Suppose I have this table:
Image
Perimeter
a
1
b
1
b
2
d
3
e
1
I want to return the images that have relationship with only ONE perimeter.
The expected result would be images "a,d,e" because image "b" has relationship with perimeter "1" and "2".
The objective is to remove the releated image when I delete the perimeter. But if it is linked to another perimeter, I can't remove it.
How can I write this query with LINQ?
I think it would be something like this:
SELECT "ImageId"
WHERE "PerimeterId" = PerimeterId IN
(
SELECT "ImageId"
GROUP BY "ImageId"
HAVING COUNT("PerimeterId") = 1
)
but I don't know how to convert it to LINQ.
You could use a NOT EXISTS
var query = dbo.Table
.Where(t => !dbo.Table.Any(t2 => t.Image = t.Image && t.Perimeter != t2.Perimeter));
You can easily adapt this to only select the image part. But, if you are coming from SQL, thinking about "Selecting rows" based on a "HAVING()" group calculation, then you will want to look at the .SelectMany() LINQ method. This lets you "combine back together data partitioned into groups". While your needs are to only return "one from each group", it's easy to see where this can be adjusted.
This can be run in the "C# interactive window" of SSDT 2015:
struct imagePerimeter { //this might be whatever object type it is for you...
public string Image { get; set; } //a,b,b,d,e
public int Perimeter { get; set; } //1,1,2,3,1
}
Func<string, int, imagePerimeter> newIP = (i, p) => new imagePerimeter() { Image = i, Perimeter = p };
List<imagePerimeter> results = new List<imagePerimeter>() { {newIP("a",1) }
,{newIP("b",1) }
,{newIP("b",2) }
,{newIP("d",3) }
,{newIP("e",1) } };
Func<imagePerimeter, string> ipImage = (ip) => ip.Image; //the Func's "ipImage" and "newIP" could just be inlined into LINQ, but it helps to see and debug at times IMO.
var imagesWithOnePerimeter = results.GroupBy<imagePerimeter, string>(ipImage) //even in SQL, the "GROUP BY" conceptually comes first, in LINQ, it comes first in code too!
.Select(grp => new { Image = grp.Key, PerimeterCount = grp.Count(), Details = grp }) //there's probably a more technical term, but notice how we "carry forward" the original reference to [grp]
.Where(subTotals => subTotals.PerimeterCount == 1)
.SelectMany(filtered => filtered.Details.AsEnumerable())
.ToList();
I have 2 c# classes -
class ABC
{
string LogId;
string Name;
}
class XYZ
{
string LogId;
string Name;
}
class Checker
{
public void comparelists()
{
List<ABC> lstABC =new List<ABC>();
lstABC.Add(new ABC...);
lstABC.Add(new ABC...);
lstABC.Add(new ABC...);
List<XYZ> lstXYZ =new List<XYZ>();
lstXYZ.Add(new XYZ...);
lstXYZ.Add(new XYZ...);
lstXYZ.Add(new XYZ...);
var commonLogId = lstABC
.Where(x => lstXYZ.All(y => y.LogId.Contains(x.LogId)))
.ToList();
}
}
As seen from the code , I want to fetch all logids from lstABC which are present in lstXYZ.
Eg. lstABC has ->
LogId="1", Name="somename1"
LogId="2", Name="somename2"
LogId="3", Name="somename3"
LogId="4", Name="somename4"
LogId="5", Name="somename5"
lstXYZ has ->
LogId="1", Name="somename11"
LogId="2", Name="somename22"
LogId="3", Name="somename33"
LogId="8", Name="somename8"
LogId="9", Name="somename9"
Then all logids from lstABC which are present in lstXYZ are - 1,2,3 ; so all those records are expected to get fetched.
But with below linq query -
var commonLogId = lstABC
.Where(x => lstXYZ.All(y => y.LogId.Contains(x.LogId)))
.ToList();
0 records are getting fetched/selected.
approach with Any()
var res = lstABC.Where(x => (lstXYZ.Any(y => y.LogId == x.LogId))).Select(x => x.LogId);
https://dotnetfiddle.net/jRnUwS
another approach would be Intersect() which felt a bit more natural to me
var res = lstABC.Select(x => x.LogId).Intersect(lstXYZ.Select(y => y.LogId));
https://dotnetfiddle.net/7iWYDO
You are using the wrong LINQ function. Try Any():
var commonLogId = lstABC
.Where(x => lstXYZ.Any(y => y.LogId == x.LogId))
.ToList();
Also note that the id comparison with Contains() was wrong. Just use == instead.
