We Keep Coding

LINQ: select specific value in a datatable column

In table I have 4 Columns GroupName, Display, Value and ID
How can I just show a specific data in display. I only want to show some of the groupNames Data
for example I only want to show Groupname = company and display = Forbes
Here's my linq
sample = (from c in smsDashboardDBContext.CodeDefinitions
orderby c.Display ascending
select new CodeDefinitionDTO
{
GroupName = c.GroupName,
Display = c.Display,
Value = c.Value,
Id = c.Id
}).ToList();

You can add a where statement in the query.
where c.GroupName == "company" && c.Display == "Forbes"

I only want to show some of the groupNames Data for example I only want to show Groupname = company and display = Forbes
Before the ToList, use a Where to keep only those items that you want to show:
var company = ...
var forbes = ...
var result = smsDashboardDBContext.CodeDefinitions
.OrderBy(codeDefinition => codeDefintion.Display)
.Select(codeDefinition => new CodeDefinitionDTO
{
Id = codeDefinition.Id,
GroupName = codeDefinition.GroupName,
Display = codeDefinition.Display,
Value = codeDefinition.Value,
})
.Where(codeDefinition => codeDefition.GroupName == company
&& codeDefintion.Display == forbes);
In words:
Order all codeDefinitions that are in the table of CodeDefintions by ascending value of property codeDefintion.Display.
From every codeDefinition in this ordered sequence make one new CodeDefinitionDTO with the following properties filled: Id, GroupName, Display, Value
Frome every codeDefintion in this sequence of CodeDefinitionDTOs, keep only those codeDefinitions that have a value for property GroupName that equals company and a value for property Display that equals forbes.
There is room for improvement!
Suppose your table has one million elements, and after the Where, only five elements are left. Then you will have sorted almost one million elements for nothing. Consider to first do the Where, then the Order and finally a Select.
In LINQ, try to do aWhere as soon as possible: all following statements will have to work on less items
In LINQ, try to do a Select as late as possible, preferrably just before the ToList / FirstOrDefault / ... This way the Select has to be done for as few elements as possible
So first the Where, then the OrderBy, then the Select, and finally the ToList / FirstOrDefault, etc:
var result = smsDashboardDBContext.CodeDefinitions
.Where(codeDefinition => ...);
.OrderBy(codeDefinition => codeDefintion.Display)
.Select(codeDefinition => new CodeDefinitionDTO
{
...
});

How to join two different databases' tables in C# with Linq?

I try to join two different databases tables in c# but it gives me an error how can I handle that ?
this is my query:
var list = (from h in db.database1.AsEnumerable()
join j in NV_DB.database2.AsEnumerable()
on h.Creation_Date equals j.Creation_Date
where j.Ship_Status == 3 && h.CustomerNo == CustomerNo
select new
{
shipName = h.ShipName,
creationDate = j.Creation_Date,
endingDate = j.Ending_Date
}
).ToList();
if I do like this it gives me System.OverflowException error. But when I run this in sql, it gives me just 30 records*

You need to remove °AsEnumerable`. While it does not run the sql, when you use it in the where it actually brings the entire tables in memory and then performs the job where part of your query
Your answer is basically the first comment in the accepted answer here: Am I misunderstanding LINQ to SQL .AsEnumerable()?
While AsEnumerable doesn't evaluate the query at the time that it's called , it definitely has an effect. Anything further called on the query will be evaluated using LINQ to objects, so you can't compose additional elements onto the query (another Where or an OrderBy or anything of that nature) that will become part of the SQL statement.
In depth explanation here: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/732425/IEnumerable-Vs-IQueryable
While querying data from database, IEnumerable executes select query on server side, load data in-memory on client side and then filter data. Hence does more work and becomes slow.
While querying data from database, IQueryable executes select query on server side with all filters. Hence does less work and becomes fas

