We Keep Coding

Querying a list of entities with composite keys in EF [duplicate]

given a list of ids, I can query all relevant rows by:
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id));
But how do you achieve the same functionality when the Table has a composite key?

This is a nasty problem for which I don't know any elegant solution.
Suppose you have these key combinations, and you only want to select the marked ones (*).
Id1 Id2
--- ---
1 2 *
1 3
1 6
2 2 *
2 3 *
... (many more)
How to do this is a way that Entity Framework is happy? Let's look at some possible solutions and see if they're any good.
Solution 1: Join (or Contains) with pairs
The best solution would be to create a list of the pairs you want, for instance Tuples, (List<Tuple<int,int>>) and join the database data with this list:
from entity in db.Table // db is a DbContext
join pair in Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity
In LINQ to objects this would be perfect, but, too bad, EF will throw an exception like
Unable to create a constant value of type 'System.Tuple`2 (...) Only primitive types or enumeration types are supported in this context.
which is a rather clumsy way to tell you that it can't translate this statement into SQL, because Tuples is not a list of primitive values (like int or string). For the same reason a similar statement using Contains (or any other LINQ statement) would fail.
Solution 2: In-memory
Of course we could turn the problem into simple LINQ to objects like so:
from entity in db.Table.AsEnumerable() // fetch db.Table into memory first
join pair Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity
Needless to say that this is not a good solution. db.Table could contain millions of records.
Solution 3: Two Contains statements (incorrect)
So let's offer EF two lists of primitive values, [1,2] for Id1 and [2,3] for Id2. We don't want to use join, so let's use Contains:
from entity in db.Table
where ids1.Contains(entity.Id1) && ids2.Contains(entity.Id2)
select entity
But now the results also contains entity {1,3}! Well, of course, this entity perfectly matches the two predicates. But let's keep in mind that we're getting closer. In stead of pulling millions of entities into memory, we now only get four of them.
Solution 4: One Contains with computed values
Solution 3 failed because the two separate Contains statements don't only filter the combinations of their values. What if we create a list of combinations first and try to match these combinations? We know from solution 1 that this list should contain primitive values. For instance:
var computed = ids1.Zip(ids2, (i1,i2) => i1 * i2); // [2,6]
and the LINQ statement:
from entity in db.Table
where computed.Contains(entity.Id1 * entity.Id2)
select entity
There are some problems with this approach. First, you'll see that this also returns entity {1,6}. The combination function (a*b) does not produce values that uniquely identify a pair in the database. Now we could create a list of strings like ["Id1=1,Id2=2","Id1=2,Id2=3]" and do
from entity in db.Table
where computed.Contains("Id1=" + entity.Id1 + "," + "Id2=" + entity.Id2)
select entity
(This would work in EF6, not in earlier versions).
This is getting pretty messy. But a more important problem is that this solution is not sargable, which means: it bypasses any database indexes on Id1 and Id2 that could have been used otherwise. This will perform very very poorly.
Solution 5: Best of 2 and 3
So the most viable solution I can think of is a combination of Contains and a join in memory: First do the contains statement as in solution 3. Remember, it got us very close to what we wanted. Then refine the query result by joining the result as an in-memory list:
var rawSelection = from entity in db.Table
where ids1.Contains(entity.Id1) && ids2.Contains(entity.Id2)
select entity;
var refined = from entity in rawSelection.AsEnumerable()
join pair in Tuples on new { entity.Id1, entity.Id2 }
equals new { Id1 = pair.Item1, Id2 = pair.Item2 }
select entity;
It's not elegant, messy all the same maybe, but so far it's the only scalable1 solution to this problem I found, and applied in my own code.
Solution 6: Build a query with OR clauses
Using a Predicate builder like Linqkit or alternatives, you can build a query that contains an OR clause for each element in the list of combinations. This could be a viable option for really short lists. With a couple of hundreds of elements, the query will start performing very poorly. So I don't consider this a good solution unless you can be 100% sure that there will always be a small number of elements. One elaboration of this option can be found here.
Solution 7: Unions
There's also a solution using UNIONs that I posted later here.
1As far as the Contains statement is scalable: Scalable Contains method for LINQ against a SQL backend