All() checks if all elements in a list satisfy the specified condition. Any() on the other hand only checks if at least one of the elements does.
Be aware that your implementation will be very slow when both lists are large, because it's runtime complexity grows quadratically with number of elements to compare. A faster implementation would use Join() which was created and optimized exactly for this purpose:
var commonLogIds = lstABC
.Join(
lstXYZ,
x => x.LogId, // Defines what to use as key in `lstABC`.
y => y.LogId, // Defines what to use as key in `lstXYZ`.
(x, y) => x) // Defines the output of matched pairs. Here
// we simply use the values of `lstABC`.
.ToList();
It seems pretty unnatural to intersect entirely different types, so I would be tempted to interface the commonality and write an EqualityComparer:
class ABC : ILogIdProvider
{
public string LogId {get;set;}
public string Name;
}
class XYZ : ILogIdProvider
{
public string LogId{get;set;}
public string Name;
}
interface ILogIdProvider
{
string LogId{get;}
}
class LogIdComparer : EqualityComparer<ILogIdProvider>
{
public override int GetHashCode(ILogIdProvider obj) => obj.LogId.GetHashCode();
public override bool Equals(ILogIdProvider x, ILogIdProvider y) => x.LogId == y.LogId;
}
Then you can Intersect the lists more naturally:
var res = lstABC.Intersect(lstXYZ, new LogIdComparer());
Live example: https://dotnetfiddle.net/0Tt6eu
Can someone please help to explain what's happening in the following code? Many thanks! The result is meo but I don't understand how the two 'where' work in this context.
public class Cat {
public string Text { get; set; }
public Cat Where(Func<Cat,bool> cond) {
return new Cat {
Text = cond(this)? this.Text.ToUpper(): this.Text.ToLower()
}; }
}
public static class CatExtensions {
public static T Select<T>(this Cat cat, Func<Cat,T> proj)
{
return proj(cat);
}
}
var moggy = new Cat { Text = "Meo" };
var result = from m in moggy
where true
where false
select m.Text;
It's easier to understand if you look at the method-chaining syntax version of that expression:
moggy
.Where(m => true) // returns new Cat { Text = "MEO" }
.Where(m => false) // returns new Cat { Text = "meo" }
.Select(m => m.Text); // returns "meo"
from a in B where E is considered the same as B.Where(a => E).
Because of the fact that the class defines its own Where methods, these are used instead of those defined by Linq, as instance methods are always chosen over extension methods if available. Also those methods aren't applicable anyway.
The first returns an all uppercase MEO cat, then the second acts on that and returns an all lowers case meo cat.
The select is an extension method and applies the delegate to that last object.
These are multple Where clauses in LINQ.
Usually this is like a simple And conditon
For example say we have a Customer Entity and we have all customers stored in a variable results and we want to get the Customer whose FirstName is John and LastName is Doe, then we would do
results.Where(x => (x.FirstName == "John") && (x.LasttName == "Doe"));
Now this piece of code can be written with 2 Where clauses like
results.Where(x => (x.FirstName == "John"))
.Where(x => (x.LasttName == "Doe"));
given a list of ids, I can query all relevant rows by:
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id));
But how do you achieve the same functionality when the Table has a composite key?
This is a nasty problem for which I don't know any elegant solution.
Suppose you have these key combinations, and you only want to select the marked ones (*).
Id1 Id2
--- ---
1 2 *
1 3
1 6
2 2 *
2 3 *
... (many more)
How to do this is a way that Entity Framework is happy? Let's look at some possible solutions and see if they're any good.
Solution 1: Join (or Contains) with pairs
The best solution would be to create a list of the pairs you want, for instance Tuples, (List<Tuple<int,int>>) and join the database data with this list:
from entity in db.Table // db is a DbContext
join pair in Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity
In LINQ to objects this would be perfect, but, too bad, EF will throw an exception like
Unable to create a constant value of type 'System.Tuple`2 (...) Only primitive types or enumeration types are supported in this context.
which is a rather clumsy way to tell you that it can't translate this statement into SQL, because Tuples is not a list of primitive values (like int or string). For the same reason a similar statement using Contains (or any other LINQ statement) would fail.
