We Keep Coding

How to write linq query for this sql statement

How would you write a linq query with the following SQL statement. I've tried several methods referenced on stackoverflow but they either don't work with the EF version I'm using (EF core 3.5.1) or the DBMS (SQL Server).
select a.ProductID, a.DateTimeStamp, a.LastPrice
from Products a
where a.DateTimeStamp = (select max(DateTimeStamp) from Products where a.ProductID = ProductID)
For reference, a couple that I've tried (both get run-time errors).
var results = _context.Products
.GroupBy(s => s.ProductID)
.Select(s => s.OrderByDescending(x => x.DateTimeStamp).FirstOrDefault());
var results = _context.Products
.GroupBy(x => new { x.ProductID, x.DateTimeStamp })
.SelectMany(y => y.OrderByDescending(z => z.DateTimeStamp).Take(1))
Thanks!

I understand you would like to have a list of the latest prices of each products?
First of all I prefer to use group by option even over 1st query
select a.ProductID, a.DateTimeStamp, a.LastPrice
from Products a
where a.DateTimeStamp IN (select max(DateTimeStamp) from Products group by ProductID)
Later Linq:
var maxDateTimeStamps = _context.Products
.GroupBy(s => s.ProductID)
.Select(s => s.Max(x => x.DateTimeStamp)).ToArray();
var results = _context.Products.Where(s=>maxDateTimeStamps.Contains(s.DateTimeStamp));
-- all assuming that max datetime stamps are unique

I've managed to do it with the following which replicates the correlated sub query in the original post (other than using TOP and order by instead of the Max aggregate), though I feel like there must be a more elegant way to do this.
var results = from x
in _context.Products
where x.DateTimeStamp == (from y
in _context.Products
where y.ProductID == x.ProductID
orderby y.DateTimeStamp descending
select y.DateTimeStamp
).FirstOrDefault()
select x;

I prefer to break up these queries into IQueryable parts, do you can debug each "step".
Something like this:
IQueryable<ProductOrmEntity> pocoPerParentMaxUpdateDates =
entityDbContext.Products
//.Where(itm => itm.x == 1)/*if you need where */
.GroupBy(i => i.ProductID)
.Select(g => new ProductOrmEntity
{
ProductID = g.Key,
DateTimeStamp = g.Max(row => row.DateTimeStamp)
});
//// next line for debugging..do not leave in for production code
var temppocoPerParentMaxUpdateDates = pocoPerParentMaxUpdateDates.ToListAsync(CancellationToken.None);
IQueryable<ProductOrmEntity> filteredChildren =
from itm
in entityDbContext.Products
join pocoMaxUpdateDatePerParent in pocoPerParentMaxUpdateDates
on new { a = itm.DateTimeStamp, b = itm.ProductID }
equals
new { a = pocoMaxUpdateDatePerParent.DateTimeStamp, b = pocoMaxUpdateDatePerParent.ProductID }
// where
;
IEnumerable<ProductOrmEntity> hereIsWhatIWantItems = filteredChildren.ToListAsync(CancellationToken.None);
That last step, I am putting in an anonymous object. You can put the data in a "new ProductOrmEntity() { ProductID = pocoMaxUpdateDatePerParent.ProductID }...or you can get the FULL ProductOrmEntity object. Your original code, I don't know if getting all columns of the Product object is what you want, or only some of the columns of the object.

How can I reuse a subquery inside a select expression?

In my database I have two tables Organizations and OrganizationMembers, with a 1:N relationship.
I want to express a query that returns each organization with the first and last name of the first organization owner.
My current select expression works, but it's neither efficient nor does it look right to me, since every subquery gets defined multiple times.
await dbContext.Organizations
.AsNoTracking()
.Select(x =>
{
return new OrganizationListItem
{
Id = x.Id,
Name = x.Name,
OwnerFirstName = (x.Members.OrderBy(member => member.CreatedAt).First(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner)).FirstName,
OwnerLastName = (x.Members.OrderBy(member => member.CreatedAt).First(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner)).LastName,
OwnerEmailAddress = (x.Members.OrderBy(member => member.CreatedAt).First(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner)).EmailAddress
};
})
.ToArrayAsync();
Is it somehow possible to summarize or reuse the subqueries, so I don't need to define them multiple times?
Note that I've already tried storing the subquery result in a variable. This doesn't work, because it requires converting the expression into a statement body, which results in a compiler error.