Solution for Entity Framework Core with SQL Server
🎉 NEW! QueryableValues EF6 Edition has arrived!
The following solution makes use of QueryableValues. This is a library that I wrote to primarily solve the problem of query plan cache pollution in SQL Server caused by queries that compose local values using the Contains LINQ method. It also allows you to compose values of complex types in your queries in a performant way, which will achieve what's being asked in this question.
First you will need to install and set up the library, after doing that you can use any of the following patterns that will allow you to query your entities using a composite key:
// Required to make the AsQueryableValues method available on the DbContext.
using BlazarTech.QueryableValues;
// Local data that will be used to query by the composite key
// of the fictitious OrderProduct table.
var values = new[]
{
new { OrderId = 1, ProductId = 10 },
new { OrderId = 2, ProductId = 20 },
new { OrderId = 3, ProductId = 30 }
};
// Optional helper variable (needed by the second example due to CS0854)
var queryableValues = dbContext.AsQueryableValues(values);
// Example 1 - Using a Join (preferred).
var example1Results = dbContext
.OrderProduct
.Join(
queryableValues,
e => new { e.OrderId, e.ProductId },
v => new { v.OrderId, v.ProductId },
(e, v) => e
)
.ToList();
// Example 2 - Using Any (similar behavior as Contains).
var example2Results = dbContext
.OrderProduct
.Where(e => queryableValues
.Where(v =>
v.OrderId == e.OrderId &&
v.ProductId == e.ProductId
)
.Any()
)
.ToList();
Useful Links
Nuget Package
GitHub Repository
Benchmarks
QueryableValues is distributed under the MIT license.

You can use Union for each composite primary key:
var compositeKeys = new List<CK>
{
new CK { id1 = 1, id2 = 2 },
new CK { id1 = 1, id2 = 3 },
new CK { id1 = 2, id2 = 4 }
};
IQuerable<CK> query = null;
foreach(var ck in compositeKeys)
{
var temp = context.Table.Where(x => x.id1 == ck.id1 && x.id2 == ck.id2);
query = query == null ? temp : query.Union(temp);
}
var result = query.ToList();

You can create a collection of strings with both keys like this (I am assuming that your keys are int type):
var id1id2Strings = listOfIds.Select(p => p.Id1+ "-" + p.Id2);
Then you can just use "Contains" on your db:
using (dbEntities context = new dbEntities())
{
var rec = await context.Table1.Where(entity => id1id2Strings .Contains(entity.Id1+ "-" + entity.Id2));
return rec.ToList();
}

You need a set of objects representing the keys you want to query.
class Key
{
int Id1 {get;set;}
int Id2 {get;set;}
If you have two lists and you simply check that each value appears in their respective list then you are getting the cartesian product of the lists - which is likely not what you want. Instead you need to query the specific combinations required
List<Key> keys = // get keys;
context.Table.Where(q => keys.Any(k => k.Id1 == q.Id1 && k.Id2 == q.Id2));
I'm not completely sure that this is valid use of Entity Framework; you may have issues with sending the Key type to the database. If that happens then you can be creative:
var composites = keys.Select(k => p1 * k.Id1 + p2 * k.Id2).ToList();
context.Table.Where(q => composites.Contains(p1 * q.Id1 + p2 * q.Id2));
You can create an isomorphic function (prime numbers are good for this), something like a hashcode, which you can use to compare the pair of values. As long as the multiplicative factors are co-prime this pattern will be isomorphic (one-to-one) - i.e. the result of p1*Id1 + p2*Id2 will uniquely identify the values of Id1 and Id2 as long as the prime numbers are correctly chosen.
But then you end up in a situation where you're implementing complex concepts and someone is going to have to support this. Probably better to write a stored procedure which takes the valid key objects.

Ran into this issue as well and needed a solution that both did not perform a table scan and also provided exact matches.
This can be achieved by combining Solution 3 and Solution 4 from Gert Arnold's Answer
var firstIds = results.Select(r => r.FirstId);
var secondIds = results.Select(r => r.SecondId);
var compositeIds = results.Select(r => $"{r.FirstId}:{r.SecondId}");
var query = from e in dbContext.Table
//first check the indexes to avoid a table scan
where firstIds.Contains(e.FirstId) && secondIds.Contains(e.SecondId))
//then compare the compositeId for an exact match
//ToString() must be called unless using EF Core 5+
where compositeIds.Contains(e.FirstId.ToString() + ":" + e.SecondId.ToString()))
select e;
var entities = await query.ToListAsync();