Solution 2: In-memory
Of course we could turn the problem into simple LINQ to objects like so:
from entity in db.Table.AsEnumerable() // fetch db.Table into memory first
join pair Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity
Needless to say that this is not a good solution. db.Table could contain millions of records.
Solution 3: Two Contains statements (incorrect)
So let's offer EF two lists of primitive values, [1,2] for Id1 and [2,3] for Id2. We don't want to use join, so let's use Contains:
from entity in db.Table
where ids1.Contains(entity.Id1) && ids2.Contains(entity.Id2)
select entity
But now the results also contains entity {1,3}! Well, of course, this entity perfectly matches the two predicates. But let's keep in mind that we're getting closer. In stead of pulling millions of entities into memory, we now only get four of them.
Solution 4: One Contains with computed values
Solution 3 failed because the two separate Contains statements don't only filter the combinations of their values. What if we create a list of combinations first and try to match these combinations? We know from solution 1 that this list should contain primitive values. For instance:
var computed = ids1.Zip(ids2, (i1,i2) => i1 * i2); // [2,6]
and the LINQ statement:
from entity in db.Table
where computed.Contains(entity.Id1 * entity.Id2)
select entity
There are some problems with this approach. First, you'll see that this also returns entity {1,6}. The combination function (a*b) does not produce values that uniquely identify a pair in the database. Now we could create a list of strings like ["Id1=1,Id2=2","Id1=2,Id2=3]" and do
from entity in db.Table
where computed.Contains("Id1=" + entity.Id1 + "," + "Id2=" + entity.Id2)
select entity
(This would work in EF6, not in earlier versions).
This is getting pretty messy. But a more important problem is that this solution is not sargable, which means: it bypasses any database indexes on Id1 and Id2 that could have been used otherwise. This will perform very very poorly.
Solution 5: Best of 2 and 3
So the most viable solution I can think of is a combination of Contains and a join in memory: First do the contains statement as in solution 3. Remember, it got us very close to what we wanted. Then refine the query result by joining the result as an in-memory list:
var rawSelection = from entity in db.Table
where ids1.Contains(entity.Id1) && ids2.Contains(entity.Id2)
select entity;
var refined = from entity in rawSelection.AsEnumerable()
join pair in Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity;
It's not elegant, messy all the same maybe, but so far it's the only scalable1 solution to this problem I found, and applied in my own code.
Solution 6: Build a query with OR clauses
Using a Predicate builder like Linqkit or alternatives, you can build a query that contains an OR clause for each element in the list of combinations. This could be a viable option for really short lists. With a couple of hundreds of elements, the query will start performing very poorly. So I don't consider this a good solution unless you can be 100% sure that there will always be a small number of elements. One elaboration of this option can be found here.
Solution 7: Unions
There's also a solution using UNIONs that I posted later here.
1As far as the Contains statement is scalable: Scalable Contains method for LINQ against a SQL backend
Solution for Entity Framework Core with SQL Server
🎉 NEW! QueryableValues EF6 Edition has arrived!
The following solution makes use of QueryableValues. This is a library that I wrote to primarily solve the problem of query plan cache pollution in SQL Server caused by queries that compose local values using the Contains LINQ method. It also allows you to compose values of complex types in your queries in a performant way, which will achieve what's being asked in this question.
First you will need to install and set up the library, after doing that you can use any of the following patterns that will allow you to query your entities using a composite key:
// Required to make the AsQueryableValues method available on the DbContext.
using BlazarTech.QueryableValues;
// Local data that will be used to query by the composite key
// of the fictitious OrderProduct table.
var values = new[]
{
new { OrderId = 1, ProductId = 10 },
new { OrderId = 2, ProductId = 20 },
new { OrderId = 3, ProductId = 30 }
};
// Optional helper variable (needed by the second example due to CS0854)
var queryableValues = dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values);
// Example 1 - Using a Join (preferred).
var example1Results = dbContext
.OrderProduct
.Join(
queryableValues,
e => new { e.OrderId, e.ProductId },
v => new { v.OrderId, v.ProductId },
(e, v) => e
)
.ToList();
// Example 2 - Using Any (similar behavior as Contains).
var example2Results = dbContext
.OrderProduct
.Where(e => queryableValues
.Where(v =>
v.OrderId == e.OrderId &&
v.ProductId == e.ProductId
)
.Any()
)
.ToList();
Useful Links
Nuget Package
GitHub Repository
Benchmarks
QueryableValues is distributed under the MIT license.
