Is there a way to get the whole count when using the Take operator?
You can do both.
IEnumerable<T> query = ...complicated query;
int c = query.Count();
query = query.Take(n);
Just execute the count before the take. this will cause the query to be executed twice, but i believe that that is unavoidable.
if this is in a Linq2SQL context, as your comment implies then this will in fact query the database twice. As far as lazy loading goes though it will depend on how the result of the query is actually used.
For example: if you have two tables say Product and ProductVersion where each Product has multiple ProductVersions associated via a foreign key.
if this is your query:
var query = db.Products.Where(p => complicated condition).OrderBy(p => p.Name).ThenBy(...).Select(p => p);
where you are just selecting Products but after executing the query:
var results = query.ToList();//forces query execution
results[0].ProductVersions;//<-- Lazy loading occurs
if you reference any foreign key or related object that was not part of the original query then it will be lazy loaded in. In your case, the count will not cause any lazy loading because it is simply returning an int. but depending on what you actually do with the result of the Take() you may or may not have Lazy loading occur. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell if you have LazyLoading ocurring, to check you should log your queries using the DataContext.Log property.
The easiest way would be to just do a Count of the query, and then do Take:
var q = ...;
var count = q.Count();
var result = q.Take(...);
It is possible to do this in a single Linq-to-SQL query (where only one SQL statement will be executed). The generated SQL does look unpleasant though, so your performance may vary.
If this is your query:
IQueryable<Person> yourQuery = People
.Where(x => /* complicated query .. */);
You can append the following to it:
var result = yourQuery
.GroupBy (x => true) // This will match all of the rows from your query ..
.Select (g => new {
// .. so 'g', the group, will then contain all of the rows from your query.
CountAll = g.Count(),
TakeFive = g.Take(5),
// We could also query for a max value.
MaxAgeFromAll = g.Max(x => x.PersonAge)
})
.FirstOrDefault();
Which will let you access your data like so:
// Check that result is not null before access.
// If there are no records to find, then 'result' will return null (because of the grouping)
if(result != null) {
var count = result.CountAll;
var firstFiveRows = result.TakeFive;
var maxPersonAge = result.MaxAgeFromAll;
}
Related
I am trying to get data from linq in asp.net core. I have a table with a Position with a FacultyID field, how do I get it from the Position table with an existing userid. My query
var claimsIdentity = _httpContextAccessor.HttpContext.User.Identity as ClaimsIdentity;
var userId = claimsIdentity.FindFirst(ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier)?.Value.ToString();
var data = _context.Positions.Where(p => p.UserID.ToString() == userId).Select(x => x.FacultyID).???;
What can I add after the mark? to get the data. Thank you so much
There are several things you can do. An example in your case would be:
var data = _context.Positions.Where(p => p.UserID.ToString() == userId).Select(x => x.FacultyID).FirstOrDefault();
If you expect more than 1 results, then you would do:
var data = _context.Positions.Where(p => p.UserID.ToString() == userId).Select(x => x.FacultyID).ToList();
You have to be aware of the difference between a query and the result of a query.
The query does not represent the data itself, it represents the potential to fetch some data.
If you look closely to the LINQ methods, you will find there are two groups: the LINQ methods that return IQueryable<...> and the others.
The IQueryable methods don't execute the query. These functions are called lazy, they use deferred execution. You can find these terms in the remarks section of every LINQ method.
As long as you concatenate IQueryable LINQ methods, the query is not executed. It is not costly to concatenate LINQ methods in separate statements.
The query is executed as soon as you start enumerating the query. At its lowest level this is done using GetEnumerator and MoveNext / Current:
IQueryable<Customer> customers = ...; // Query not executed yet!
