I have some LINQ query (or IQueryable<T> object based on LINQ query) and want to get some unique string based on this query.
I have, for example:
var someValue = 10;
var query = (from i in db.Customers
where i.Id == someValue
select i).AsQueryable();
I should get something like this:
"from i in db.Customers where i.Id == 10"
I am trying to use Expression object and play with it but I can not get generic approach to get string with exact parameters values.
E.g.:
public string GetKey<T>(IQueryable<T> query)
{
...
return unique_string;
}
Note that different parameters values for the same LINQ query should provide different strings.
Thanks in advance.
I strongly suspect that this is simply not going to work. Aside from anything else, if you have to use AsQueryable (i.e. if your original query is over IEnumerable<T> then the compiler will have used delegates instead of expression trees to start with.
If it's a pure IQuerable<T> all the way, you could try using query.Expression.ToString(), but frankly it's not something I'd want to rely on.
Solved this issue with Expression Tree Serialization with some improvements for getting exact values of passed parameters. It provides a big but unique XML file based on IQueryable objects.
Related
I have a mvc project which I use linq in it.
In my database there is some records, for example "Someth ing","SOmeTH ing","someTh ing","SOMETH ING","someTH ING"
I want to do this:
SELECT * FROM dbo.doc_dt_records WHERE name LIKE '%' + #records.Name + '%'
However if I run this code, list.Count returns 0. What should I do?
records.Name = "someth ing"; //for example
var rec = db.Records.ToList();
var lists = rec.Where(p => p.Name.Contains(records.Name)).ToList();
if (lists.Count > 0)
{
// do sthng
}
Thanks for your helps...
the easy way is to use ToLower() method
var lists = rec.Where(p => p.Name.ToLower().Contains(records.Name.ToLower())).ToList();
a better solution (based on this post: Case insensitive 'Contains(string)')
var lists = rec.Where(p =>
CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.CompareInfo.IndexOf
(p.Name, records.Name, CompareOptions.IgnoreCase) >= 0).ToList();
That is totally not a LINQ issue.
Case sensitiivty on the generated SQL depends on the collation relevant for the table. Which in your case likely is case insensitive.
You would get the same result from any SQL you emit.
use IndexOf and StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase:
p.Name.IndexOf(records.Name, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) >= 0;
You can create an extension function like this:
public static bool Contains(this string src, string toCheck, StringComparison comp)
{
return src.IndexOf(toCheck, comp) >= 0;
}
To my understanding, this question does not have an unambiguous answer. The matter is that the best way of doing this depends on details which aren't provided in the question. For instance, what exact ORM do you use and what precise DB server you are connected to. For example, if you use Entity Framework against MS SQL Server, you better do not touch your LINQ expression at all. All you need to do is to set the case-insensitive collation on the database/table/column you compare your string with. That will do the trick much better than any change of your LINQ expression. The matter is that when LINQ is translated to SQL, it better be the straight comparison of the column having case-insensitive collation to your string than anything else. Just because it usually works quicker and it is the natural way to do the trick.
You do not want the final query to be something like:
SELECT *
FROM AspNetUsers U
WHERE UPPER(U.Name) LIKE '%SOMETHING%';
It is much better to come up with something like:
SELECT *
FROM AspNetUsers U
WHERE U.Name LIKE '%SOMETHING%';
But with a case-insensitive collation of [Name] column. The difference is that if you have let's say index containing [Name] column, the second query might use it, the first one would do the full scan of the table anyway.
So if let's say records references to DBSet<T> and the record is just one object of type T. You code would be like this:
var lists = records.Where(p => p.Name.Contains(record.Name)).ToList();
And you do the rest on SQL-server. Or if all you need to know is there any value in the list and do not need these values, it would be even better to do like this:
if (records.Any(p => p.Name.Contains(record.Name)))
{
// do something
}
Generally speaking, if you use any sort of ORM connected to any sort of SQL server, you better do case-insensitivity by setting up appropriate parameters of your server/database/table/column. And only if it is impossible or by far too expensive, you consider other possibilities. Otherwise, you might bang into some unexpected and very unpleasant behaviour. For instance, Entity Framework Core 2.x if it cannot translate your LINQ expression straightway into SQL query, is doing different tricks replacing server-side operations with client-side ones. So you can end up with a solution which fetches all data from the table to the client and filter it there. It might be quite a problem if your table is big enough.
