elements in the two lists you can use a LINQ join:
var pairs = from d in someData
join b in baseList.AsEnumerable()
on d.someCode equals b.myCode
select new { b, d };
This will give you an enumeration of each item in someData paired with its counterpart in baseList. From there, you can concatenate in a loop:
foreach(var pair in pairs)
pair.b.SomeData += pair.d.DataIWantToConcantenate;
If you really meant set concatenation rather than +=, take a look at LINQ's Union, Intersect or Except methods.
LINQ is for querying - not for updating. That means it'll be fine to use LINQ to find the corresponding item, but for the modification you should be using iteration.
Admittedly you might want to perform some appropriate query to get baseList into an efficient form first - e.g. a Dictionary<string, SomeClass> based on the property you'll be using to find the corresponding item.
You can convert the IQueryable<SomeClass> into a List<SomeClass>, use the ForEach method to loop over it and update the elements, then convert back to IQueryable:
List<SomeClass> convertedList = baseList.ToList();
convertedList.ForEach(sc =>
{
SomeOtherClass oc = someData.First(obj => obj.SomeCode == sc.MyCode);
if (oc != null)
{
sc.SomeData += oc.DataIWantToConcatenate;
}
});
baseList = convertedList.AsQueryable(); // back to IQueryable
But it may be more efficient during this using non-LINQ constructs.
As mentioned before, it should be a combination of loop and LINQ
foreach (var someDataItem in someData)
{
someDataItem.PropertyToUpdate = (baseList.FirstOrDefault(baseListItem => baseListItem .key == someDataItem.key) ?? new SomeClass(){OtherProperty = "OptionalDefaultValue"}).OtherProperty;
}
You can't simply find objects that are in one list but not the other, because they are two different types. I'll assume you're comparing a property called OtherProperty that is common to the two different classes, and shares the same type. In that case, using nothing but Linq queries:
// update those items that match by creating a new item with an
// updated property
var updated =
from d in data
join b in baseList on d.OtherProperty equals b.OtherProperty
select new MyType()
{
PropertyToUpdate = d.PropertyToUpdate,
OtherProperty = d.OtherProperty
};
// and now add to that all the items in baseList that weren't found in data
var result =
(from b in baseList
where !updated.Select(x => x.OtherProperty).Contains(b.OtherProperty)
select b).Concat(updated);
I need to do a LINQ2DataSet query that does a join on more than one field (as
var result = from x in entity
join y in entity2
on x.field1 = y.field1
and
x.field2 = y.field2
I have yet found a suitable solution (I can add the extra constraints to a where clause, but this is far from a suitable solution, or use this solution, but that assumes an equijoin).
Is it possible in LINQ to join on multiple fields in a single join?
EDIT
var result = from x in entity
join y in entity2
on new { x.field1, x.field2 } equals new { y.field1, y.field2 }
is the solution I referenced as assuming an equijoin above.
Further EDIT
To answer criticism that my original example was an equijoin, I do acknowledge that, My current requirement is for an equijoin and I have already employed the solution I referenced above.
I am, however, trying to understand what possibilities and best practices I have / should employ with LINQ. I am going to need to do a Date range query join with a table ID soon, and was just pre-empting that issue, It looks like I shall have to add the date range in the where clause.
Thanks, as always, for all suggestions and comments given
var result = from x in entity
join y in entity2 on new { x.field1, x.field2 } equals new { y.field1, y.field2 }
var result = from x in entity1
join y in entity2
on new { X1= x.field1, X2= x.field2 } equals new { X1=y.field1, X2= y.field2 }
You need to do this, if the column names are different in two entities.
The solution with the anonymous type should work fine. LINQ can only represent equijoins (with join clauses, anyway), and indeed that's what you've said you want to express anyway based on your original query.
If you don't like the version with the anonymous type for some specific reason, you should explain that reason.
If you want to do something other than what you originally asked for, please give an example of what you really want to do.
EDIT: Responding to the edit in the question: yes, to do a "date range" join, you need to use a where clause instead. They're semantically equivalent really, so it's just a matter of the optimisations available. Equijoins provide simple optimisation (in LINQ to Objects, which includes LINQ to DataSets) by creating a lookup based on the inner sequence - think of it as a hashtable from key to a sequence of entries matching that key.
Doing that with date ranges is somewhat harder. However, depending on exactly what you mean by a "date range join" you may be able to do something similar - if you're planning on creating "bands" of dates (e.g. one per year) such that two entries which occur in the same year (but not on the same date) should match, then you can do it just by using that band as the key. If it's more complicated, e.g. one side of the join provides a range, and the other side of the join provides a single date, matching if it falls within that range, that would be better handled with a where clause (after a second from clause) IMO. You could do some particularly funky magic by ordering one side or the other to find matches more efficiently, but that would be a lot of work - I'd only do that kind of thing after checking whether performance is an issue.
Just to complete this with an equivalent method chain syntax:
entity.Join(entity2, x => new {x.Field1, x.Field2},
y => new {y.Field1, y.Field2}, (x, y) => x);
While the last argument (x, y) => x is what you select (in the above case we select x).
I think a more readable and flexible option is to use Where function:
var result = from x in entity1
from y in entity2
.Where(y => y.field1 == x.field1 && y.field2 == x.field2)
This also allows to easily change from inner join to left join by appending .DefaultIfEmpty().
var result = from x in entity
join y in entity2
on new { X1= x.field1, X2= x.field2 } equals new { X1=y.field1, X2= y.field2 }
select new
{
/// Columns
};
you could do something like (below)
var query = from p in context.T1
join q in context.T2
on
new { p.Col1, p.Col2 }
equals
new { q.Col1, q.Col2 }
select new {p...., q......};
Using the join operator you can only perform equijoins. Other types of joins can be constructed using other operators. I'm not sure whether the exact join you are trying to do would be easier using these methods or by changing the where clause. Documentation on the join clause can be found here. MSDN has an article on join operations with multiple links to examples of other joins, as well.
If the field name are different in entities
var result = from x in entity
join y in entity2 on
new {
field1= x.field1,
field2 = x.field2
}
equals
new {
field1= y.field1,
field2= y.myfield
}
select new {x,y});
As a full method chain that would look like this:
lista.SelectMany(a => listb.Where(xi => b.Id == a.Id && b.Total != a.Total),
(a, b) => new ResultItem
{
Id = a.Id,
ATotal = a.Total,
BTotal = b.Total
}).ToList();
I used tuples to do that, this is an example for two columns :
var list= list1.Join(list2,
e1 => (e1.val1,e1.val2),
e2 => (e2.val1,e2.val2),
(e1, e2) => e1).ToList();
from d in db.CourseDispatches
join du in db.DispatchUsers on d.id equals du.dispatch_id
join u in db.Users on du.user_id equals u.id
join fr in db.Forumreports on (d.course_id + '_' + du.user_id) equals (fr.course_id + '_'+ fr.uid)
this works for me
Declare a Class(Type) to hold the elements you want to join. In the below example declare JoinElement
public class **JoinElement**
{
public int? Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
results = from course in courseQueryable.AsQueryable()
join agency in agencyQueryable.AsQueryable()
on new **JoinElement**() { Id = course.CourseAgencyId, Name = course.CourseDeveloper }
equals new **JoinElement**() { Id = agency.CourseAgencyId, Name = "D" } into temp1