We Keep Coding

string.Join in Entity framwork, LINQ to SQL. Without Client-side evaluation

If you have a table, similar to here:
DataTypeID, DataValue
1,"Value1"
1,"Value2"
2,"Value3"
3,"Value4"
and want output like this:
DataTypeID,DataValues
1,"Value1,Value2"
2,"Value3"
3,"Value4"
Most questions suggest like this to use toList() or AsEnumerable() and then, string.Join(", ", DataValues) on client-side. This might work if the data is not huge but it defeats the purpose of using EF. How can I do this without loading all the data in-memory?

UPDATE: As of EF7 preview 7, now you simply use string.Join normally for example:
_context.MyTable
.GroupBy(keySelector => keySelector.MyKey, elemSelector => elemSelector.StringProp)
.Select(elem => string.Join(',', elem))
//.FirstOrDefaultAsync(cancellationToken), if (keyselector => 1) i.e. only 1 group so you get all rows
Old answer
Well, as per this this issue, string.Join() is yet to be implemented(as of now) and IEnumerable.Aggregate will not translate either.
In the meanwhile, you can create a view and write your SQL there.
For example, to group by id and string.Join(", ", Names);
CREATE VIEW V_Name AS
SELECT ID,
Names=STUFF
(
(
SELECT DISTINCT ' || '+ CAST(Child.Name AS VARCHAR(MAX))
FROM Child,MainTable
WHERE Main.ID= t1.ID --this line is imp...
AND Child.ID=MainTable.ID
FOR XMl PATH('')
),1,1,''
)
FROM MainTable t1
GROUP BY t1.IDReview
OR
CREATE VIEW V_Name AS
SELECT ID, STRING_AGG(Name, ', ') AS Names
FROM MainTable
LEFT JOIN ChildTable ON MainTable.ID = ChildTable.ID
GROUP BY ID
Now, in your C# you can simply join this with your ID, just like you normally would with an IQueryable:
from data in _dbcontext.sometable
join groupedAndJoinedNames in _dbcontext.viewname
on data.ID equals groupedAndJoinedNames.ID
select new
{
Names = groupedAndJoinedNames.Names
}

Convert SQL Server query to LINQ lambda query for two different cols from two different table that are related

I have two tables TABLE_A and TABLE_B which are related.
I need to convert this SQL Server query to a LINQ lambda query in C#:
SELECT a.COL1, a.COL2, b.COL2
FROM TABLE_A a, TABLE_B b
WHERE b.COL1 = A.COL3
Actually b.col1 is pk in table_b and a.col3 is fk of that in table_a

Navigation properties are powerful:
table_a.Select( a=> new {a.COL1 , a.COL2 , a.b.COL2} )
Also, you can learn how to write better questions at "How to create a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example" I suggest to you to read post carefully.

var q = (from a in table_A join b in table_B on b.col1 equals a.col3 select new
{a.COL1, a.COL2, b.COL2}).ToList();

Nested Select MySQL statements to LINQ

I'm trying to convert the following MySQL statement in to LINQ query format
SELECT * FROM table1 WHERE table1.id IN (SELECT c_id FROM table2 WHERE a_id IN (1, 49) GROUP BY c_id HAVING COUNT(*) = 2) ORDER BY name
Got as far as this, but I'm drawing a blank on how to handle the IN and 2nd SELECT statement
myItems = from c in table1
let id = c.id
where ????
orderby c.name
select c;
Would appreciate some guidance with this please

Try this:
var ids=new[]{1,49};
var innerquery=table2.Where(e=>ids.Contains(e.a_id))
.GroupBy(e=>e.c_id)
.Where(g=>g.Count()==2)
.Select(g=>g.Key);
var myItems = from c in table1
where innerquery.Contains(c.id)
orderby c.name
select c;
First define your inner query,after the group by you will get a collection of IGrouping<TKey, TElement>> that represent a collection of objects that have a common key, filter the groups choosing only those where count==2, and select the keys of those groups. The second part is really easy to understand. I split the process in two queries to do it more readable, but you can merge both query in one.

LINQ Group by and having where clause

Below is the SQL Query I am trying to translate
SELECT dbo.Contracts.Supplier
FROM dbo.Contracts INNER JOIN dbo.Products ON dbo.Contracts.Product = dbo.Products.Product
where dbo.Products.ProductGroup='Crude'
GROUP BY dbo.Contracts.Supplier
Am I doing something wrong because I do not get same results with the following LINQ
var result = from c in context.Contracts
join p in context.Products on c.Product equals p.Product1
where p.Product1.Equals("Crude")
group c by c.Supplier into g
select new { supplier = g.Key };
It is generating a weird statement
SELECT
1 AS [C1],
[Distinct1].[Supplier] AS [Supplier]
FROM ( SELECT DISTINCT
[Extent1].[Supplier] AS [Supplier]
FROM [dbo].[Contracts] AS [Extent1]
WHERE N'Crude' = [Extent1].[Product]
) AS [Distinct1]
Using distinct would work but to get same results, LINQ should be generating a statement like so (it's like it is ignoring the join):
SELECT distinct dbo.Contracts.Supplier
FROM dbo.Contracts INNER JOIN dbo.Products ON dbo.Contracts.Product = dbo.Products.Product
where dbo.Products.ProductGroup='Crude'

I'm assuming that you are using 'EntityFramework' or 'Linq To SQL'. If so, you should be able to use navigation properties to navigate to product and filter invalit results out. This way your query might look something like this:
var result = (from c in context.Contracts
where c.Products.Any(p => p.ProductGroup == "Crude")
select c.Supplier).Distinct();
It will automatically convert into correct query (in this case possibly without join even, just using Exists sql keyword) and return distinct suppliers. This is if I understand your objective correctly - you want to obtain all suppliers assigned to contracts that contain product from 'Crude' product group.
Basically you should try to avoid using joins from linq to sql or linq to entities as much as possible when you can use navigation properties. System will probably be better at converting them into specific sql.