For EF Core I use a slightly modified version of the bucketized IN method by EricEJ to map composite keys as tuples. It performs pretty well for small sets of data.
Sample usage
List<(int Id, int Id2)> listOfIds = ...
context.Table.In(listOfIds, q => q.Id, q => q.Id2);
Implementation
public static IQueryable<TQuery> In<TKey1, TKey2, TQuery>(
this IQueryable<TQuery> queryable,
IEnumerable<(TKey1, TKey2)> values,
Expression<Func<TQuery, TKey1>> key1Selector,
Expression<Func<TQuery, TKey2>> key2Selector)
{
if (values is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(values));
}
if (key1Selector is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(key1Selector));
}
if (key2Selector is null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(key2Selector));
}
if (!values.Any())
{
return queryable.Take(0);
}
var distinctValues = Bucketize(values);
if (distinctValues.Length > 1024)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Too many parameters for SQL Server, reduce the number of parameters", nameof(values));
}
var predicates = distinctValues
.Select(v =>
{
// Create an expression that captures the variable so EF can turn this into a parameterized SQL query
Expression<Func<TKey1>> value1AsExpression = () => v.Item1;
Expression<Func<TKey2>> value2AsExpression = () => v.Item2;
var firstEqual = Expression.Equal(key1Selector.Body, value1AsExpression.Body);
var visitor = new ReplaceParameterVisitor(key2Selector.Parameters[0], key1Selector.Parameters[0]);
var secondEqual = Expression.Equal(visitor.Visit(key2Selector.Body), value2AsExpression.Body);
return Expression.AndAlso(firstEqual, secondEqual);
})
.ToList();
while (predicates.Count > 1)
{
predicates = PairWise(predicates).Select(p => Expression.OrElse(p.Item1, p.Item2)).ToList();
}
var body = predicates.Single();
var clause = Expression.Lambda<Func<TQuery, bool>>(body, key1Selector.Parameters[0]);
return queryable.Where(clause);
}
class ReplaceParameterVisitor : ExpressionVisitor
{
private ParameterExpression _oldParameter;
private ParameterExpression _newParameter;
public ReplaceParameterVisitor(ParameterExpression oldParameter, ParameterExpression newParameter)
{
_oldParameter = oldParameter;
_newParameter = newParameter;
}
protected override Expression VisitParameter(ParameterExpression node)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(node, _oldParameter))
return _newParameter;
return base.VisitParameter(node);
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Break a list of items tuples of pairs.
/// </summary>
private static IEnumerable<(T, T)> PairWise<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
var sourceEnumerator = source.GetEnumerator();
while (sourceEnumerator.MoveNext())
{
var a = sourceEnumerator.Current;
sourceEnumerator.MoveNext();
var b = sourceEnumerator.Current;
yield return (a, b);
}
}
private static TKey[] Bucketize<TKey>(IEnumerable<TKey> values)
{
var distinctValueList = values.Distinct().ToList();
// Calculate bucket size as 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,...
var bucket = 1;
while (distinctValueList.Count > bucket)
{
bucket *= 2;
}
// Fill all slots.
var lastValue = distinctValueList.Last();
for (var index = distinctValueList.Count; index < bucket; index++)
{
distinctValueList.Add(lastValue);
}
var distinctValues = distinctValueList.ToArray();
return distinctValues;
}

In the absence of a general solution, I think there are two things to consider:
Avoid multi-column primary keys (will make unit testing easier too).
But if you have to, chances are that one of them will reduce the
query result size to O(n) where n is the size of the ideal query
result. From here, its Solution 5 from Gerd Arnold above.
For example, the problem leading me to this question was querying order lines, where the key is order id + order line number + order type, and the source had the order type being implicit. That is, the order type was a constant, order ID would reduce the query set to order lines of relevant orders, and there would usually be 5 or less of these per order.
To rephrase: If you have a composite key, changes are that one of them have very few duplicates. Apply Solution 5 from above with that.

I tried this solution and it worked with me and the output query was perfect without any parameters
using LinqKit; // nuget
var customField_Ids = customFields?.Select(t => new CustomFieldKey { Id = t.Id, TicketId = t.TicketId }).ToList();
var uniqueIds1 = customField_Ids.Select(cf => cf.Id).Distinct().ToList();
var uniqueIds2 = customField_Ids.Select(cf => cf.TicketId).Distinct().ToList();
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.New<CustomFieldKey>(false); //LinqKit
var lambdas = new List<Expression<Func<CustomFieldKey, bool>>>();
foreach (var cfKey in customField_Ids)
{
var id = uniqueIds1.Where(uid => uid == cfKey.Id).Take(1).ToList();
var ticketId = uniqueIds2.Where(uid => uid == cfKey.TicketId).Take(1).ToList();
lambdas.Add(t => id.Contains(t.Id) && ticketId.Contains(t.TicketId));
}
predicate = AggregateExtensions.AggregateBalanced(lambdas.ToArray(), (expr1, expr2) =>
{
var invokedExpr = Expression.Invoke(expr2, expr1.Parameters.Cast<Expression>());
return Expression.Lambda<Func<CustomFieldKey, bool>>
(Expression.OrElse(expr1.Body, invokedExpr), expr1.Parameters);
});
var modifiedCustomField_Ids = repository.GetTable<CustomFieldLocal>()
.Select(cf => new CustomFieldKey() { Id = cf.Id, TicketId = cf.TicketId }).Where(predicate).ToArray();