The subquery can be reused by introducing intermediate projection (Select), which is the equivalent of let operator in the query syntax.
For instance:
dbContext.Organizations.AsNoTracking()
// intermediate projection
.Select(x => new
{
Organization = x,
Owner = x.Members
.Where(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner)
.OrderBy(member => member.CreatedAt)
.FirstOrDefault()
})
// final projection
.Select(x => new OrganizationListItem
{
Id = x.Organization.Id,
Name = x.Organization.Name,
OwnerFirstName = Owner.FirstName,
OwnerLastName = Owner.LastName,
OwnerEmailAddress = Owner.EmailAddress
})
Note that in pre EF Core 3.0 you have to use FirstOrDefault instead of First if you want to avoid client evaluation.
Also this does not make the generated SQL query better/faster - it still contains separate inline subquery for each property included in the final select. Hence will improve readability, but not the efficiency.
That's why it's usually better to project nested object into unflattened DTO property, i.e. instead of OwnerFirstName, OwnerLastName, OwnerEmailAddress have a class with properties FirstName, LastName, EmailAddress and property let say Owner of that type in OrganizationListItem (similar to entity with reference navigation property). This way you will be able to use something like
dbContext.Organizations.AsNoTracking()
.Select(x => new
{
Id = x.Organization.Id,
Name = x.Organization.Name,
Owner = x.Members
.Where(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner)
.OrderBy(member => member.CreatedAt)
.Select(member => new OwnerInfo // the new class
{
FirstName = member.FirstName,
LastName = member.LastName,
EmailAddress = member.EmailAddress
})
.FirstOrDefault()
})
Unfortunately in pre 3.0 versions EF Core will generate N + 1 SQL queries for this LINQ query, but in 3.0+ it will generate a single and quite efficient SQL query.

How about this:
await dbContext.Organizations
.AsNoTracking()
.Select(x =>
{
var firstMember = x.Members.OrderBy(member => member.CreatedAt).First(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner);
return new OrganizationListItem
{
Id = x.Id,
Name = x.Name,
OwnerFirstName = firstMember.FirstName,
OwnerLastName = firstMember.LastName,
OwnerEmailAddress = firstMember.EmailAddress
};
})
.ToArrayAsync();

How about doing this like
await dbContext.Organizations
.AsNoTracking()
.Select(x => new OrganizationListItem
{
Id = x.Id,
Name = x.Name,
OwnerFirstName = x.Members.FirstOrDefault(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner).FirstName,
OwnerLastName = x.Members.FirstOrDefault(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner)).LastName,
OwnerEmailAddress = x.Members.FirstOrDefault(member => member.Role == RoleType.Owner)).EmailAddress
})
.ToArrayAsync();

LINQ To Entities - M to M selection returns more columns than needed

I have the following situation which, works fine:
IQueryable<Experiment> experiments1 = _db.Experiments.Where(e => e.Projects.Any(p => p.Id == project.Id));
IQueryable<Experiment> experiments2 = _db.Experiments.Where(e => e.Tools.Any(m => m.Project.Id == project.Id));
var experimentsList = experiments1.Union(experiments2).OrderBy(e => e.Date).Select(e => new
{
e.Id,
e.Name,
e.Date
}).ToList();
Checking with SQL Profiles, this translates in 1 SQL query which correctly extract Id, Name and Date from the union.
The problem arises when I perform a join with a many-to-many connected table:
var experimentsList = experiments1.Union(experiments2).OrderBy(e => e.Date).Select(e => new
{
e.Id,
e.Name,
e.Date,
e.Types.Select(t => t.Name)
// or also just e.Types
}).ToList();
The generated SQL query for some reasons not only return the "needed" columns but returns all the columns in the Experiment table + the additional specified columns (i.e. types' names).
This result in a pretty big loss in performances.
Btw, in the code I later need to perform:
experimentsList.Select(e => new
{
e.Id,
e.Name,
e.Date,
Types = string.Join(", ", e.Types)
})
So I need the faster way to have in memory Id, Name, Date + a list of types.
Thanks!

