I have the following Linq query:
result.Partials.Where(o => o.IsPositive).Min(o => o.Result)
I get an exception when result.Partials.Where(o => o.IsPositive) does not contains elements. Is there an elegant way to handle this other than splitting the operation in two and checking for null? I have a class full of operations like this one.
EDIT: The question is related with LINQ to Objects.
This is the Exception I'm getting (translated it says: The sequence is empty):
A short summary of the calculation of a Min
- No mediation (Exception!)
var min = result.Partials.Where(o => o.IsPositive).Min(o => o.Result);
This is your case: if there are no matching elements, then the Min call will raise an exception (InvalidOperationException).
- With DefaultIfEmpty() -- still troublesome
var min = result.Partials.Where(o => o.IsPositive)
.Select(o => o.Result)
.DefaultIfEmpty()
.Min();
DefaultIfEmpty will create an enumeration over the 0 element, when there are no elements in the list. How do you know that 0 is the Min or if 0 stands for a list with no elements?
- Nullable values; A better solution
var min = result.Partials.Where(o => o.IsPositive)
.Min(o => (decimal?)o.Result);
Here Min is either null (because that's equal to default(decimal?)) or the actual Min found.
So a consumer of this result will know that:
When result is null then the list had no elements
When the result is a decimal value then the list had some elements and the Min of those elements is that returned value.
However, when this doesn't matter, then min.GetValueOrDefault(0) can be called.
You can use the DefaultIfEmpty method to ensure the collection has at least 1 item:
result.Partials.Where(o => o.IsPositive).Select(o => o.Result).DefaultIfEmpty().Min();
You can't use Min (or Max) if the sequence is empty. If that shouldn't be happening, you have a different issue with how you define result. Otherwise, you should check if the sequence is empty and handle appropriately, eg:
var query = result.Partials.Where(o => o.IsPositve);
min = query.Any() ? query.Min(o => o.Result) : 0; // insert a different "default" value of your choice...
Yet another way to express it in LINQ is to use Aggregate:
var min = result.Partials
.Where(o => o.IsPositive)
.Select(o => o.Result)
.Aggregate(0, Math.Min); // Or any other value which should be returned for empty list
Since LINQ lacks methods like MinOrDefault() and MaxOrDefault(), you can create them by yourself:
public static class LinqExtensions
{
public static TProp MinOrDefault<TItem, TProp>(this IEnumerable<TItem> This, Func<TItem, TProp> selector)
{
if (This.Count() > 0)
{
return This.Min(selector);
}
else
{
return default(TProp);
}
}
}
Therefore, if the collection has values, the Min() is calculated, otherwise you get the property type's default value.
An example of use:
public class Model
{
public int Result { get; set; }
}
// ...
public void SomeMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
var filledList = new List<Model>
{
new Model { Result = 10 },
new Model { Result = 9 },
};
var emptyList = new List<Model>();
var minFromFilledList = filledList.MinOrDefault(o => o.Result)); // 9
var minFromEmptyList = emptyList.MinOrDefault(o => o.Result)); // 0
}
NOTE 1: you don't need to check if the This parameter is null: the invoked Count() already checks that, and it throws the same Exception that you would throw.
NOTE 2: This solution is good only in situations where the Count() method is cheap to call. All .NET collections are fine since they are all very efficient; it could be a problem for particular customized/non-standard collections.
Related
I have collection
Class MyData
{
int f1;
int f2;
int f3;
int f4;
}
var mycollection =List<MyData>();
I need to return object with minimal difference between field f1 and f3.
I tried below query
mycollection.select(obj => obj.f1 - obj.f3).Min();
But it will return the diff number. I need to return the object.
I am kind of struggling to get the object with minimum difference
I also tried this
mycollection.Select(obj => new { MyObject = obj,
diff = obj.MaxTemparature - obj.MinimumTemparature, obj
}).Min(obj => obj.diff);
Try this one
MyData myData = mycollection.OrderBy(o => (o.f1 - o.f3)).First();
You can do below steps to find object by difference F1 - F3.
Calculate difference using .Select() and store it with actual object.
Sort it using .OrderBy() and use difference as a predicate.