I ended up writing a helper for this problem that relies on System.Linq.Dynamic.Core;
Its a lot of code and don't have time to refactor at the moment but input / suggestions appreciated.
public static IQueryable<TEntity> WhereIsOneOf<TEntity, TSource>(this IQueryable<TEntity> dbSet,
IEnumerable<TSource> source,
Expression<Func<TEntity, TSource,bool>> predicate) where TEntity : class
{
var (where, pDict) = GetEntityPredicate(predicate, source);
return dbSet.Where(where, pDict);
(string WhereStr, IDictionary<string, object> paramDict) GetEntityPredicate(Expression<Func<TEntity, TSource, bool>> func, IEnumerable<TSource> source)
{
var firstP = func.Parameters[0];
var binaryExpressions = RecurseBinaryExpressions((BinaryExpression)func.Body);
var i = 0;
var paramDict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
var res = new List<string>();
foreach (var sourceItem in source)
{
var innerRes = new List<string>();
foreach (var bExp in binaryExpressions)
{
var emp = ToEMemberPredicate(firstP, bExp);
var val = emp.GetKeyValue(sourceItem);
var pName = $"#{i++}";
paramDict.Add(pName, val);
var str = $"{emp.EntityMemberName} {emp.SQLOperator} {pName}";
innerRes.Add(str);
}
res.Add( "(" + string.Join(" and ", innerRes) + ")");
}
var sRes = string.Join(" || ", res);
return (sRes, paramDict);
}
EMemberPredicate ToEMemberPredicate(ParameterExpression firstP, BinaryExpression bExp)
{
var lMember = (MemberExpression)bExp.Left;
var rMember = (MemberExpression)bExp.Right;
var entityMember = lMember.Expression == firstP ? lMember : rMember;
var keyMember = entityMember == lMember ? rMember : lMember;
return new EMemberPredicate(entityMember, keyMember, bExp.NodeType);
}
List<BinaryExpression> RecurseBinaryExpressions(BinaryExpression e, List<BinaryExpression> runningList = null)
{
if (runningList == null) runningList = new List<BinaryExpression>();
if (e.Left is BinaryExpression lbe)
{
var additions = RecurseBinaryExpressions(lbe);
runningList.AddRange(additions);
}
if (e.Right is BinaryExpression rbe)
{
var additions = RecurseBinaryExpressions(rbe);
runningList.AddRange(additions);
}
if (e.Left is MemberExpression && e.Right is MemberExpression)
{
runningList.Add(e);
}
return runningList;
}
}
Helper class:
public class EMemberPredicate
{
public readonly MemberExpression EntityMember;
public readonly MemberExpression KeyMember;
public readonly PropertyInfo KeyMemberPropInfo;
public readonly string EntityMemberName;
public readonly string SQLOperator;
public EMemberPredicate(MemberExpression entityMember, MemberExpression keyMember, ExpressionType eType)
{
EntityMember = entityMember;
KeyMember = keyMember;
KeyMemberPropInfo = (PropertyInfo)keyMember.Member;
EntityMemberName = entityMember.Member.Name;
SQLOperator = BinaryExpressionToMSSQLOperator(eType);
}
public object GetKeyValue(object o)
{
return KeyMemberPropInfo.GetValue(o, null);
}
private string BinaryExpressionToMSSQLOperator(ExpressionType eType)
{
switch (eType)
{
case ExpressionType.Equal:
return "==";
case ExpressionType.GreaterThan:
return ">";
case ExpressionType.GreaterThanOrEqual:
return ">=";
case ExpressionType.LessThan:
return "<";
case ExpressionType.LessThanOrEqual:
return "<=";
case ExpressionType.NotEqual:
return "<>";
default:
throw new ArgumentException($"{eType} is not a handled Expression Type.");
}
}
}
Use Like so:
// This can be a Tuple or whatever.. If Tuple, then y below would be .Item1, etc.
// This data structure is up to you but is what I use.
[FromBody] List<CustomerAddressPk> cKeys
var res = await dbCtx.CustomerAddress
.WhereIsOneOf(cKeys, (x, y) => y.CustomerId == x.CustomerId
&& x.AddressId == y.AddressId)
.ToListAsync();
Hope this helps others.