To debug this, start dividing your statements into smaller steps:
var list1 = db.database1.AsEnumerable().ToList();
var list2 = NV_DB.database2.AsEnumerable().ToList();
var joinResult = list1.Join(list2, // join list1 and list2
list1Row => list1Row.CreationDate, // from every row in list1 take the CreationDate
list2Row => list2Row.CreationDate, // from every row in list2 take the CreationDate
(list1Row, list2Row) => new // when they match, make one new object
{
// You only need the following properties:
ShipName = list1Item.ShipName,
CreationDate = list2Item.CreationDate,
EndingDate = list2Item.EndingDate,
ShipStatus = list2Item.ShipStatus,
CustomerNo = list1Item.CustomerNo,
})
.ToList();
var whereResult = joinResult
.Where(joinedRow => joinedRow.ShipStatus == 3
&& joinedRow.CustomerNo == customerNo)
.ToList();
var selectResult = whereResult.Select(whereResultRow => new
{
ShipName = whereResultRow.ShipName,
CreationDate = whereResultRow.CreationDate,
EndingDate = whereResultRow.Ending_Date,
})
.ToList();
This is executed completely as enumerable (in your local process, not by the database management system). My guess would be that this runs smoothly.
Now combine thw first few statements:
var joinResult = db.database1.AsEnumerable()
.Join(NV_DB.database2.AsEnumerable(), // join list1 and list2
list1Row => list1Row.CreationDate, // from every row in list1 take the CreationDate
list2Row => list2Row.CreationDate, // from every row in list2 take the CreationDate
(list1Row, list2Row) => new // when they match, make one new object
{
// You only need the following properties:
ShipName = list1Item.ShipName,
CreationDate = list2Item.CreationDate,
EndingDate = list2Item.EndingDate,
ShipStatus = list2Item.ShipStatus,
CustomerNo = list1Item.CustomerNo,
})
.ToList();
When this works, add the Where:
var whereResult = db.database1.AsEnumerable()
.Join(NV_DB.database2.AsEnumerable(), ...)
.Where(joinedRow => joinedRow.ShipStatus == 3
&& joinedRow.CustomerNo == customerNo)
.ToList();
Etc.
Using your debugger, you'll find the problem within a few minutes (depending on your compilation time). My guess is that it is within your join.

Make a LINQ query dynamic to bring back all rows or only rows with a link to a lookup table?

I have a query that returns a list of currencies and joins to a lookup table. The result is then put into a class object (which works fine):
var queryforobject = from x in db.CurrencyExchangeRates.AsNoTracking()
join c in db.CurrencyTypes.AsNoTracking() on x.CurrencyTypeID equals c.ID
orderby x.ID
select new CurrencyExchangeRateObject
{
ID = x.ID,
CurrencyID = c.ID,
Currency = c.Description,
ExchangeRate = x.ExchangeRate,
LastEditedDate = x.LastEditedDate,
LastEditedBy = x.LastEditedBy,
Active = x.Active
};
I want to make this more dynamic, so if no CurrencyTypeID is supplied then it will return the full list (as it does already) - otherwise if a CurrencyTypeID is supplied it will only show where X.CurrencyTypeID = ID.
Something along the lines of an inline if?

There are a few options for filtering the query based on CurrencyTypeID if a search value (named currencyTypeID in this answer) is supplied, but return all data if no currencyTypeID is supplied.
First option: You could add a where clause to your existing query expression. The WHERE clause below will return every record in the data set if null is passed in for the currencyTypeID variable, otherwise it will filter the results.
from x in db.CurrencyExchangeRates.AsNoTracking()
join c in db.CurrencyTypes.AsNoTracking() on x.CurrencyTypeID equals c.ID
where (currencyTypeID == null || x.CurrencyTypeID == currencyTypeID)
orderby x.ID
select new CurrencyExchangeRateObject {
ID = x.ID,
CurrencyID = c.ID,
Currency = c.Description,
ExchangeRate = x.ExchangeRate,
LastEditedDate = x.LastEditedDate,
LastEditedBy = x.LastEditedBy,
Active = x.Active
};
Alternatively: Since queryforobject is of type IQueryable<T>, you can use LINQ's fluent API to append a WHERE clause to the query inside an if statement. You need to be more careful about timing on this one though as it needs to be done before you force evaluation of the IQueryable with a foreach loop, .ToList(), .Select() or other LINQ methods that force evaluation.
if(currencyTypeID != null)
queryforobject = queryforobject.Where(cerObj => cerObj.CurrencyID == currencyTypeID);

The LINQ expression contains references to queries that are associated with different contexts

Here's my code:
var myStrings = (from x in db1.MyStrings.Where(x => homeStrings.Contains(x.Content))
join y in db2.MyStaticStringTranslations on x.Id equals y.id
select new MyStringModel()
{
Id = x.Id,
Original = x.Content,
Translation = y.translation
}).ToList();
And I get the error that the specified LINQ expression contains references to queries that are associated with different contexts. I know that the problem is that I try to access tables from both db1 and db2, but how do I fix this?

