I just need to make full outer join with Linq, But When i union two quires i get this error:
Instance argument: cannot convert from 'System.Linq.IQueryable' to 'System.Linq.ParallelQuery
And here is my full Code:
using (GoodDataBaseEntities con = new GoodDataBaseEntities())
{
var LeftOuterJoin = from MyCustomer in con.Customer
join MyAddress in con.Address
on MyCustomer.CustomerId equals MyAddress.CustomerID into gr
from g in gr.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new { MyCustomer.CustomerId, MyCustomer.Name, g.Address1 };
var RightOuterJoin = from MyAddress in con.Address
join MyCustomer in con.Customer
on MyAddress.CustomerID equals MyCustomer.CustomerId into gr
from g in gr.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new { MyAddress.Address1, g.Name };
var FullOuterJoin = LeftOuterJoin.Union(RightOuterJoin);
IEnumerable myList = FullOuterJoin.ToList();
GridView1.DataSource = myList;
GridView1.DataBind();
}
The types of your two sequences are not the same, so you can't do a Union.
new { MyCustomer.CustomerId, MyCustomer.Name, g.Address1 };
new { MyAddress.Address1, g.Name };
Try making sure that the fields have the same names and types in the same order.
Why not select it all as one thing? Depending on your setup (i.e., if you have foreign keys properly set up on your tables), you shouldn't need to do explicit joins:
var fullJoin = from MyCustomer in con.Customer
select new {
MyCustomer.CustomerId,
MyCustomer.Name,
MyCustomer.Address.Address1,
MyCustomer.Address.Name
};
Method syntax:
var fullJoin = con.Customers.Select(x => new
{
x.CustomerId,
x.Name,
x.Address.Address1,
x.Address.Name
});
union appends items from one collection to the end of another collection, so if each collection had 5 items, the new collection will have 10 items.
What you seem to want is to end up with 5 rows with more infomration is each. That's not a job for Union. You might be able to do it with Zip(), but you'll really be best with the single query as shown by DLeh.
Related
In the following code:
var finalArticles =
from domainArticle in articlesFoundInDomain
join articleCategoryVersion in dbc.ArticlesCategoriesVersions
on domainArticle.ArticleID equals articleCategoryVersion.ArticleID
join articleCategory in dbc.ArticleCategories
on articleCategoryVersion.CategoryID equals articleCategory.CategoryID
where articleCategory.ParentID == 52
group articleCategory by articleCategory.CategoryID
into newArticleCategoryGroup
I understand that the group clause should be returning an IEnumerable where k is the Key, in this case CategoryID.
I think I'm misunderstanding Linq at this point because I assume that for each 'k' there should be a list of articles in 'v', but I don't understand the mechanisms or terminology or something. When I try to project this statement into a new anonymous object I don't seem to get any articles... where are they?
Edit:
Okay so I've got a piece of code that is working, but unfortunately it's hitting the SQL server multiple times:
var articlesAssociatedWithKnowledgeTypes =
from categories in dbc.ArticleCategories
join categoryVersions in dbc.ArticlesCategoriesVersions
on categories.CategoryID equals categoryVersions.CategoryID
join articles in articlesFoundInGivenDomain
on categoryVersions.ArticleID equals articles.ArticleID
where categories.ParentID == 52 && articles.Version == categoryVersions.Version
select new
{
ArticleID = articles.ArticleID,
ArticleTitle = articles.Title,
ArticleVersion = articles.Version,
CategoryID = categories.CategoryID,
CategoryName = categories.Name
} into knowledgeTypesFlat
group knowledgeTypesFlat by new { knowledgeTypesFlat.CategoryID, knowledgeTypesFlat.CategoryName } into knowledgeTypesNested
select new
{
CategoryID = knowledgeTypesNested.Key.CategoryID,
CategoryName = knowledgeTypesNested.Key.CategoryName,
Articles = knowledgeTypesNested.ToList()
};
I thought the ToList() on Articles would sort that out but it doesn't. But, the code works although I'm not sure if this is optimal?
The grouping returns an enumeration of IGroupings. IGrouping<K, V> itself implements IEnumerable<V>. Think of each group as an enumerable of all the members of that group plus an extra property Key
In your first query you are showing a group by and the second one is a group join, both return different results. The group by returns an IEnumerable<IGrouping<TKey, TElement>>. To get the result you're expecting you could group by CategoryId and CategoryName and project as I show below:
var finalArticles =
from domainArticle in articlesFoundInDomain
join articleCategoryVersion in dbc.ArticlesCategoriesVersions
on domainArticle.ArticleID equals articleCategoryVersion.ArticleID
join articleCategory in dbc.ArticleCategories
on articleCategoryVersion.CategoryID equals articleCategory.CategoryID
where articleCategory.ParentID == 52
group articleCategory by new{ articleCategory.CategoryID,articleCategory.CategoryName}
into g
select new {CatId=g.Key.CategoryID, CatName=g.Key.CategoryName,Articles =g.ToList() };
When you need the grouped elements you can call ToList or ToArray as I did above
Your finalArticles query results in a IEnumerable<IGrouping<int, Article>> (assuming CategoryID is int and your articles are of type Article).