in Case of composite key you can use another idlist and add a condition for that in your code
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id) && listOfIds2.Contains(q.Id2));
or you can use one another trick create a list of your keys by adding them
listofid.add(id+id1+......)
context.Table.Where(q => listOfIds.Contains(q.Id+q.id1+.......));

I tried this on EF Core 5.0.3 with the Postgres provider.
context.Table
.Select(entity => new
{
Entity = entity,
CompositeKey = entity.Id1 + entity.Id2,
})
.Where(x => compositeKeys.Contains(x.CompositeKey))
.Select(x => x.Entity);
This produced SQL like:
SELECT *
FROM table AS t
WHERE t.Id1 + t.Id2 IN (#__compositeKeys_0)),
Caveats
this should only be used where the combination of Id1 and Id2 will always produce a unique result (e.g., they're both UUIDs)
this cannot use indexes, though you could save the composite key to the db with an index

LINQ to SQL - Select where starts with any of list

Working on a Linq-to-SQL project and observing some odd behavior with the generated SQL. Basically I have an array of strings, and I need to select all rows where a column starts with one of those strings.
using (SqlConnection sqlConn = new SqlConnection(connString))
{
using (IdsSqlDataContext context = new IdsSqlDataContext(sqlConn))
{
//generated results should start with one of these.
//in real code base they are obviously not hardcoded and list is variable length
string[] args = new string[] { "abc", "def", "hig" };
IQueryable<string> queryable = null;
//loop through the array, the first time through create an iqueryable<>, and subsequent passes union results onto original
foreach (string arg in args)
{
if (queryable == null)
{
queryable = context.IdsForms.Where(f => f.MatterNumber.StartsWith(arg)).Select(f => f.MatterNumber);
}
else
{
queryable = queryable.Union(context.IdsForms.Where(f => f.MatterNumber.StartsWith(arg)).Select(f => f.MatterNumber));
}
}
//actually execute the query.
var result = queryable.ToArray();
}
}
I would expect the sql generated to be functionally equivalent to the following.
select MatterNumber
from IdsForm
where MatterNumber like 'abc%' or MatterNumber like 'def%' or MatterNumber like 'hig%'
But the actual SQL generated is below, notice 'hig%' is the argument for all three like clauses.
exec sp_executesql N'SELECT [t4].[MatterNumber]
FROM (
SELECT [t2].[MatterNumber]
FROM (
SELECT [t0].[MatterNumber]
FROM [dbo].[IdsForm] AS [t0]
WHERE [t0].[MatterNumber] LIKE #p0
UNION
SELECT [t1].[MatterNumber]
FROM [dbo].[IdsForm] AS [t1]
WHERE [t1].[MatterNumber] LIKE #p1
) AS [t2]
UNION
SELECT [t3].[MatterNumber]
FROM [dbo].[IdsForm] AS [t3]
WHERE [t3].[MatterNumber] LIKE #p2
) AS [t4]',N'#p0 varchar(4),#p1 varchar(4),#p2 varchar(4)',#p0='hig%',#p1='hig%',#p2='hig%'

Looks like you're closing over the loop variable. This is a common gotcha in C#. What happens is that the value of arg is evaluated when the query is run, not when it is created.
Create a temp variable to hold the value:
foreach (string arg in args)
{
var temp = arg;
if (queryable == null)
{
queryable = context.IdsForms.Where(f => f.MatterNumber.StartsWith(temp)).Select(f => f.MatterNumber);
}
else
{
queryable = queryable.Union(context.IdsForms.Where(f => f.MatterNumber.StartsWith(temp)).Select(f => f.MatterNumber));
}
}
You can read this Eric Lippert post about closing over a loop variable. As Eric notes at the top of the article, and as #Magus points out in a comment, this has changed in C# 5 so that the foreach variable is a new copy on each iteration. Creating a temp variable, like above, is forward compatible though.