Get First record from it.
var result = myData.Select(x => new {diff = Math.Abs(x.F1 - x.F3), obj = x}) //Step 1
.OrderBy(y => y.diff) //Step 2
.FirstOrDefault(); //Step 3
Try it online
Or you can perform subtraction without .Select()
var result = myData.OrderBy(x => Math.Abs(x.F1 - x.F3)).FirstOrDefault();
Try like below.
mycollection.OrderBy(x => Math.Abs(x.f1 - x.f3)).FirstOrDefault();
Order your collection by difference and you want minimal difference so used Math.Abs(x.f1 - x.f3). Then take FirstOrDefault object.
Test it here
This question already has answers here:
Can I split an IEnumerable into two by a boolean criteria without two queries?
(6 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I am trying to split a List into two Lists using LINQ without iterating the 'master' list twice. One List should contain the elements for which the LINQ condition is true, and the other should contain all the other elements. Is this at all possible?
Right now I just use two LINQ queries, thus iterating the (huge) master List twice.
Here's the (pseudo) code I am using right now:
List<EventModel> events = GetAllEvents();
List<EventModel> openEvents = events.Where(e => e.Closer_User_ID == null);
List<EventModel> closedEvents = events.Where(e => e.Closer_User_ID != null);
Is it possible to yield the same results without iterating the original List twice?
You can use ToLookup extension method as follows:
List<Foo> items = new List<Foo> { new Foo { Name="A",Condition=true},new Foo { Name = "B", Condition = true },new Foo { Name = "C", Condition = false } };
var lookupItems = items.ToLookup(item => item.Condition);
var lstTrueItems = lookupItems[true];
var lstFalseItems = lookupItems[false];
You can do this in one statement by converting it into a Lookup table:
var splitTables = events.Tolookup(event => event.Closer_User_ID == null);
This will return a sequence of two elements, where every element is an IGrouping<bool, EventModel>. The Key says whether the sequence is the sequence with null Closer_User_Id, or not.
However this looks rather mystical. My advice would be to extend LINQ with a new function.
This function takes a sequence of any kind, and a predicate that divides the sequence into two groups: the group that matches the predicate and the group that doesn't match the predicate.
This way you can use the function to divide all kinds of IEnumerable sequences into two sequences.
See Extension methods demystified
public static IEnumerable<IGrouping<bool, TSource>> Split<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource,bool> predicate)
{
return source.ToLookup(predicate);
}
Usage:
IEnumerable<Person> persons = ...
// divide the persons into adults and non-adults:
var result = persons.Split(person => person.IsAdult);
Result has two elements: the one with Key true has all Adults.
Although usage has now become easier to read, you still have the problem that the complete sequence is processed, while in fact you might only want to use a few of the resulting items
Let's return an IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<bool, TSource>>, where the Boolean value indicates whether the item matches or doesn't match:
public static IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<bool, TSource>> Audit<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Func<TSource,bool> predicate)
{
foreach (var sourceItem in source)
{
yield return new KeyValuePair<bool, TSource>(predicate(sourceItem, sourceItem));
}
}
Now you get a sequence, where every element says whether it matches or not. If you only need a few of them, the rest of the sequence is not processed:
IEnumerable<EventModel> eventModels = ...
EventModel firstOpenEvent = eventModels.Audit(event => event.Closer_User_ID == null)
.Where(splitEvent => splitEvent.Key)
.FirstOrDefault();
The where says that you only want those Audited items that passed auditing (key is true).
Because you only need the first element, the rest of the sequence is not audited anymore
GroupBy and Single should accomplish what you're looking for:
var groups = events.GroupBy(e => e.Closer_User_ID == null).ToList(); // As others mentioned this needs to be materialized to prevent `events` from being iterated twice.
var openEvents = groups.SingleOrDefault(grp => grp.Key == true)?.ToList() ?? new List<EventModel>();
var closedEvents = groups.SingleOrDefault(grp => grp.Key == false)?.ToList() ?? new List<EventModel>();
One line solution by using ForEach method of List:
List<EventModel> events = GetAllEvents();
List<EventModel> openEvents = new List<EventModel>();
List<EventModel> closedEvents = new List<EventModel>();
events.ForEach(x => (x.Closer_User_ID == null ? openEvents : closedEvents).Add(x));
You can do without LINQ. Switch to conventional loop approach.