You can use Union for each composite primary key:
var compositeKeys = new List<CK>
{
new CK { id1 = 1, id2 = 2 },
new CK { id1 = 1, id2 = 3 },
new CK { id1 = 2, id2 = 4 }
};
IQuerable<CK> query = null;
foreach(var ck in compositeKeys)
{
var temp = context.Table.Where(x => x.id1 == ck.id1 && x.id2 == ck.id2);
query = query == null ? temp : query.Union(temp);
}
var result = query.ToList();
You can create a collection of strings with both keys like this (I am assuming that your keys are int type):
var id1id2Strings = listOfIds.Select(p => p.Id1+ "-" + p.Id2);
Then you can just use "Contains" on your db:
using (dbEntities context = new dbEntities())
{
var rec = await context.Table1.Where(entity => id1id2Strings .Contains(entity.Id1+ "-" + entity.Id2));
return rec.ToList();
}
You need a set of objects representing the keys you want to query.
class Key
{
int Id1 {get;set;}
int Id2 {get;set;}
If you have two lists and you simply check that each value appears in their respective list then you are getting the cartesian product of the lists - which is likely not what you want. Instead you need to query the specific combinations required
List<Key> keys = // get keys;
context.Table.Where(q => keys.Any(k => k.Id1 == q.Id1 && k.Id2 == q.Id2));
I'm not completely sure that this is valid use of Entity Framework; you may have issues with sending the Key type to the database. If that happens then you can be creative:
var composites = keys.Select(k => p1 * k.Id1 + p2 * k.Id2).ToList();
context.Table.Where(q => composites.Contains(p1 * q.Id1 + p2 * q.Id2));
You can create an isomorphic function (prime numbers are good for this), something like a hashcode, which you can use to compare the pair of values. As long as the multiplicative factors are co-prime this pattern will be isomorphic (one-to-one) - i.e. the result of p1*Id1 + p2*Id2 will uniquely identify the values of Id1 and Id2 as long as the prime numbers are correctly chosen.
But then you end up in a situation where you're implementing complex concepts and someone is going to have to support this. Probably better to write a stored procedure which takes the valid key objects.
Ran into this issue as well and needed a solution that both did not perform a table scan and also provided exact matches.
This can be achieved by combining Solution 3 and Solution 4 from Gert Arnold's Answer
var firstIds = results.Select(r => r.FirstId);
var secondIds = results.Select(r => r.SecondId);
var compositeIds = results.Select(r => $"{r.FirstId}:{r.SecondId}");
var query = from e in dbContext.Table
//first check the indexes to avoid a table scan
where firstIds.Contains(e.FirstId) && secondIds.Contains(e.SecondId))
//then compare the compositeId for an exact match
//ToString() must be called unless using EF Core 5+
where compositeIds.Contains(e.FirstId.ToString() + ":" + e.SecondId.ToString()))
select e;
var entities = await query.ToListAsync();
For EF Core I use a slightly modified version of the bucketized IN method by EricEJ to map composite keys as tuples. It performs pretty well for small sets of data.
Sample usage
List<(int Id, int Id2)> listOfIds = ...