The union is correct, due to you using union in your linq to sql query. The reason they are all hig% is because the lambda f => f.MatterNumber.StartsWith(arg) creates a closure around the loop parameter. To fix, declare a local variable in the loop
foreach (string arg in args)
{
var _arg = arg;
if (queryable == null)
{
queryable = context.IdsForms.Where(f => f.MatterNumber.StartsWith(_arg)).Select(f => f.MatterNumber);
}
else
{
queryable = queryable.Union(context.IdsForms.Where(f => f.MatterNumber.StartsWith(_arg)).Select(f => f.MatterNumber));
}
}
But I agree the union seems unnecessary. If the array of strings to check against is not going to change, then you can just use a standard where clause. Otherwise you could take a look at predicate builder! Check here

How about this ?
queryable = context..IdsForms.Where(f =>
{
foreach (var arg in args)
{
if (f.MatterNumber.StartsWith(arg))
return true;
}
return false;
}).Select(f => f.MatterNumber);

Compose LINQ-to-SQL predicates into a single predicate

(An earlier question, Recursively (?) compose LINQ predicates into a single predicate, is similar to this but I actually asked the wrong question... the solution there satisfied the question as posed, but isn't actually what I need. They are different, though. Honest.)
Given the following search text:
"keyword1 keyword2 ... keywordN"
I want to end up with the following SQL:
SELECT [columns] FROM Customer
WHERE (
Customer.Forenames LIKE '%keyword1%'
OR
Customer.Forenames LIKE '%keyword2%'
OR
...
OR
Customer.Forenames LIKE '%keywordN%'
) AND (
Customer.Surname LIKE '%keyword1%'
OR
Customer.Surname LIKE '%keyword2%'
OR
....
OR
Customer.Surname LIKE '%keywordN%'
)
Effectively, we're splitting the search text on spaces, trimming each token, constructing a multi-part OR clause based on each , and then AND'ing the clauses together.
I'm doing this in Linq-to-SQL, and I have no idea how to dynamically compose a predicate based on an arbitrarily-long list of subpredicates. For a known number of clauses, it's easy to compose the predicates manually:
dataContext.Customers.Where(
(
Customer.Forenames.Contains("keyword1")
||
Customer.Forenames.Contains("keyword2")
) && (
Customer.Surname.Contains("keyword1")
||
Customer.Surname.Contains("keyword2")
)
);
In short, I need a technique that, given two predicates, will return a single predicate composing the two source predicates with a supplied operator, but restricted to the operators explicitly supported by Linq-to-SQL. Any ideas?

You can use the PredicateBuilder class
IQueryable<Customer> SearchCustomers (params string[] keywords)
{
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Customer>();
foreach (string keyword in keywords)
{
// Note that you *must* declare a variable inside the loop
// otherwise all your lambdas end up referencing whatever
// the value of "keyword" is when they're finally executed.
string temp = keyword;
predicate = predicate.Or (p => p.Forenames.Contains (temp));
}
return dataContext.Customers.Where (predicate);
}
(that's actually the example from the PredicateBuilder page, I just adapted it to your case...)
EDIT:
Actually I misread your question, and my example above only covers a part of the solution... The following method should do what you want :
IQueryable<Customer> SearchCustomers (string[] forenameKeyWords, string[] surnameKeywords)
{
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.True<Customer>();
var forenamePredicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Customer>();
foreach (string keyword in forenameKeyWords)
{
string temp = keyword;
forenamePredicate = forenamePredicate.Or (p => p.Forenames.Contains (temp));
}
predicate = PredicateBuilder.And(forenamePredicate);
var surnamePredicate = PredicateBuilder.False<Customer>();
foreach (string keyword in surnameKeyWords)
{
string temp = keyword;
surnamePredicate = surnamePredicate.Or (p => p.Surnames.Contains (temp));
}
predicate = PredicateBuilder.And(surnamePredicate);
return dataContext.Customers.Where(predicate);
}
You can use it like that:
var query = SearchCustomers(
new[] { "keyword1", "keyword2" },
new[] { "keyword3", "keyword4" });
foreach (var Customer in query)
{
...
}

Normally you would chain invocations of .Where(...). E.g.:
var a = dataContext.Customers;
if (kwd1 != null)
a = a.Where(t => t.Customer.Forenames.Contains(kwd1));
if (kwd2 != null)
a = a.Where(t => t.Customer.Forenames.Contains(kwd2));
// ...
return a;
LINQ-to-SQL would weld it all back together into a single WHERE clause.
This doesn't work with OR, however. You could use unions and intersections, but I'm not sure whether LINQ-to-SQL (or SQL Server) is clever enough to fold it back to a single WHERE clause. OTOH, it won't matter if performance doesn't suffer. Anyway, it would look something like this:
<The type of dataContext.Customers> ff = null, ss = null;
foreach (k in keywords) {
if (keywords != null) {
var f = dataContext.Customers.Where(t => t.Customer.Forenames.Contains(k));
ff = ff == null ? f : ff.Union(f);
var s = dataContext.Customers.Where(t => t.Customer.Surname.Contains(k));
ss = ss == null ? s : ss.Union(s);
}
}
return ff.Intersect(ss);

How to refactor multiple similar Linq-To-Sql queries?