Is this LINQ Query "correct"?

I have the following LINQ query, that is returning the results that I expect, but it does not "feel" right.
Basically it is a left join. I need ALL records from the UserProfile table.
Then the LastWinnerDate is a single record from the winner table (possible multiple records) indicating the DateTime the last record was entered in that table for the user.
WinnerCount is the number of records for the user in the winner table (possible multiple records).
Video1 is basically a bool indicating there is, or is not a record for the user in the winner table matching on a third table Objective (should be 1 or 0 rows).
Quiz1 is same as Video 1 matching another record from Objective Table (should be 1 or 0 rows).
Video and Quiz is repeated 12 times because it is for a report to be displayed to a user listing all user records and indicate if they have met the objectives.
var objectiveIds = new List<int>();
objectiveIds.AddRange(GetObjectiveIds(objectiveName, false));
var q =
from up in MetaData.UserProfile
select new RankingDTO
{
UserId = up.UserID,
FirstName = up.FirstName,
LastName = up.LastName,
LastWinnerDate = (
from winner in MetaData.Winner
where objectiveIds.Contains(winner.ObjectiveID)
where winner.Active
where winner.UserID == up.UserID
orderby winner.CreatedOn descending
select winner.CreatedOn).First(),
WinnerCount = (
from winner in MetaData.Winner
where objectiveIds.Contains(winner.ObjectiveID)
where winner.Active
where winner.UserID == up.UserID
orderby winner.CreatedOn descending
select winner).Count(),
Video1 = (
from winner in MetaData.Winner
join o in MetaData.Objective on winner.ObjectiveID equals o.ObjectiveID
where o.ObjectiveNm == Constants.Promotions.SecVideo1
where winner.Active
where winner.UserID == up.UserID
select winner).Count(),
Quiz1 = (
from winner2 in MetaData.Winner
join o2 in MetaData.Objective on winner2.ObjectiveID equals o2.ObjectiveID
where o2.ObjectiveNm == Constants.Promotions.SecQuiz1
where winner2.Active
where winner2.UserID == up.UserID
select winner2).Count(),
};

You're repeating join winners table part several times. In order to avoid it you can break it into several consequent Selects. So instead of having one huge select, you can make two selects with lesser code. In your example I would first of all select winner2 variable before selecting other result properties:
var q1 =
from up in MetaData.UserProfile
select new {up,
winners = from winner in MetaData.Winner
where winner.Active
where winner.UserID == up.UserID
select winner};
var q = from upWinnerPair in q1
select new RankingDTO
{
UserId = upWinnerPair.up.UserID,
FirstName = upWinnerPair.up.FirstName,
LastName = upWinnerPair.up.LastName,
LastWinnerDate = /* Here you will have more simple and less repeatable code
using winners collection from "upWinnerPair.winners"*/

The query itself is pretty simple: just a main outer query and a series of subselects to retrieve actual column data. While it's not the most efficient means of querying the data you're after (joins and using windowing functions will likely get you better performance), it's the only real way to represent that query using either the query or expression syntax (windowing functions in SQL have no mapping in LINQ or the LINQ-supporting extension methods).
Note that you aren't doing any actual outer joins (left or right) in your code; you're creating subqueries to retrieve the column data. It might be worth looking at the actual SQL being generated by your query. You don't specify which ORM you're using (which would determine how to examine it client-side) or which database you're using (which would determine how to examine it server-side).
If you're using the ADO.NET Entity Framework, you can cast your query to an ObjectQuery and call ToTraceString().
If you're using SQL Server, you can use SQL Server Profiler (assuming you have access to it) to view the SQL being executed, or you can run a trace manually to do the same thing.
To perform an outer join in LINQ query syntax, do this:
Assuming we have two sources alpha and beta, each having a common Id property, you can select from alpha and perform a left join on beta in this way:
from a in alpha
join btemp in beta on a.Id equals btemp.Id into bleft
from b in bleft.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new { IdA = a.Id, IdB = b.Id }
Admittedly, the syntax is a little oblique. Nonetheless, it works and will be translated into something like this in SQL:
select
a.Id as IdA,
b.Id as Idb
from alpha a
left join beta b on a.Id = b.Id

It looks fine to me, though I could see why the multiple sub-queries could trigger inefficiency worries in the eyes of a coder.
Take a look at what SQL is produced though (I'm guessing you're running this against a database source from your saying "table" above), before you start worrying about that. The query providers can be pretty good at producing nice efficient SQL that in turn produces a good underlying database query, and if that's happening, then happy days (it will also give you another view on being sure of the correctness).