Can you try this? Column names may need to be changed
var result = from exp in _db.Experiments
join t in _db.Types on exp.TypeID = t.Id
select new
{
exp.Id,
exp.Name,
exp.Date,
t.Name
}).ToList();

Convert SQL query with multiple GroupBy columns to LINQ

SELECT
[TimeStampDate]
,[User]
,count(*) as [Usage]
FROM [EFDP_Dev].[Admin].[AuditLog]
WHERE [target] = '995fc819-954a-49af-b056-387e11a8875d'
GROUP BY [Target], [User] ,[TimeStampDate]
ORDER BY [Target]
My database table has the columns User, TimeStampDate, and Target (which is a GUID).
I want to retrieve all items for each date for each user and display count of entries.
The above SQL query works. How can I convert it into LINQ to SQL? Am using EF 6.1 and my entity class in C# has all the above columns.
Create Filter basically returns an IQueryable of the entire AuditLogSet :
using (var filter = auditLogRepository.CreateFilter())
{
var query = filter.All
.Where(it => it.Target == '995fc819-954a-49af-b056-387e11a8875d')
.GroupBy(i => i.Target, i => i.User, i => i.TimeStamp);
audits = query.ToList();
}
Am not being allowed to group by on 3 columns in LINQ and I am also not sure how to select like the above SQL query with count. Fairly new to LINQ.

You need to specify the group by columns in an anonymous type like this:-
var query = filter.All
.Where(it => it.Target == '995fc819-954a-49af-b056-387e11a8875d')
.GroupBy(x => new { x.User, x.TimeStampDate })
.Select(x => new
{
TimeStampDate= x.Key.TimeStampDate,
User = x.Key.User,
Usage = x.Count()
}).ToList();

Many people find query syntax simpler and easier to read (this might not be the case, I don't know), here's the query syntax version anyway.
var res=(from it in filter.All
where it.Target=="995fc819-954a-49af-b056-387e11a8875d"
group it by new {it.Target, it.User, it.TimeStampDate} into g
orderby g.Key.Target
select new
{
TimeStampDate= g.Key.TimeStampDate,
User=g.Key.User,
Usage=g.Count()
});
EDIT: By the way you don't need to group by Target neither OrderBy, since is already filtered, I'm leaving the exact translation of the query though.

To use GroupBy you need to create an anonymous object like this:
filter.All
.Where(it => it.Target == '995fc819-954a-49af-b056-387e11a8875d')
.GroupBy(i => new { i.Target, i.User, i.TimeStamp });

It is unnecessary to group by target in your original SQL.
filter.All.Where( d => d.Target == "995fc819-954a-49af-b056-387e11a8875d")
.GroupBy(d => new {d.User ,d.TimeStampDate} )
.Select(d => new {
User = d.Key.User,
TimeStampDate = d.Key.TimeStampDate,
Usage = d.Count()
} );

How to avoid "select n+1" pattern in Linq

I have a query (including LinqKit) of the form:
Expression<Func<Country, DateTime, bool>> countryIndepBeforeExpr =
(ct, dt) => ct.IndependenceDate <= dt;
DateTime someDate = GetSomeDate();
var q = db.Continent.AsExpandable().Select(c =>
new
{
c.ID,
c.Name,
c.Area,
Countries = c.Countries.AsQueryable()
.Where(ct => countryIndepBeforeExpr.Invoke(ct, someDate))
.Select(ct => new {ct.ID, ct.Name, ct.IndependenceDate})
});
Now I want to iterate through q... but since the Countries property of each element is of type IQueryable, it will be lazy loaded, causing n+1 queries to be executed, which isn't very nice.
What is the correct way to write this query so that all necessary data will be fetched in a single query to the db?
EDIT
Hm, well it might have helped if I had actually run a Sql trace before asking this question. I assumed that because the inner property was of type IQueryable that it would be lazy-loaded... but after doing some actual testing, it turns out that Linq to Entities is smart enough to run the whole query at once.
Sorry to waste all your time. I would delete the question, but since it already has answers, I can't. Maybe it can serve as some kind of warning to others to test your hypothesis before assuming it to be true!

Include countries to your model when you call for continents. With something like this:
var continents = db.Continent.Include(c => c.Countries).ToArray();
Then you can make your linq operations without iQueryable object.

I think this should work (moving AsExpandable() to root of IQueryable):
var q = db.Continent
.AsExpandable()
.Select(c => new
{
c.ID,
c.Name,
c.Area,
Countries = c.Countries
.Where(ct => countryIndepBeforeExpr.Invoke(ct, someDate))
.Select(ct => new {ct.ID, ct.Name, ct.IndependenceDate})
});
If not, create two IQueryable and join them together:
var continents = db.Continents;
var countries = db.Countries
.AsExpandable()
.Where(c => countryIndepBeforeExpr.Invoke(c, someDate))
.Select(c => new { c.ID, c.Name, c.IndependenceDate });
var q = continents.GroupJoin(countries,
continent => continent.ID,
country => country.ContinentId,
(continent, countries) => new
{
continent.ID,
continent.Name,
continent.Area,
Countries = countries.Select(c => new
{
c.ID,
c.Name,
c.IndependenceDate
})
});