We Keep Coding

Is it safe to join a table twice in the same query?

I need to write some linq (linq-to-sql) for a search page that allows the user to search for cars and optionally include search criteria for the car's parts. The two tables are CAR and CAR_PARTS. Here is what I have so far:
var query = db.CAR;
//if the user provides a car name to search by, filter on car name (this works)
if(model.CarName != "")
{
query = from c in query
where c.Name == model.CarName
select c;
}
//if the user provides a car part name to filter on, join the CAR_PART table
if(model.CarPartName != "")
{
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartName == model.CarPartName
select c;
}
//if the user provides a car part code to filter on, join the CAR_PART table
if(model.CarPartCode != "")
{
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartCode == model.CarPartCode
select c;
}
If the user decides they want to search on both CarPartName and CarPartCode, this logic would result in the CAR_PART table being joined twice. This feels wrong to me, but is this the correct way to handle this?
How would you write this?

It's legal to do so, but whether it makes sense, depends on your datamodel and your desired outcome.
Generally your code does the following if partname and partcode are defined
Join the cars table with the parts table with partname as join condition
Join the result of the first join again with the parts table with partcode as join condition.
Thus, this is equal to a join with join condition car.partname = part.name and car.partcode = part.code. I don't know, whether this is your desired behaviour or not.
There are some cases to distinguish
Joining with AND condition
CASE 1.1: name and code of a part are keys in the parts table
In this case for each name and code are each unique in the parts table, thus for each name there is exactly one code. The double join is not necessary, and may even lead to wrong results, because
if selected name and code identify the same part, it's the first join will already get the desired results
if name and code identifiy different parts, your result will be empty because the condition cannot be fullfilled.
In that situation I would suggest to write is as follows
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartName)){
// your join on partname
} else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartCode)) {
// your join on partcode
}
CASE 1.2: name and code of a part are NOT keys in the parts table
In this case, neither name nor code may be unique, and for one name there may be different codes and vice versa. Here the double join is necessary and will only return results containing parts which match both, name and code
Joining with OR condition
If on the other hand you want your join condition to be like car.partname = part.name and car.partcode = part.code you have to consider the following cases
CASE 2.1 name and code are keys
Here applies the same as above in case 1.1
CASE 2.2 name and code are NOT keys
Here you can't use the stepwise approach, because the result of the first join will only contain cars, where the name matches. There may be parts where only the code condition matches, but they can never be included in the final result, if they are not contained in the result of the first match. So in this case, you will have to define your query something like this
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartName) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartCode)) {
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartName == model.CarPartName || parts.PartCode == model.CarPartCode
select c;
} else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartName)) {
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartName == model.CarPartName
select c;
} else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartCode)) {
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartCode == model.CarPartCode
select c;
}

What is wrong in there is actually with proper relations you don't need the join at all. Add that the behavior of LinqToSQL you can write that as:
var query = db.CAR
.Where( c =>
( string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarName)
|| c.Name == model.CarName ) &&
( string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartName)
|| c.Parts.Any( p => p.PartName == model.CarPartName )) &&
( string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartCode)
|| c.Parts.Any( p => p.PartCode == model.CarPartCode )));
Yours would work provided query is IQueryable (db.CAR.AsQueryable()). The two Linq approaches are similar but not the same. Depending on your real necessity yours might be the correct one or the wrong one. Yours would produce two inner joins, while this one simply create 2 exists check. Assume you have:
Car, Id:5, Name: Volvo
And parts like:
CarID:5, PartName:HeadLights, PartCode:1 ... other details
CarID:5, PartName:HeadLights, PartCode:2 ... other details
CarID:5, PartName:HeadLights, PartCode:3 ... other details
If user asks with model.CarName = "Volvo" and model.PartName = "HeadLights", you would get back the same Volvo 3 times. In second approach, you get back a single Volvo.
HTH

I feel more comfortable with fluent syntax, but I'm sure something similar to the following will work for you. I would check the fields in your model as part of a Select statement and then conditionally join using one field or the other. If neither are set, leave it null.
var query = db.CAR;
if (!string.IsNullOrWhitespace(model.CarName))
{
query = query.Where(car => car.Name == model.CarName);
}
var items = query.Select(car => new
{
Car = car, // maybe better to split this up into different fields, but I don't know what the car object looks like
// I assume your Car entity model has a navigation property to parts:
CarPart = !string.IsNullOrWhitespace(model.CarPartName)
? car.Parts.FirstOrDefault(part => part.PartName == model.CarPartName)
: !string.IsNullOrWhitespace(model.CarPartCode)
? car.Parts.FirstOrDefault(part => part.PartCode == model.CarPartCode)
: null
})
.ToList();
This does mean that the Code will be ignored if the Name is filled in. Reverse it if it needs to be the other way around. Or if you want to use both fields, you can put the string null checks in the Where clause.