These IGrouping<int, Article> provides a Key property of type int (your CategoryID and also the IEnumerable<Article> representing the sequence of articles for that CategoryID.
You can turn this for example into a Dictionary<int, List<Article>> mapping CategoryIDs to the lists of articles:
var dictionary = finalArticles.ToDictionary(group => group.Key, group => group.ToList());
or to a list of categories containing articles:
var categories = finalArticles.Select(group => new {
CategoryID = group.Key,
Articles = group.ToList()}).ToList();
Update after your comment:
var finalArticles =
from domainArticle in articlesFoundInDomain
join articleCategoryVersion in dbc.ArticlesCategoriesVersions
on domainArticle.ArticleID equals articleCategoryVersion.ArticleID
join articleCategory in dbc.ArticleCategories
on articleCategoryVersion.CategoryID equals articleCategory.CategoryID
where articleCategory.ParentID == 52
group articleCategory by new {articleCategory.CategoryID, articleCategory.Name}
into newArticleCategoryGroup
select new
{
CategoryID = newArticleCategoryGroup.Key.CategoryID,
CategoryName = newArticleCategoryGroup.Key.Name,
Articles = newArticleCateGroup.ToList()
}
The basis of this question is from this question:
Combine 2 classes with adding data and 1 table has a colllection list of the other table and wanting to use linq to display
In which I "thought" the problem was solved.
However as I added in a new object to the List, now this join query does not output it
reportData.Add(new ReportData() {ReportGroupId = 3, ReportGroupName = "Straggler", SortOrder = 3, Type = 1});
var reports = reportDefinition.GroupBy(r=>r.ReportGroupId);
var query = reportData.Join(reports, d => d.ReportGroupId, gr => gr.Key,
(r,gr) => new
{
r.ReportGroupName,
items = gr.ToList(),
r.ReportGroupId
});
Here is the dotNetFiddle https://dotnetfiddle.net/IIBFKG
Why doesn't the item that I added to the ReportData not show up? Is it the type of JOIN in Linq?
I think the linked question was not answered correctly.
Looks like all you need is a simple Group Join:
var query =
from d in reportData
join r in reportDefinition on d.ReportGroupId equals r.ReportGroupId into items
select new
{
d.ReportGroupName,
items = items.ToList(),
d.ReportGroupId
};
I got the following error :
Exception Details: System.NotSupportedException: Unable to create a constant value of type 'FileCombined'. Only primitive types or enumeration types are supported in this context
I am using the following code:
var o1 = new FileCombined (){ ScholarshipID = 3, FileDescription = "smt" };
var o2 = new FileCombined() { ScholarshipID = 10, FileDescription = "smt" };
List <FileCombined> list = new FileCombined[] { o1, o2 }.ToList();
var data = (from scholarship in db.ScholarshipRequests
join file in list on scholarship.ScholarshipRequestID equals file.ScholarshipID
select new { ScholarshipID = scholarship.ScholarshipRequestID, FileDescription = file.FileDescription }).ToList();
if I change the order of the linq expression , the query works fine:
var o1 = new FileCombined (){ ScholarshipID = 3, FileDescription = "smt" };
var o2 = new FileCombined() { ScholarshipID = 10, FileDescription = "smt" };
List <FileCombined> list = new FileCombined[] { o1, o2 }.ToList();
var data = (from file in list
join scholarship in db.ScholarshipRequests on file.ScholarshipID equals scholarship.ScholarshipRequestID
select new FileCombined (){ ScholarshipID = scholarship.ScholarshipRequestID, FileDescription = file.FileDescription }).ToList();
can anyone explain or find the solution?
I need the first query to work, because i have more complicated query in the continuous code
To add to #Maarten's answer I would say you can also remove the join and use Contains, because in your case you'll get the same result (I suppose the list will not get huge). You can then look-up the FileDescription in the list (and I would maybe create dictionary).
var list2 = list.Select(x => x.ScholarshipID);
var data = (from scholarship in db.ScholarshipRequests
where list2.Contains(scholarship.ScholarshipRequestID)
select new { ScholarshipID = scholarship.ScholarshipRequestID }).ToList();
// do the lookup in "list" and get result
Assuming list is a variable-in-memory, and db.ScholarshipRequests is a table in a context, this is indeed not possible. You cannot expect EF to create a query which joins a database table with an in-memory collection.
You can load the table in memory, but please be warned that this loads the entire table in memory, which can/will cause performance issues.
Like this (I've added .ToList() after db.ScholarshipRequests):
var data = (from scholarship in db.ScholarshipRequests.ToList()
join file in list on scholarship.ScholarshipRequestID equals file.ScholarshipID
select new { ScholarshipID = scholarship.ScholarshipRequestID, FileDescription = file.FileDescription }).ToList();
I've been searching how to join two tables (Data and DataValues, one to many) and fill a dictionary of type .