// execute the query and process the fetched data
using (IEnumerator<Customer> enumerator = customers.GetEnumerator())
{
while(enumerator.MoveNext())
{
// there is a Customer, it is in property Current:
Customer customer = enumerator.Current;
this.ProcessFetchedCustomer(customer);
}
}
This code, or something very similar is done when you use foreach, or one of the LINQ methods that don't return IQueryable<...>, like ToList, ToDictionary, FirstOrDefault, Sum, Any, ...
var data = dbContext.Positions
.Where(p => p.UserID.ToString() == userId)
.Select(x => x.FacultyID);
If you use your debugger, you will see that data is an IQueryable<Position>. You'll have to use one of the other LINQ methods to execute the query.
To get all Positions in the query:
List<Position> fetchedPositions result = data.ToList();
If you expect only one position:
Position fetchedPosition = data.FirstOrDefault();
If you want to know if there is any position at all:
if (positionAvailable = data.Any())
{
...
}
Be aware: if you use the IQueryable, the data will be fetched again from the DbContext. So if you want to do all three statements efficiently these, make sure you don't use the original data three times:
List<Position> fetchedPositions result = data.ToList();
Position firstPosition = fetchedPostion.FirstOrDefault();
if (firstPosition != null)
{
ProcessPosition(firstPosition);
}
My LINQ query is the following, I query two tables, Settlements and Bills which have a one to many relationship, in particular there can be one settlement with one or more bills.
var TheSettlements = from settlement in context_.Settlements
select new
{
asettlementid = settlement.SettlementId,
SqBills = string.Join(",",
(
from b in context_.Bills
.Where(b => b.SettlementId == settlement.SettlementId)
select new { b.BillMunicipalityId }
))
};
Now the trivial part (for me), is that I would like the bills concatenated, so after many hours of trial and error, I got my results but the Bills(BillMunicipalityId) are presented inside brackets including the fieldname, like this.
The way I export the data, to a txt to be more precise, is this.
foreach (var settlement in TheSettlements)
{
SettlementsText
.Append(settlement.asettlementid).Append(Delimiter)
.Append(settlement.SqBills.ToString()).Append(Delimiter)
.Append(Newline);
}
And the results I get in the txt.
3,{ BillMunicipalityId = f9e47f81-fc97-4008-b93d-d384230c53aa },
6,,
7,{ BillMunicipalityId = 8b66610a-20c1-4f47-9f37-489d1a8ce31a },{ BillMunicipalityId = 003d59d4-7bcb-4603-b42c-dc389dd8fb06 },{ BillMunicipalityId = 0070bb29-e3a1-4317-b5e2-3d1ef08dd20b },
How should I handle this to get only the values?
Just the GUID of every BillMunicipalityId, without the { BillMunicipalityId = } part.
I think rather than selecting as a new object you could just select the value like this:
var TheSettlements = from settlement in context_.Settlements
select new
{
asettlementid = settlement.SettlementId,
SqBills = string.Join(",",
(
from b in context_.Bills
.Where(b => b.SettlementId == settlement.SettlementId)
select b.BillMunicipalityId
))
};
Your Linq statement looks really strange to me. As it shows in the question you're mixing Linq with extensions methods.
If context is a DbContext which is going to the database, concating the results with string.Join won't work as this statement can't be translated to SQL code. If context however contains in memory data this may work. I advise however to not use string.Join within Linq unless you add a clear comment to the code, this Linq should never hit the database.
When this code will hit the database, you'll get an NotSupportedException with the message:
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'System.String Join[Int32]'
The second thing I notice in your query, normally the one-to-many relation is known by the datamodel and you shouldn't need to join the results yourself.
The easiest way to solve this, is to use an intermediate query, which gets the results from the database and after running the query and getting the data into memory, perform the conversion with string.Join()
This would look like:
var TheSettlements =
from settlement in context_.Settlements
select new
{
asettlementid = settlement.SettlementId,
SqBills = (
from b in settlement.Bills
select b.BillMunicipalityId
).ToList(),
};
// Get the results in memory:
var results = TheSettlements.ToArray();
// Format the results:
var printResults = results.Select(s =>
s.asettlementid.ToString() + ", " + string.Join(", ",s.SqBills));
I'm generating a query using Entity Framework which uses a group by clause and then attempts to order each of the groups to get specific data. I attempted to optimize the order by to only happen once using a let statement but the results are incorrect but the query still executes.