Linq join on two values

Suppose I have a list of {City, State}. It originally came from the database, and I have LocationID, but by now I loaded it into memory. Suppose I also have a table of fast food restaurants that has City and State as part of the record. I need to get a list of establishments that match city and state.
NOTE: I try to describe a simplified scenario; my business domain is completely different.
I came up with the following LINQ solution:
var establishments = from r in restaurants
from l in locations
where l.LocationId == id &&
l.City == r.City &&
l.State == r.State
select r
and I feel there must be something better. For starters, I already have City/State in memory - so to go back to the database only to have a join seems very inefficient. I am looking for some way to say {r.City, r.State} match Any(MyList) where MyList is my collection of City/State.
UPDATE
I tried to update based on suggestion below:
List<CityState> myCityStates = ...;
var establishments =
from r in restaurants
join l in myCityStates
on new { r.City, r.State } equals new { l.City, l.State } into gls
select r;
and I got the following compile error:
Error CS1941 The type of one of the expressions in the join clause is incorrect. Type inference failed in the call to 'Join'.
UPDATE 2
Compiler didn't like anonymous class in the join. I made it explicit and it stopped complaining. I'll see if it actually works in the morning...

It seems to me that you need this:
var establishments =
from r in restaurants
join l in locations.Where(x => x.LocationId == id)
on new { r.City, r.State } equals new { l.City, l.State } into gls
select r;

Well, there isn't a lot more that you can do, as long as you rely on a table lookup, the only thing you can do to speed up things is to put an index on City and State.
The linq statement has to translate into a valid SQL Statement, where "Any" would translate to something like :
SELECT * FROM Restaurants where City in ('...all cities')
I dont know if other ORM's give better performance for these types of scenarios that EF, but it might be worth investigating. EF has never had a rumor for being fast on reads.
Edit: You can also do this:
List<string> names = new List { "John", "Max", "Pete" };
bool has = customers.Any(cus => names.Contains(cus.FirstName));
this will produce the necessary IN('value1', 'value2' ...) functionality that you were looking for

Obtain more information from the user via Inner join Linq

I supposed in the process developed is such that it must show all the movies that are into film tablen and showing off, but this is how I have tried to do this:
it must find out which genres have in users tablen where after to show the users who like the first.
//As I said, I have a session at the top of the code.
int brugerid = Convert.ToInt16(Session["id"]);
var result = (from f in db.films
//it must find out which genres have in users tablen where after to show the users who like the first.
//brugere are users
//gener It is the genes users like.
join usersgenerId in brugere.Fk_generId on gener.generId equals usersgenerId.BrugereId
select new
{
image_navn = ((f.imgs.FirstOrDefault(i => i.feature == true)).navn == null ? "default.png" : (f.imgs.FirstOrDefault(i => i.feature == true)).navn),
image_feature = f.imgs.Where(A => A.feature == true),
film_navn = f.navn,
film_id = f.filmId,
film_tekst = f.tekst,
film_gener = f.gener.navn
}).ToList();
RepeaterFilmList.DataSource = result;
RepeaterFilmList.DataBind();
Table information
Brugere the name
id = BrugereId
Fk_generId belonging to the genes that user has selected.
and many other
Gener is the name
has generId as id

As mentioned in the comment, the question really is: show all movies that is in the same genre that the user preferred and then show everything else.
Although the following approach might not be db efficient (too lazy to create the db for this, so I am simulating everything in memory and using Linq to Object to solve the issue), it can certainly be resolved by the following steps:
Get the recommendation (matching the user's movie genre preference) like so:
var recommendation =
from f in films
from ug in userGenres
where ug.UserId == user.Id && ug.GenreId == f.GenreId
select f;
Now that we know what the user preferred, we can further filter this to just the preferred films' Id... and use that to get the rest of the unpreferred films (basically anything not matching the preferred film Ids):
var recommendedFilmIds = recommendation.Select(f => f.Id);
var everythingElse =
from f in films
where !recommendedFilmIds.Contains(f.Id)
select f;
Finally, join them together using Union and injecting the nessary fields for display purpose like Genre.Name, etc. like so:
var filmList = recommendation.Union(everythingElse).Select(f => new {
f.Id,
f.Title,
Genre = genres.Where(g => g.Id == f.GenreId).Select(g => g.Name).First()
});
And there you have it, the combined list will now contains both preferred films first (at top), followed by unpreferred films afterward.
The simulated tables are as follows: films which contains its own Id and genreId and userGenres which contains many to many relationship between user and genre and a particular user object which contains the user id.
An example of this can be found at: https://dotnetfiddle.net/Skuq3o
If you use EF, and you have a navigation property to genre table and you want to include those table as part of the query, use .Include(x => x.genre) or whatever you call your genre table after from f in films to avoid n+1 select if you wish to include the genre info in the final select clause.