The records of Data(s) might be thousands (e.g. 500,000 or more) and each Data may have 10 to 20 DataValues which makes it a much heavier query, so the performance is really important here.
here is the code I've write:
// Passed via the arguments, for example, sensorIDs would contain:
int[] sensorIDs = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18 };
Dictionary<Data, List<DataValue>> dict = new Dictionary<Data, List<DataValue>>();
foreach (Data Data in dt.Datas)
{
var dValues = from d in dt.Datas
join dV in dt.DataValues on d.DataID equals dV.DataID
where (SensorIDs.Contains(dV.SensorID))
select dV;
dict.Add(Data, dValues.ToList<DataValue>());
}
But this approach has a significant performance issue and takes a long time to execute.
Not sure if I need to use SQL Views. any suggestions?
You're querying way too many times. You can do this in one query.
var dict = (from d in dt.Datas
join dV in dt.DataValues on d.DataID equals dv.DataID
where SensorIDs.Contains(dv.SensorID)
select new { d, dV }).ToDictionary(o => o.d, o => o.dV.ToList());
In your foreach loop, you are fetching all Data and for each of them, you are doing the same thing.
Edit: Now that wasn't very clear, but I think you want to join only the DataValues that are in the SensorIDs array. In this case:
var dict = (from d in dt.Datas
let dV = (from dataValue in dt.DataValues
where SensorIDs.Contains(dataValue.SensorID) &&
dataValue.DataID = d.DataID
select dataValue)
select new { d, dV }).ToDictionary(o => o.d, o => o.dV.ToList());
You do not need a foreach loop in this case, you can use group join to create the dictionary straight from linq which should give you better performance.
dict=(from DataValue d in dt.DataValues
where sensorIDs.Contains(d.SensorID)
group d by d.DataID
into datavalues
join data in dt.Datas
on datavalues.Key equals data.DataId
select new {
Key = data,
Value = datavalues
}).ToDictionary(a=>a.Key,a=>a.Value.ToList());
or you can use linq expression methods
dict = dt.DataValues.Where(d=>sensorIDs.Contains(d.SensorID))
.GroupBy(a=>a.DataID)
.Join(dt.Datas,a=>a.Key,a=>a.DataId,
(a,b)=>new{Key=b,Value=a.ToList()})
.ToDictionary(a=>a.Key,a=>a.Value);
You don't need foreach loop. Try something like this in general:
var columns = dt.Columns.Cast<DataColumn>();
dt.AsEnumerable().Select(dataRow => columns.Select(column =>
new { Column = column.ColumnName, Value = dataRow[column] })
.ToDictionary(data => data.Column, data => data.Value));
Also, consider reading this: http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/2010/01/13/38525/
I have the following code:
var data= from row in table.AsEnumerable()
group row by row.Field<string>("id") into g
select new { Id= g.Key };
I would like to add 1 more element to the data variable. How would I do it? (is there something like a data.Concat(1) etc
If you want to add an additional Id you can indeed concat it:
data = data.Concat( new [] { new { Id= "1" } });
This works because anonymous types that have the same fields in the same order are compiled down to the same type.
You can return the LINQ result as a List<string>.
Generic lists can Add more itens easily.
var data = (from row in table.AsEnumerable()
group row by row.Field<string>("id") into g
select new { Id = g.Key }).ToList();
data.Add(new { Id = "X" });
This way you will not need to declare another variable to hold the Enumerable with the new item (since an Enumerable is imutable and can't add new items to itself).
EDIT:
Like pointed, changing the Enumerable<T> to List<T> will put and hold all the elements on the memory, wich isn't a good performance approach.
To stay with the Enumerable<T>, you can do:
data = data.Concat(new [] { new { Id = "X" } });
Because a Enumerable<Anonymous> can be placed inside itself.
I don't know how with query syntax, but you can use Concat with a single value by creating a new array of values with a single item:
IEnumerable<int> data = GetData()
.Concat(new[] { "5" });
The problem with doing this simply is that your data is an IEnumerable<AnonymousType>, which you can't simply new up, and I don't think new anonymous types are compatible with each other. (Edit: According to BrokenGlass, they are compatible. You can try his solution instead).
If they aren't compatible, you could concat the item before your Select clause, but again, how do you create an item of that type.
The solution would probably be to select to an IEnumerable<string> first, concat, then re-select into your anonymous type:
var data = (from row in table.AsEnumerable()
group row by row.Field<string>("id") into g
select g.Key)
.Concat(new[] { "5" })
.Select(k => new { Id = key });
Or to create a new named structure for your result, and concatenate one of those:
var data = from row in table.AsEnumerable()
group row by row.Field<string>("id") into g
select new MyCustomResult() { Id = g.Key };
data = data.Concat(new MyCustomResult() { Id = "5" });
You would need to change from an anonymous type to a known type and then add that new element.
// ...
select new MyResultClass { Id = g.Key };
data.Add(new MyResultClass { Id = 4 });