Concept:
var results =
(from n in noteEntities.NoteLog
where associatedIDs.Contains(n.AssociatedID)
group n by n.AssociatedID into gn
let ogn = gn.OrderByDescending(t => t.CreatedDateTime)
let successNote = ogn.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Type == "Success")
let lastStatusNote = ogn.FirstOrDefault()
select new { Success = successNote, Status = lastStatusNote, AssociatedID = gn.Key }).ToList();
However, the problem is that using, what should be the ordered let variable, ogn in the subsequent let statements is not using an order by descending list and I'm getting the wrong success and status notes. I've also tried changing things up to create a sub-query and reference the result but that doesn't seem to return an ordered list either, ex:
var subQuery =
(from n in noteEntities.NoteLog
where associatedIDs.Contains(n.AssociatedID)
group n by n.AssociatedID into gn
select gn.OrderByDescending(t => t.CreatedDateTime));
var results =
(from s in subQuery
let successNote = s.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Type == "Success")
let lastStatusNote = s.FirstOrDefault()
select new { Success = successNote, Status = lastStatusNote }).ToList();
I can make this work by using OrderByDescending twice in the select statement or let statements for the success and status notes but this becomes very slow, and redundant, when there are a lot of notes. Is there a way to run the order by only once and get the right results back?
In SQL a subquery with Order By must have a TOP statement (yours does not). And when Linq detects that there is no FirstOrDefault or Takestatements with the ordered subquery it just strips the OrderByDescending.
If you are having a performance problem with the query perhaps you should look into indexing the table.
Trying to write dynamic queries using the LINQ provider for NHibernate, but I am having issues. My understanding was that LINQ queries were deferred until called, (i.e. with ToList()), so I have the following code:
string[] filteredIds = new[] { "someIdNotInUse"};
var result = _products
.GetAll()
.Skip(0)
.Take(10);
if (filteredIds != null)
{
result.Where(x => x.Child1.Child2.Any(z => filteredIds.Contains(z.Child3.Id)));
}
var r = result.ToList();
The Where filter in the conditional block is not applied; when I run .ToList, I get records where I expect none. However, if I remove the where filter and append it directly to the _products call, it works as expected. Am I misunderstanding how the LINQ provider works? How is creating a query like this possible, without rewriting the query for every possible filter condition and combination?
Methods in LINQ don't affect the object they're called on - they return a new object representing the result of the call. So you want:
if (filteredIds != null)
{
result = result.Where(...);
}
(Think of it as being a bit like calling Replace or Trim on a string - the string is immutable, so it's only the return value which matters.)
I would like to append a set of conditional where clauses onto the end of an ObjectSet. However, the clauses do not get executed and instead the original query is run, for example:
using (Entities context = new Entities()){
var q = context.AuditLogs;
q.Where(o => o.WebsiteId == 1);
}
The where clause is not executed and the full result set is returned
I could instead use IQueryAble as in:
var q = context.AuditLogs.AsQueryable();
q = q.Where(o => o.WebsiteId == 1);
However this loses me the power of being able to use .Include to eager load my related entities.
No, it won't. at any point before executing the query, you would still be able to cast it back to ObjectQuery<T> and invoke methods like Include on it:
var query = context.AuditLogs.AsQueryable();
query = query.Where(o => o.WebsiteId == 1);
var auditLog = ((ObjectQuery<AuditLog>)query).Include("yourNavPropertyName")
.ToList();
If your intention is to build up a criteria incrementally, then the other option would be to leverage EntitySQL with QueryBuilder methods:
var query = context.AuditLogs.Where("it.WebsiteId = 1");
query = query.Where("...");
var auditLog = query.Include("yourNavPropertyName")
.ToList();
Just some good old fashioned linq would suffice here. Assuming you had a property named SiteOwner you could accomplish what your trying to do with the below query
using (Entities context = new Entities()){
var webSites = from sites in context.AuditLogs.Include("SiteOwner")
where sites.WebSiteId == 1
select sites;
}