Suppose I have the two following Linq-To-SQL queries I want to refactor:
var someValue1 = 0;
var someValue2= 0;
var query1 = db.TableAs.Where( a => a.TableBs.Count() > someValue1 )
.Take( 10 );
var query2 = db.TableAs.Where( a => a.TableBs.First().item1 == someValue2)
.Take( 10 );
Note that only the Where parameter changes. There is any way to put the query inside a method and pass the Where parameter as an argument?
All the solutions posted in the previous question have been tried and failed in runtime when I try to enumerate the result.
The exception thrown was: "Unsupported overload used for query operator 'Where'"

Absolutely. You'd write:
public IQueryable<A> First10(Expression<Func<A,bool>> predicate)
{
return db.TableAs.Where(predicate).Take(10);
}
(That's assuming that TableA is IQueryable<A>.)
Call it with:
var someValue1 = 0;
var someValue2= 0;
var query1 = First10(a => a.TableBs.Count() > someValue1);
var query2 = First10(a => a.TableBs.First().item1 == someValue2);
I believe that will work...
The difference between this and the answers to your previous question is basically that this method takes Expression<Func<T,bool>> instead of just Func<T,bool> so it ends up using Queryable.Where instead of Enumerable.Where.

If you really want reusability you can try to write your own operators. E.g. instead of repeatedly writing:
var query =
Products
.Where(p => p.Description.Contains(description))
.Where(p => p.Discontinued == discontinued);
you can write simple methods:
public static IEnumerable<Product> ByName(this IEnumerable<Product> products, string description)
{
return products.Where(p => p.Description.Contains(description));
}
public static IEnumerable<Product> AreDiscontinued(IEnumerable<Product> products, bool isDiscontinued)
{
return products.Where(p => p.Discontinued == discontinued);
}
and then use it like this:
var query = Products.ByName("widget").AreDiscontinued(false);

How can I conditionally apply a Linq operator?

We're working on a Log Viewer. The use will have the option to filter by user, severity, etc. In the Sql days I'd add to the query string, but I want to do it with Linq. How can I conditionally add where-clauses?

if you want to only filter if certain criteria is passed, do something like this
var logs = from log in context.Logs
select log;
if (filterBySeverity)
logs = logs.Where(p => p.Severity == severity);
if (filterByUser)
logs = logs.Where(p => p.User == user);
Doing so this way will allow your Expression tree to be exactly what you want. That way the SQL created will be exactly what you need and nothing less.

If you need to filter base on a List / Array use the following:
public List<Data> GetData(List<string> Numbers, List<string> Letters)
{
if (Numbers == null)
Numbers = new List<string>();
if (Letters == null)
Letters = new List<string>();
var q = from d in database.table
where (Numbers.Count == 0 || Numbers.Contains(d.Number))
where (Letters.Count == 0 || Letters.Contains(d.Letter))
select new Data
{
Number = d.Number,
Letter = d.Letter,
};
return q.ToList();
}

I ended using an answer similar to Daren's, but with an IQueryable interface:
IQueryable<Log> matches = m_Locator.Logs;
// Users filter
if (usersFilter)
matches = matches.Where(l => l.UserName == comboBoxUsers.Text);
// Severity filter
if (severityFilter)
matches = matches.Where(l => l.Severity == comboBoxSeverity.Text);
Logs = (from log in matches
orderby log.EventTime descending
select log).ToList();
That builds up the query before hitting the database. The command won't run until .ToList() at the end.