As for the situation when LINQ query is processed locally, there are a lot of ways to do the trick. My favourite one is the next:
var lists = records.Where(p => p.Name
.Contains(record.Name, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
.ToList();
try this
var lists = rec.Where(p => String.Equals(p.Name,records.Name,StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).ToList();
refer here for documentation
Here is the code:
public ActionResult Index()
{
var crView = db.CRCases.ToList();
return View(crView);
}
Would like to filter like we have in sql statement using WHERE and ORDER BY.
Is there any good reference on how to apply it?
linq is your friend here.
you can do
crView = crView.Where(x => x.yourPredicate).OrderBy( y => y.OrderClause);
CRCases should be a DBSet<T>. You can use LinQ like this :
db.CRCases.Where(x => x.TheProperty =xxx).ToList()
You can use LINQ = Language Integrated Query.
This have two different notations:
Functional: you can change several function calls beginning on an IEnumerable.
db.CrCases.Where(predicate).OrderBy(sortExpression)
"SQL like": it really looks like an "unordered SQL".
from crCase in db.CrCases where condition orderby sortExpression select crCase
The condition and sort expression in the first notation require lambda expressions (you can see them in action here). In the second case the condition is expressed.
Most of the queries can be written either way.
You'll usually use var to store the query, and materialize it later.
var query = from crCase in db.CrCases
where condition orderby sortExpression
select crCase
CrCase firstCase = query.Firts();
List<CrCase> cases = query.ToList();
There are several flavors of LINQ. They all look equal on the surface, but are translated into another thing. For example:
LINQ to objects: it's the more general, an allows to make queries on collections. Tis is what you'll use for this particular case.
LINQ to SQL: this allows to write queries in C# which are transalated to SQL queries in the underlying database
LINQ to Entities: similar to the previous, but you make your queries to an Entity Framework model, and the queries are finally transalated to the DB
There are some others flavors of LINQ. And, in fact, you can create your own, but that's not easy.
Finally, you have to take into account that a LINQ query isn't executed until you materialize it. I.e. it's not executed until you try to get data from it (converting it ToList(), ToArray() or whatever, enumerating it, or accesing any of it's data First(), Sum(), Count()). Depending on the flavor, the executing can be running C# code (LINQ to objects) or run a SQL Query in a DB (LINQ to SQL) or whatever.
Here you have a great place to learn how to use LINQ:
LINQ 101
I have a larger/more complex problem, but for simplicity sake, let us consider the following:
Let us say that I have table in the SQL DataBase called Product, having two columns, ID (int, primary key) and Name (varchar/string). I also have a simple LINQ DataContext.
I have a query constructed and handed to “my” function. Let us say it is something like: (though it may be a bit more complex)
IQueryable<Product> query = from p in db.Products select p;
Once my method gets this query, passed in as a parameter, it has to change the sort order e.g.
IQueryable<Product> sortedQuery = query.OrderBy(x => x.Name);
I would like to make this more generic i.e. to specify the field to sort on. Normally, I can do a switch statement that takes a string. However I would like to know if there is a way to pass the parameter directly. I intend to extend this to other Database tables, so these switch statements would get tedious.
I was trying something like:
IQueryable<Product> sortedQuery = query.OrderBy(x => (typeof(Product)).GetProperty(“Name”));
But this does not work. I also want to ensure that the LINQ to SQL is maintained i.e. the sort to be done on the SQL Server. Hence if I debug, I should get a SQL query from this LINQ query.
Thank you in advance for your help.
You could use Dynamic Linq for this purpose.
See here Dynamic LINQ (Part 1: Using the LINQ Dynamic Query Library)
Then you can make calls like this:
var query = DBContext.Users.Where( "Age > 3" ).OrderBy( "Name asc" );
Try this out instead:
query.OrderBy(x => x.GetType().GetProperty(“Name”).GetValue(x, null));
You can't just grab the property. You need to grab the value off of that property, hence the call to GetValue.
It is not as easy as it seems. The LINQ to SQL engine parses the expression you pass to the OrderBy method in order to obtain the name of the property you are referencing, then uses this information to compose a plain SQL order by clause.
I guess that maybe it can be done by using reflection, anyway. Maybe you can get something useful from the accepted answer of this SO question.
Can anyone help?
I have a linq query which is embedded inside a extension method, it was working as v.RentalStatus was a String. I am now using a Group on my original query (the query is quite complex so i won't put it here).