C# - Entity Framework - Join method

I have a table called "PublicUserOfferingSignUp" which contains the following columns.
Id
PublicUserId - foreign key to PublicUser.Id
OfferingId
Created
My application is using Entity Framework, but I am getting stuck with how to join from the PublicUserOfferingSignUp table to the PublicUser table.
I want to obtain a list of PublicUserOfferingSignUp records but ordered by the Name column of the PublicUser table.
Currently I have this ....
return DataBase.PublicUserOfferingSignUps.Join(PublicUser,
But I can't seem to work it out, any ideas ....
Steven
Can anybody help.

Something like that
DataBase.PublicUserOfferingSignUps.Join(Database.PublicUsers,
puosu => puosu.PublicUserId,//PublicUserOfferingSignUps key
pu => pu.Id,//PublicUser key
(puosu, pu) => new {
publicUsersOfferingSignUp = puosu,//we take all data from PubliUserOfferingSignUps
puName = pu.Name//and Name from PublicUser
})
.OrderBy(x => x.puName)//we order by PublicUser Name
.Select(x => x.publicUsersOfferingSignUp );//we take only the PublicOfferingSignUps
Edit : as #M.Schenkel noticed, it would be easier to have a
public virtual PublicUser PublicUser {get;set;}
in your PublicUserOfferingSignUp model
then the query would be
DataBase.PublicUserOfferingSignUps
.OrderBy(puosu => puosu.PublicUser.Name);
easier, no ?

When you use the Entity Framework, the public user should be a property of your PublicUserOfferingSignUp-entity. If not, you can write a LINQ query to join them. For example:
var result = from pu in context.PublicUserOfferingSignUp
join u in context.PublicUser on u.id equals pu.PublicUserId
select pu;
(this code is untested, but should give you the idea).

Linq Union: How to add a literal value to the query?

I need to add a literal value to a query. My attempt
var aa = new List<long>();
aa.Add(0);
var a = Products.Select(p => p.sku).Distinct().Union(aa);
a.ToList().Dump(); // LinqPad's way of showing the values
In the above example, I get an error:
"Local sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL implementation
of query operators except the Contains() operator."
If I am using Entity Framework 4 for example, what could I add to the Union statement to always include the "seed" ID?
I am trying to produce SQL code like the following:
select distinct ID
from product
union
select 0 as ID
So later I can join the list to itself so I can find all values where the next highest value is not present (finding the lowest available ID in the set).
Edit: Original Linq Query to find lowest available ID
var skuQuery = Context.Products
.Where(p => p.sku > skuSeedStart &&
p.sku < skuSeedEnd)
.Select(p => p.sku).Distinct();
var lowestSkuAvailableList =
(from p1 in skuQuery
from p2 in skuQuery.Where(a => a == p1 + 1).DefaultIfEmpty()
where p2 == 0 // zero is default for long where it would be null
select p1).ToList();
var Answer = (lowestSkuAvailableList.Count == 0
? skuSeedStart :
lowestSkuAvailableList.Min()) + 1;
This code creates two SKU sets offset by one, then selects the SKU where the next highest doesn't exist. Afterward, it selects the minimum of that (lowest SKU where next highest is available).
For this to work, the seed must be in the set joined together.

Your problem is that your query is being turned entirely into a LINQ-to-SQL query, when what you need is a LINQ-to-SQL query with local manipulation on top of it.
The solution is to tell the compiler that you want to use LINQ-to-Objects after processing the query (in other words, change the extension method resolution to look at IEnumerable<T>, not IQueryable<T>). The easiest way to do this is to tack AsEnumerable() onto the end of your query, like so:
var aa = new List<long>();
aa.Add(0);
var a = Products.Select(p => p.sku).Distinct().AsEnumerable().Union(aa);
a.ToList().Dump(); // LinqPad's way of showing the values

Up front: not answering exactly the question you asked, but solving your problem in a different way.
How about this:
var a = Products.Select(p => p.sku).Distinct().ToList();
a.Add(0);
a.Dump(); // LinqPad's way of showing the values

You should create database table for storing constant values and pass query from this table to Union operator.
For example, let's imagine table "Defaults" with fields "Name" and "Value" with only one record ("SKU", 0).
Then you can rewrite your expression like this:
var zero = context.Defaults.Where(_=>_.Name == "SKU").Select(_=>_.Value);
var result = context.Products.Select(p => p.sku).Distinct().Union(zero).ToList();