context.Table.In(listOfIds, q => q.Id, q => q.Id2);
Implementation
public static IQueryable<TQuery> In<TKey1, TKey2, TQuery>(
this IQueryable<TQuery> queryable,
IEnumerable<(TKey1, TKey2)> values,
Expression<Func<TQuery, TKey1>> key1Selector,
Expression<Func<TQuery, TKey2>> key2Selector)
{
if (values is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(values));
}
if (key1Selector is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(key1Selector));
}
if (key2Selector is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(key2Selector));
}
if (!values.Any())
{
return queryable.Take(0);
}
var distinctValues = Bucketize(values);
if (distinctValues.Length > 1024)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Too many parameters for SQL Server, reduce the number of parameters", nameof(values));
}
var predicates = distinctValues
.Select(v =>
{
// Create an expression that captures the variable so EF can turn this into a parameterized SQL query
Expression<Func<TKey1>> value1AsExpression = () => v.Item1;
Expression<Func<TKey2>> value2AsExpression = () => v.Item2;
var firstEqual = Expression.Equal(key1Selector.Body, value1AsExpression.Body);
var visitor = new ReplaceParameterVisitor(key2Selector.Parameters[0], key1Selector.Parameters[0]);
var secondEqual = Expression.Equal(visitor.Visit(key2Selector.Body), value2AsExpression.Body);
return Expression.AndAlso(firstEqual, secondEqual);
})
.ToList();
while (predicates.Count > 1)
{
predicates = PairWise(predicates).Select(p => Expression.OrElse(p.Item1, p.Item2)).ToList();
}
var body = predicates.Single();
var clause = Expression.Lambda<Func<TQuery, bool>>(body, key1Selector.Parameters[0]);
return queryable.Where(clause);
}
class ReplaceParameterVisitor : ExpressionVisitor
{
private ParameterExpression _oldParameter;
private ParameterExpression _newParameter;
public ReplaceParameterVisitor(ParameterExpression oldParameter, ParameterExpression newParameter)
{
_oldParameter = oldParameter;
_newParameter = newParameter;
}
protected override Expression VisitParameter(ParameterExpression node)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(node, _oldParameter))
return _newParameter;
return base.VisitParameter(node);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Break a list of items tuples of pairs.
/// </summary>
private static IEnumerable<(T, T)> PairWise<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
var sourceEnumerator = source.GetEnumerator();
while (sourceEnumerator.MoveNext())
{
var a = sourceEnumerator.Current;
sourceEnumerator.MoveNext();
var b = sourceEnumerator.Current;
yield return (a, b);
}
}
private static TKey[] Bucketize<TKey>(IEnumerable<TKey> values)
{
var distinctValueList = values.Distinct().ToList();
// Calculate bucket size as 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,...
var bucket = 1;
while (distinctValueList.Count > bucket)
{
bucket *= 2;
}
// Fill all slots.
var lastValue = distinctValueList.Last();
for (var index = distinctValueList.Count; index < bucket; index++)
{
distinctValueList.Add(lastValue);
}
var distinctValues = distinctValueList.ToArray();
return distinctValues;
}
In the absence of a general solution, I think there are two things to consider:
Avoid multi-column primary keys (will make unit testing easier too).
But if you have to, chances are that one of them will reduce the
query result size to O(n) where n is the size of the ideal query
result. From here, its Solution 5 from Gerd Arnold above.
For example, the problem leading me to this question was querying order lines, where the key is order id + order line number + order type, and the source had the order type being implicit. That is, the order type was a constant, order ID would reduce the query set to order lines of relevant orders, and there would usually be 5 or less of these per order.
To rephrase: If you have a composite key, changes are that one of them have very few duplicates. Apply Solution 5 from above with that.
I tried this solution and it worked with me and the output query was perfect without any parameters
using LinqKit; // nuget
var customField_Ids = customFields?.Select(t => new CustomFieldKey { Id = t.Id, TicketId = t.TicketId }).ToList();
var uniqueIds1 = customField_Ids.Select(cf => cf.Id).Distinct().ToList();
var uniqueIds2 = customField_Ids.Select(cf => cf.TicketId).Distinct().ToList();
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.New<CustomFieldKey>(false); //LinqKit
var lambdas = new List<Expression<Func<CustomFieldKey, bool>>>();
foreach (var cfKey in customField_Ids)
{
var id = uniqueIds1.Where(uid => uid == cfKey.Id).Take(1).ToList();
var ticketId = uniqueIds2.Where(uid => uid == cfKey.TicketId).Take(1).ToList();
lambdas.Add(t => id.Contains(t.Id) && ticketId.Contains(t.TicketId));
}
predicate = AggregateExtensions.AggregateBalanced(lambdas.ToArray(), (expr1, expr2) =>
{
var invokedExpr = Expression.Invoke(expr2, expr1.Parameters.Cast<Expression>());
return Expression.Lambda<Func<CustomFieldKey, bool>>
(Expression.OrElse(expr1.Body, invokedExpr), expr1.Parameters);
});
var modifiedCustomField_Ids = repository.GetTable<CustomFieldLocal>()
.Select(cf => new CustomFieldKey() { Id = cf.Id, TicketId = cf.TicketId }).Where(predicate).ToArray();
I ended up writing a helper for this problem that relies on System.Linq.Dynamic.Core;
Its a lot of code and don't have time to refactor at the moment but input / suggestions appreciated.