List<EventModel> openEvents = new List<EventModel>();
List<EventModel> closedEvents = new List<EventModel>();
foreach(var e in events)
{
if(e.Closer_User_ID == null)
{
openEvents.Add(e);
}
else
{
closedEvents.Add(e);
}
}
I have a list of transactions and i need to find if there is more then 1 account
i did
var MultipleAccounts = list.GroupBy(t => t.AccountId).Count() > 1;
is there a better way?
If you're willing to lose the single-line I prefer the use of !.All(item => bool) or .Any(item => bool) as I think it's the most semantic and easiest to read, as well as being a good candidate for the fastest.
var accountId = accounts[0].AccountId;
var hasMultipleAccounts = !accounts.All(account => account.AccountId == accountId);
Alternatively, and perhaps even more semantically, you could use .Any(item => bool) instead of .All(item => bool).
var accountId = accounts[0].AccountId;
var hasMultipleAccounts = accounts.Any(account => account.AccountId != accountId);
Things to watch out for are making sure you have at least one item (so that accounts[0] doesn't fail) and not doing a multiple enumeration of your IEnumerable. You say you're working with a List, so multiple enumeration shouldn't cause you any trouble, but when you just have an unknown IEnumerable it's important to be careful.
I prefer:
var MultipleAccounts = list.Select(t => t.AccountId).Distinct().Skip(1).Any();
This should be exceedingly fast as it will stop iterating the source list as soon as it finds a second AccountId.
Anytime you execute a full .Count() it has to iterate the full source list.
You can test this with the following code:
void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(Data().Select(t => t).Distinct().Skip(1).Any());
}
private Random __random = new Random();
public IEnumerable<int> Data()
{
while (true)
{
var #return = __random.Next(0, 10);
Console.WriteLine(#return);
yield return #return;
}
}
A typical run looks like this:
7
9
True
Ok here is what i found the quickest
public bool HasMultipleAccounts(List<Account> list)
{
foreach (var account in list)
if (account.AccountId != list[0].AccountId)
return true;
return false;
}
usage: var MultipleAccounts = HasMultipleAccounts(list);
Credits: #hvd
i know its more code but if you think what the cpu needs to do its the quickest
I have an integer column(not null) in a sql server 2008 database/table, I want to retrieve it.
// go to the table and get the largest number, if none exists, use 0.
int iNumber = iContext.DetailsRecords.Max(x => x.Number); // from entity
But at the very beginning, the table is empty. I want to set is as 0.
How to change the code?
If you don't want to check if the DetailsRecords is null, but rather handle if the source sequence is empty, then use this answer (I adjusted it a bit differently for your LINQ usage):
Max or Default?
int iNumber = iContext.DetailsRecords.Select(x => (int?)x.Number).Max() ?? 0;
Enumerable.Max Method (IEnumerable<Int32>): InvalidOperationException -
source contains no elements.
Enumerable.Max Method (IEnumerable<Nullable<Int32>>): If the source sequence is empty or contains only values that are null, this function returns null.
You can use DefaultIfEmpty for this. If the sequence is empty it will return the provided item as the only item in the sequence, if not it will return the original sequence.
IEnumerable<int> numbers = new int [] { };
numbers.DefaultIfEmpty(0).Max();
try this:
int iNumber = iContext.DetailsRecords==null? iContext.DetailsRecords.Max(x => x.Number) : 0;
or
int iNumber = iContext.DetailsRecords.Any()? iContext.DetailsRecords.Max(x => x.Number) : 0; if table is not null and contains 0 records.
Use the Any function to see if there are any records:
int iNumber = iContext.DetailsRecords.Any()
? iContext.DetailsRecords.Max(x => x.Number)
: 0;
I know this already has an accepted answer, but another good way would just be FirstOrDefault().
int iNumber = iContext.DetailsRecords.OrderByDescending(x => x.Number).FirstOrDefault();
I use this way often and also can let you setup a new object if the result was null.