I solved this with an extension method to allow LINQ to be conditionally enabled in the middle of a fluent expression. This removes the need to break up the expression with if statements.
.If() extension method:
public static IQueryable<TSource> If<TSource>(
this IQueryable<TSource> source,
bool condition,
Func<IQueryable<TSource>, IQueryable<TSource>> branch)
{
return condition ? branch(source) : source;
}
This allows you to do this:
return context.Logs
.If(filterBySeverity, q => q.Where(p => p.Severity == severity))
.If(filterByUser, q => q.Where(p => p.User == user))
.ToList();
Here's also an IEnumerable<T> version which will handle most other LINQ expressions:
public static IEnumerable<TSource> If<TSource>(
this IEnumerable<TSource> source,
bool condition,
Func<IEnumerable<TSource>, IEnumerable<TSource>> branch)
{
return condition ? branch(source) : source;
}

When it comes to conditional linq, I am very fond of the filters and pipes pattern.
http://blog.wekeroad.com/mvc-storefront/mvcstore-part-3/
Basically you create an extension method for each filter case that takes in the IQueryable and a parameter.
public static IQueryable<Type> HasID(this IQueryable<Type> query, long? id)
{
return id.HasValue ? query.Where(o => i.ID.Equals(id.Value)) : query;
}

Doing this:
bool lastNameSearch = true/false; // depending if they want to search by last name,
having this in the where statement:
where (lastNameSearch && name.LastNameSearch == "smith")
means that when the final query is created, if lastNameSearch is false the query will completely omit any SQL for the last name search.

Another option would be to use something like the PredicateBuilder discussed here.
It allows you to write code like the following:
var newKids = Product.ContainsInDescription ("BlackBerry", "iPhone");
var classics = Product.ContainsInDescription ("Nokia", "Ericsson")
.And (Product.IsSelling());
var query = from p in Data.Products.Where (newKids.Or (classics))
select p;
Note that I've only got this to work with Linq 2 SQL. EntityFramework does not implement Expression.Invoke, which is required for this method to work. I have a question regarding this issue here.

It isn't the prettiest thing but you can use a lambda expression and pass your conditions optionally. In TSQL I do a lot of the following to make parameters optional:
WHERE Field = #FieldVar OR #FieldVar IS NULL
You could duplicate the same style with a the following lambda (an example of checking authentication):
MyDataContext db = new MyDataContext();
void RunQuery(string param1, string param2, int? param3){
Func checkUser = user =>
((param1.Length > 0)? user.Param1 == param1 : 1 == 1) &&
((param2.Length > 0)? user.Param2 == param2 : 1 == 1) &&
((param3 != null)? user.Param3 == param3 : 1 == 1);
User foundUser = db.Users.SingleOrDefault(checkUser);
}

I had a similar requirement recently and eventually found this in he MSDN.
CSharp Samples for Visual Studio 2008
The classes included in the DynamicQuery sample of the download allow you to create dynamic queries at runtime in the following format:
var query =
db.Customers.
Where("City = #0 and Orders.Count >= #1", "London", 10).
OrderBy("CompanyName").
Select("new(CompanyName as Name, Phone)");
Using this you can build a query string dynamically at runtime and pass it into the Where() method:
string dynamicQueryString = "City = \"London\" and Order.Count >= 10";
var q = from c in db.Customers.Where(queryString, null)
orderby c.CompanyName
select c;

You can create and use this extension method
public static IQueryable<TSource> WhereIf<TSource>(this IQueryable<TSource> source, bool isToExecute, Expression<Func<TSource, bool>> predicate)
{
return isToExecute ? source.Where(predicate) : source;
}

Just use C#'s && operator:
var items = dc.Users.Where(l => l.Date == DateTime.Today && l.Severity == "Critical")
Edit: Ah, need to read more carefully. You wanted to know how to conditionally add additional clauses. In that case, I have no idea. :) What I'd probably do is just prepare several queries, and execute the right one, depending on what I ended up needing.

You could use an external method:
var results =
from rec in GetSomeRecs()
where ConditionalCheck(rec)
select rec;
...
bool ConditionalCheck( typeofRec input ) {
...
}
This would work, but can't be broken down into expression trees, which means Linq to SQL would run the check code against every record.
Alternatively:
var results =
from rec in GetSomeRecs()
where
(!filterBySeverity || rec.Severity == severity) &&
(!filterByUser|| rec.User == user)
select rec;
That might work in expression trees, meaning Linq to SQL would be optimised.

Well, what I thought was you could put the filter conditions into a generic list of Predicates:
var list = new List<string> { "me", "you", "meyou", "mow" };
var predicates = new List<Predicate<string>>();
predicates.Add(i => i.Contains("me"));
predicates.Add(i => i.EndsWith("w"));
var results = new List<string>();
foreach (var p in predicates)
results.AddRange(from i in list where p.Invoke(i) select i);
That results in a list containing "me", "meyou", and "mow".
You could optimize that by doing the foreach with the predicates in a totally different function that ORs all the predicates.