public static IQueryable<TEntity> WhereIsOneOf<TEntity, TSource>(this IQueryable<TEntity> dbSet,
IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Expression<Func<TEntity, TSource,bool>> predicate) where TEntity : class
{
var (where, pDict) = GetEntityPredicate(predicate, source);
return dbSet.Where(where, pDict);
(string WhereStr, IDictionary<string, object> paramDict) GetEntityPredicate(Expression<Func<TEntity, TSource, bool>> func, IEnumerable<TSource> source)
{
var firstP = func.Parameters[0];
var binaryExpressions = RecurseBinaryExpressions((BinaryExpression)func.Body);
var i = 0;
var paramDict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
var res = new List<string>();
foreach (var sourceItem in source)
{
var innerRes = new List<string>();
foreach (var bExp in binaryExpressions)
{
var emp = ToEMemberPredicate(firstP, bExp);
var val = emp.GetKeyValue(sourceItem);
var pName = $"#{i++}";
paramDict.Add(pName, val);
var str = $"{emp.EntityMemberName} {emp.SQLOperator} {pName}";
innerRes.Add(str);
}
res.Add( "(" + string.Join(" and ", innerRes) + ")");
}
var sRes = string.Join(" || ", res);
return (sRes, paramDict);
}
EMemberPredicate ToEMemberPredicate(ParameterExpression firstP, BinaryExpression bExp)
{
var lMember = (MemberExpression)bExp.Left;
var rMember = (MemberExpression)bExp.Right;
var entityMember = lMember.Expression == firstP ? lMember : rMember;
var keyMember = entityMember == lMember ? rMember : lMember;
return new EMemberPredicate(entityMember, keyMember, bExp.NodeType);
}
List<BinaryExpression> RecurseBinaryExpressions(BinaryExpression e, List<BinaryExpression> runningList = null)
{
if (runningList == null) runningList = new List<BinaryExpression>();
if (e.Left is BinaryExpression lbe)
{
var additions = RecurseBinaryExpressions(lbe);
runningList.AddRange(additions);
}
if (e.Right is BinaryExpression rbe)
{
var additions = RecurseBinaryExpressions(rbe);
runningList.AddRange(additions);
}
if (e.Left is MemberExpression && e.Right is MemberExpression)
{
runningList.Add(e);
}
return runningList;
}
}
Helper class:
public class EMemberPredicate
{
public readonly MemberExpression EntityMember;
public readonly MemberExpression KeyMember;
public readonly PropertyInfo KeyMemberPropInfo;
public readonly string EntityMemberName;
public readonly string SQLOperator;
public EMemberPredicate(MemberExpression entityMember, MemberExpression keyMember, ExpressionType eType)
{
EntityMember = entityMember;
KeyMember = keyMember;
KeyMemberPropInfo = (PropertyInfo)keyMember.Member;
EntityMemberName = entityMember.Member.Name;
SQLOperator = BinaryExpressionToMSSQLOperator(eType);
}
public object GetKeyValue(object o)
{
return KeyMemberPropInfo.GetValue(o, null);
}
private string BinaryExpressionToMSSQLOperator(ExpressionType eType)
{
switch (eType)
{
case ExpressionType.Equal:
return "==";
case ExpressionType.GreaterThan:
return ">";
case ExpressionType.GreaterThanOrEqual:
return ">=";
case ExpressionType.LessThan:
return "<";
case ExpressionType.LessThanOrEqual:
return "<=";
case ExpressionType.NotEqual:
return "<>";
default:
throw new ArgumentException($"{eType} is not a handled Expression Type.");
}
}
}
Use Like so:
// This can be a Tuple or whatever.. If Tuple, then y below would be .Item1, etc.
// This data structure is up to you but is what I use.
[FromBody] List<CustomerAddressPk> cKeys
var res = await dbCtx.CustomerAddress
.WhereIsOneOf(cKeys, (x, y) => y.CustomerId == x.CustomerId
&& x.AddressId == y.AddressId)
.ToListAsync();
Hope this helps others.
in Case of composite key you can use another idlist and add a condition for that in your code
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id) && listOfIds2.Contains(q.Id2));
or you can use one another trick create a list of your keys by adding them
listofid.add(id+id1+......)