The importante thing is that v.RentalStatus = IEnumerable hence it can contain things like
A (meaning active)
R (meaning rented)
U (unavailable)
etc - many more
I create a list of what i would like to get back and store this in statusStringList, so for example lets say the list contains A and R
This is my code from before when the v.RentalStatus was just a string, can anyone tell me how i can modify this to work.
var statusStringList = rentalStatus.ToList().ConvertAll<string>(st => st.GetStringValue());
return from v in qry
where statusStringList.Contains(v.RentalStatus)
select v;
If it helps this is part of my query which returns the RentalStatus - its part of a group query but the RentalStatus is not in the group by
RentalStatus= g1.Select( j => j.IdRentalStatus).Distinct(),
g1 is my group by, so if you imagine there are 10 "A", 5 "U" .. then it would return an ienumerable of A and U ... as i am using Distinct. Not 10 As and 5 Us
I hope i have explained it well, please tell me if i haven't
I would appreciate any help from anyone ..
thanks
EDIT
This is my extension signature but not that it matters.
public static IQueryable<Rentals> WithStatus(this IQueryable<Rentals> qry, IList<Contants.Statuses> rentalStatus)
{
EDIT
As mentioned previously when v.RentalStatus was a string it was working but now its IEnumerable - hence a collection.. and it errors with this
Argument '1': cannot convert from 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<string>' to 'string'
If RentalStatus has changed from a string to a IEnumerable<string> then your comparing 2 list... I think this should work:
return from v in qry
where v.RentalStatus.Any(status => statusStringList.Contains(status))
select v;
This should give you any rentals that have a status that is in the list you are providing
Edit:
Yeah I would spend some time learn lambda expressions. Seems like they are being used more and more and with good reason. Here are a few links for tutorials:
An Extensive Examination of LINQ: Lambda Expressions and Anonymous Types
.NET Lambda Expressions – Resources
"WHERE" RentalStatus = Containing any
of itself - arrgghh -
Is that true? I thought the list of rentalStatuses is a parameter in your method. I was thinking your query basically would allow me to get all the rentals that have a status that matches any of the list that I specified. One list lives on your Rental object and the other is the one I pass in...
As to why the order in mine worked. I have some questions:
Are you using this to query a database? Are you able to look at the tsql it generates?
If so, I would look at the tsql and see what the difference is. I would have to check myself. I got lucky I guess.
You could try something like this:
where statusStringList.Any(x => v.RentalStatus.Contains(x))
I am not sure but I think that for a Contains to work in Linq to SQL it must be an array of strings (or ints or ...) and not any IEnumerable. I would thus try:
var statusStringArray = rentalStatus.ToList().ConvertAll<string>(st => st.GetStringValue()).ToArray();
return from v in qry
where statusStringArray.Contains(v.RentalStatus)
select v;
There might be other issues though, I did not look that much.
Try this:
return from v in qry
where rentalStatus.Any( r => r.IdRentalStatus == v.RentalStatus)
select v;
If I have a structure like this
Albums
- Album
- Discs
- Tracks
and I want to order a collection of albums by the title of the first track on the first disc.
Is there something similar to the following I could do (keeping in mind I need to use the OrderBy extension method that accepts a string)?
albums.OrderBy("Discs[0].Tracks[0].Title")
I need to be able to sort using a string expression thus the need to use the OrderBy method i.e. albums.OrderBy("Track[0].Title"). The reason for this is our custom framework uses a sort expression (e.g. "Title") passed back from a GridView which is looked up in a dictionary (e.g. "Track[0].Title") to get the correct order by clause. That is, the field and direction of sorting is dynamically determined at runtime.
or
albums.OrderBy("Discs.First().Tracks.First().Title")
Untested, but how about:
var query = from album in albums
let disc = album.Discs.First()
let track = disc.Tracks.First()
orderby track.Title
select album;
LINQ has two ways to query "from . in .." and Lambda expressions. They way you were almost writing it looked Lambda-ish. Here would be the Lambda expression:
albums.OrderBy(a=>a.Discs.First().Tracks.First().Title)
I used variable 'a' to indicate album but you can use any variable, this is identical to the first expression:
albums.OrderBy(album=>album.Discs.First().Tracks.First().Title)
or you can use the from obj in obj form as mention in the other answers.
How about this, in order to satisfy your need for an initial query that does not perform the sorting? This uses anonymous types to store the album information, plus the name of the first track so you can sort on it later.
var query = from album in albums
let disc = album.Discs.First()
let track = disc.Tracks.First()
select new { Album = album, FirstTrack = track.Title };
var sortedQuery = from album in query
order by album.FirstTrack
select album.Album;
Sorry people,
It looks like the OrderBy method that I am asking about and trying to use is specific to the ORM (genom-e) that we are using and is not reflected on the .net Queryable or IEnumerable classes (unlike the majority of genom-e's LINQ functionality). There is no OrderBy overload that accepts a string in .net, this is specific to genom-e.
Those of you using .net encountering a similar problem should probably give either of the above two answers a try.