MyObject m = mySearch.GetItems.Where(a => a.id == id).FirstOrDefault() ?? new MyObject();
I have the following LINQ method that works as expected except if there are No Rows Found then I get a Null Exception. I am struggling on how I modify this to return 0 if that occurs.
public static int GetLastInvoiceNumber(int empNumber)
{
using (var context = new CmoDataContext(Settings.Default.LaCrosse_CMOConnectionString))
{
context.Log = Console.Out;
IQueryable<tblGreenSheet> tGreenSheet = context.GetTable<tblGreenSheet>();
return (tGreenSheet
.Where(gs => gs.InvoiceNumber.Substring(2, 4) == empNumber.ToString())
.DefaultIfEmpty()
.Max(gs => Convert.ToInt32(gs.InvoiceNumber.Substring(6, gs.InvoiceNumber.Length)))
);
}
}
Thanks
I tried one of Jon Skeet's suggestions, below, and now I get Unsupported overload used for query operator 'DefaultIfEmpty'
public static int GetLastInvoiceNumber(int empNumber)
{
using (var context = new CmoDataContext(Settings.Default.LaCrosse_CMOConnectionString))
{
context.Log = Console.Out;
IQueryable<tblGreenSheet> tGreenSheet = context.GetTable<tblGreenSheet>();
return tGreenSheet
.Where(gs => gs.InvoiceNumber.Substring(2, 4) == empNumber.ToString())
.Select(gs => Convert.ToInt32(gs.InvoiceNumber.Substring(6, gs.InvoiceNumber.Length)))
.DefaultIfEmpty(0)
.Max();
}
}
You're using
.Where(...)
.DefaultIfEmpty()
which means if there are no results, pretend it's a sequence with a single null result. You're then trying to use that null result in the Max call...
You can probably change it to:
return tGreenSheet.Where(gs => ...)
.Max(gs => (int?) Convert.ToInt32(...)) ?? 0;
This uses the overload finding the maximum of int? values - and it returns an int? null if there were no values. The ?? 0 then converts that null value to 0. At least, that's the LINQ to Objects behaviour... you'll have to check whether it gives the same result for you.
Of course, you don't need to use the ?? 0 if you're happy to change the method signature to return int? instead. That would give extra information, in that the caller could then tell the difference between "no data" and "some data with a maximum value of 0":
return tGreenSheet.Where(gs => ...)
.Max(gs => (int?) Convert.ToInt32(...));
Another option is to use the overload of DefaultIfEmpty() which takes a value - like this:
return tGreenSheet.Where(gs => ...)
.Select(gs => Convert.ToInt32(...))
.DefaultIfEmpty(0)
.Max();
In situations like this when there may or may not be a matching item, I prefer to return an object rather than a value type. If you return a value type, you have to have some semantics about what value means "there is nothing here." I would change it to return the last invoice, then (when it is non-null) get the invoice number from the invoice. Add a method to the class to return the numeric invoice number from the string.
public static tbleGreenSheet GetLastInvoice(int empNumber)
{
using (var context = new CmoDataContext(Settings.Default.LaCrosse_CMOConnectionString))
{
context.Log = Console.Out;
return context.GetTable<tblGreenSheet>()
.Where(gs => gs.InvoiceNumber.Substring(2, 4) == empNumber.ToString())
.OrderByDescending(gs => Convert.ToInt32(gs.InvoiceNumber.Substring(6, gs.InvoiceNumber.Length)))
.FirstOrDefault();
}
}
public class tbleGreenSheet
{
....
public int NumericInvoice
{
get { return Convert.ToInt32(InvoiceNumber.Substring(6, InvoiceNumber.Length)); }
}
...
}
Used as
var invoice = Foo.GetLastInvoice( 32 );
if (invoice != null)
{
var invoiceNumber = invoice.NumericInvoice;
...do something...
}
else
{
...do something else...
}
I had a remarkably similar experience with IQueryable<T> and NHibernate. My solution:
public static TExpr MaxOrDefault<TItem, TExpr>(this IQueryable<TItem> query,
Expression<Func<TItem, TExpr>> expression) {
return query.OrderByDescending(expression).Select(expression).FirstOrDefault();
}
The only drawback is that you are stuck with the standard default value, instead of getting to specify one.