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id+q.id1+.......));
I tried this on EF Core 5.0.3 with the Postgres provider.
context.Table
.Select(entity => new
{
Entity = entity,
CompositeKey = entity.Id1 + entity.Id2,
})
.Where(x => compositeKeys.Contains(x.CompositeKey))
.Select(x => x.Entity);
This produced SQL like:
SELECT *
FROM table AS t
WHERE t.Id1 + t.Id2 IN (#__compositeKeys_0)),
Caveats
this should only be used where the combination of Id1 and Id2 will always produce a unique result (e.g., they're both UUIDs)
this cannot use indexes, though you could save the composite key to the db with an index
I have this need to know how many rows have the same month from a table and I have no idea of how to do it. I thought I'd try some LINQ but I've never used it before so I don't even know if it's possible. Please help me out!
public ActionResult returTest()
{
ViewData["RowsWithSameMonth"] = // I'm guessing I can put some LINQ here?
var returer = from s in db2.ReturerDB select s;
return View(returer.ToList());
}
The ideal would be to get, maybe a two dimensional array with the month in the first cell and the amount of rows from the db in the second?
I'd like the result to be sort of :
string[,] statistics = new string[,]
{
{"2013-11", "5"},
{"2013-12", "10"},
{"2014-01", "3"}
};
Is this doable? Or should I just query the database and do a whole lot of stuff? I'm thinking that I can solve this on my own, but it would mean a lot of ugly code. Background: self taught C# developer at IT-company with 1 years experience of ugly codesmanship and no official degree of any kind.
EDIT
var returer = from s in db2.ReturerDB select s;
var dateRange = returer.ToList();
var groupedData = dateRange.GroupBy(dateRow => dateRow.ToString())
.OrderBy(monthGroup => monthGroup.Key)
.Select(monthGroup => new
{
Month = monthGroup.Key,
MountCount = monthGroup.Count()
});
string test01 = "";
string test02 = "";
foreach (var item in groupedData)
{
test01 = item.Month.ToString();
test02 = item.MountCount.ToString();
}
In debug, test01 is "Namespace.Models.ReturerDB" and test02 is "6" as was expected, or at least wanted. What am I doing wrong?
You can do this:
var groupedData = db2.ReturerDB.GroupBy(r => new { r.Date.Year, r.Date.Month })
.Select(g => new { g.Key.Year, g.Key.Month, Count = g.Count() })
.OrderBy(x => x.Year).ThenBy(x => x.Month);
.ToList();
var result = groupedData
.ToDictionary(g => string.Format("{0}-{1:00}", g.Year, g.Month),
g => g.Count);
Which will give you
Key Value
---------------
2013-11 5
2013-12 10
2014-01 3
(Creating a dictionary is slightly easier than a two-dimensional array)
This will work against a SQL back-end like entity framework of linq-to-sql, because the expressions r.Date.Year and r.Date.Month can be translated into SQL.
with a nod to mehrandvd, here is how you'd achieve this using linq method chain approach:
var dateRange = { // your base collection with the dates};
// make sure you change MyDateField to match your won datetime field
var groupedData = dateRange
.GroupBy(dateRow => dateRow.MyDateField.ToString("yyyy-mm"))
.OrderBy(monthGroup => monthGroup.Key)
.Select(monthGroup => new
{
Month = monthGroup.Key,
MountCount = monthGroup.Count()
});
This would give you the results you required, as per the OP.
[edit] - as requested, example of how to access the newly created anonymous type:
foreach (var item in groupedData)
{
Console.WriteLine(item.Month);
Console.WriteLine(item.MountCount);
}
OR, you could return the whole caboodle as a jsonresult to your client app and iterate inside that, i.e the final line of your view would be:
return Json(groupedData, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet);
hope this clarifies.
What you need is grouping.
Considering you have a list of dates a solution would be this:
var dateRows = // Get from database
var monthlyRows = from dateRow in dateRows
group dateRow by dateRow.ToString("yyyy/mm") into monthGroup
orderby monthGroup.Key
select new { Month=monthGroup.Key, MountCount=monthGroup.Count };
// Your results would be a list of objects which have `Month` and `MonthCount` properties.
// {Month="2014/01", MonthCount=24}
// {Month="2014/02", MonthCount=28}