MyStrings is a small table
Load filtered MyStrings in memory, then join with MyStaticStringTranslations using LINQ:
// Read the small table into memory, and make a dictionary from it.
// The last step will use this dictionary for joining.
var byId = db1.MyStrings
.Where(x => homeStrings.Contains(x.Content))
.ToDictionary(s => s.Id);
// Extract the keys. We will need them to filter the big table
var ids = byId.Keys.ToList();
// Bring in only the relevant records
var myStrings = db2.MyStaticStringTranslations
.Where(y => ids.Contains(y.id))
.AsEnumerable() // Make sure the joining is done in memory
.Select(y => new {
Id = y.id
// Use y.id to look up the content from the dictionary
, Original = byId[y.id].Content
, Translation = y.translation
});

You are right that db1 and db2 can't be used in the same Linq expression. x and y have to be joined in this process and not by a Linq provider. Try this:
var x = db1.MyStrings.Where(xx => homeStrings.Contains(xx.Content)).ToEnumerable();
var y = db2.MyStaticStringTranslations.ToEnumerable();
var myStrings = (from a in x
join b in y on x.Id equals y.id
select new MyStringModel()
{
Id = x.Id,
Original = x.Content,
Translation = y.translation
}).ToList();
Refer to this answer for more details: The specified LINQ expression contains references to queries that are associated with different contexts
dasblinkenlight's answer has a better overall approach than this. In this answer I'm trying to minimize the diff against your original code.

I also faced the same problem:
"The specified LINQ expression contains references to queries that are associated with different contexts."
This is because it's not able to connect to two context at a time so i find the solution as below.
Here in this example I want to list the lottery cards with the owner name but the Table having the owner name is in another Database.So I made two context DB1Context and DB2Context.and write the code as follows:
var query = from lc in db1.LotteryCardMaster
from om in db2.OwnerMaster
where lc.IsActive == 1
select new
{
lc.CashCardID,
lc.CashCardNO,
om.PersonnelName,
lc.Status
};
AB.LottryList = new List<LotteryCardMaster>();
foreach (var result in query)
{
AB.LottryList.Add(new LotteryCardMaster()
{
CashCardID = result.CashCardID,
CashCardNO = result.CashCardNO,
PersonnelName =result.PersonnelName,
Status = result.Status
});
}
but this gives me the above error so i found the other way to perform joining on two tables from diffrent database.and that way is as below.
var query = from lc in db1.LotteryCardMaster
where lc.IsActive == 1
select new
{
lc.CashCardID,
lc.CashCardNO,
om.PersonnelName,
lc.Status
};
AB.LottryList = new List<LotteryCardMaster>();
foreach (var result in query)
{
AB.LottryList.Add(new LotteryCardMaster()
{
CashCardID = result.CashCardID,
CashCardNO = result.CashCardNO,
PersonnelName =db2.OwnerMaster.FirstOrDefault(x=>x.OwnerID== result.OwnerID).OwnerName,
Status = result.Status
});
}

Linq Select Clause w/ Unknown Number of Fields

I have a linq query in which I need to be able to select an variable number of fields from a datatable. I do know all of the fields that could be included, but only two will for sure be in the datatable. I also will know which fields are included in the datatable (it will just be different depending on the user's selections). Right now I set up something like this:
var query = from item in dt.AsEnumerable()
group item by item.Field<string>("ID") into g
select new
{
ID = g.Key, //required
Status = g.Min(i => dostuff(i,"Status")), //not required
Disc = g.Min(i => dostuff(i,"Disc")), //not required
Loc = String.Join<string>(",", from i in g select i.Field<string>("Loc")) //required
};
dostuff(DataRow i,string field)
{
try
{
return i.Field<string>(field);
}
catch
{
return null;
}
}
So dostuff basically is just checking whether or not that field exists in the dataset, and then I would just need to ignore the non-existant fields when working with the query results, which would not be too difficult. However, it seems like there is probably a better way to do this, but I've had a tough time finding anything via Google about using a dynamic select clause.

You could do it with dynamic type (nb, I did not test so this might have typos.):
var query =dt.AsEnumerable().GroupBy(item => item.Field<string>("ID"))
.Select(g => {
dynamic t = new System.Dynamic.ExpandoObject();
if (g.Table.Columns.Any(c => c.ColumnName == "Status"))
t.Status = g.Field<string>("Status");
if (g.Table.Columns.Any(c => c.ColumnName == "Disc"))
t.Disc = g.Field<string>("Disc");
t.ID = g.Key;
t.Loc = String.Join<string>(",",g.Select(i => i.Field<string>("Loc")));
return t;
}