I have some linq that returns the correct data.
var numEmails = (from row in EmailBatchProposal
where row.EmailBatchId == emailBatchId
select row.EmailBatchProposalId).Count();
However, if I understand linq correctly, this does not perform optimally. It grabs all the data and then walks through the list and counts the rows. What I'd really like is for linq (in the background) to use like:
Select count(*) from ...
I trust the performance reasons are obvious.
Does anyone know the proper way to do this?
Actually, if the linq query is used with a collection that implements IQueryable and supports translation into underlying SQL variant, it is quite a basic functionality to translate the Count function from your example correctly.
People generally learn best by practicing. I would suggest you get a copy of LinqPad (free), enter in your Linq query, and see what SQL it generates. Then you can modify the Linq query until you get exactly what you want.
Actually, the LINQ-to-SQL is smart enough to know that it should do a count... For example, if I have the following query:
var v = (from u in TblUsers
select u).Count();
the SQL that actually executes when I run this is:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS [value]
FROM [tblUsers] AS [t0]
Amazing, huh? Another poster made the really good suggestion of getting LinqPad - it is a WONDERFUL tool. It will show you the exact SQL that gets executed. You can always confirm with SQL profiler too.
Check the Log of the SQL used in the query.
using (var dbc = new siteDataContext())
{
dbc.Log = Console.Out;
var bd = (from b in dbc.birthdays
select b).Count();
Console.WriteLine("{0}", bd);
}
gives the query:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS [value]
FROM [dbo].[birthdays] AS [t0]
-- Context: SqlProvider(Sql2008) Model: AttributedMetaModel Build: 3.5.30729.1
You can just use the argument of .Count().
int numEmails = EmailBatchProposal.Count(x => x.EmailBatchId == emailBatchId)
As noted below, this doesn't actually resolve to any different SQL, but I think it's at least a cleaner looking alternative.
Related
Lately im working on an C# Project and I am trying to do a difficult SQL Statement in LINQ C#. But i have no idea how to do this.
Here is the Statement:
SELECT *
FROM members
INNER JOIN group_has_members ON members.ID = group_has_members.members_ID
WHERE group_has_members.group_ID != 1
AND group_has_members.members_ID NOT IN(SELECT group_has_members.members_ID
FROM group_has_members
WHERE group_has_members.group_ID = 1)
Would be nice if you help me :D
Yours Florian
I think you need something like this, I didn't test this query but it will be something along these lines. See How would you do a "not in" query with LINQ? for some ideas.
var mem = from m in members
join gm in group_has_members on m.ID equals gm.members_ID
where gm.members_ID != 1 &&
!(from ghm in group_has_members
where ghm.group_ID = 1
select ghm.members_ID).Contains(gm.members_ID)
select m;
Also a great tool for this is LinqPad, if your just starting out. You can paste the SQL into the window and view the linq equivalent.
check this converter,
I hope it helps to you
http://sqltolinq.com/
If you currently have a query and you would reuse it in a project based on linq to SQL, you don't need to work again on the same query to get it in linq semantic.
You could use Execute command to use your query directly.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/it-it/library/system.data.linq.datacontext.executecommand(v=vs.110).aspx
I see several StackOverflow questions on this already but not of them seem to match my scenario. I promise I looked.
I have some queries against my database that I'm using linq to do and I can't figure out why the incorrect SQL is being generated. This is happening in several places in my code. I'm hoping we're just falling into some well known gotcha but I can't wrap my head around why Linq seemingly decides my where clause is dumb and shouldn't add it to the generated SQL query.
Why is this?
Example:
var testing = (from i in context.TableName1 where i.Param1 == object1.GuidParam select i).ToList();
The above query returns the following SQL
{SELECT
[Extent1].[RecordId] AS [RecordId],
[Extent1].[AnotherId] AS [AnotherId],
[Extent1].[YetAnotherId] AS [YetAnotherId],
[Extent1].[WeLikeIds] AS [WeLikeIds],
[Extent1].[WeReallyLikeIds] AS [WeReallyLikeIds]
FROM [dbo].[SomeTable] AS [Extent1]}
However the following query:
var testing = (from i in context.TableName1 where i.Param1 == object1.GuidParam select i);
var testingToList = testing.ToList();
Generates the following correct SQL
{SELECT
[Extent1].[RecordId] AS [RecordId],
[Extent1].[AnotherId] AS [AnotherId],
[Extent1].[YetAnotherId] AS [YetAnotherId],
[Extent1].[WeLikeIds] AS [WeLikeIds],
[Extent1].[WeReallyLikeIds] AS [WeReallyLikeIds]
FROM [dbo].[SomeTable] AS [Extent1]
WHERE [Extent1].[RecordId] = '78e49f5c-0ff8-e311-93f4-00155d514a6d'}
I prefer the lambda notation, and I don't see why this wouldn't work...
var testing = context.TableName1.Where(i => i.Param1 == object1.GuidParam).ToList();
Cleaner, concise and it should work.
I guess it should be really simple, but i cannot find how to do it.
I have a linq query, that selects one column, of type int, and i need it sorted.
var values = (from p in context.Products
where p.LockedSince == null
select Convert.ToInt32(p.SearchColumn3)).Distinct();
values = values.OrderBy(x => x);
SearchColumn3 is op type string, but i only contains integers. So i thought, converting to Int32 and ordering would definitely give me a nice 1,2,3 sorted list of values. But instead, the list stays ordered like it were strings.
199 20 201
Update:
I've done some tests with C# code and LinqPad.
LinqPad generates the following SQL:
SELECT [t2].[value]
FROM (
SELECT DISTINCT [t1].[value]
FROM (
SELECT CONVERT(Int,[t0].[SearchColumn3]) AS [value], [t0].[LockedSince], [t0].[SearchColumn3]
FROM [Product] AS [t0]
) AS [t1]
WHERE ([t1].[LockedSince] IS NULL)
) AS [t2]
ORDER BY [t2].[value]
And my SQL profiler says that my C# code generates this piece of SQL:
SELECT DISTINCT a.[SearchColumn3] AS COL1
FROM [Product] a
WHERE a.[LockedSince] IS NULL
ORDER BY a.[SearchColumn3]
So it look like C# Linq code just omits the Convert.ToInt32.
Can anyone say something useful about this?
[Disclaimer - I work at Telerik]
You can solve this problem with Telerik OpenAccess ORM too. Here is what i would suggest in this case.
var values = (from p in context.Products
where p.LockedSince == null
orderby "cast({0} as integer)".SQL<int>(p.SearchColumn3)
select "cast({0} as integer)".SQL<int>(p.SearchColumn3)).ToList().Distinct();
OpenAccess provides the SQL extension method, which gives you the ability to add some specific sql code to the generated sql statement.
We have started working on improving this behavior.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Regards
Ralph
Same answer as one my other questions, it turns out that the Linq provider i'm using, the one that comes with Telerik OpenAccess ORM does things different than the standard Linq to SQL provider! See the SQL i've posted in my opening post! I totally wasn't expecting something like this, but i seem that the Telerik OpenAccess thing still needs a lot of improvement. So be careful before you start using it. It looks nice, but it has some serious shortcomings.
I can't replicate this problem. But just make sure you're enumerating the collection when you inspect it. How are you checking the result?
values = values.OrderBy(x => x);
foreach (var v in values)
{
Console.WriteLine(v.ToString());
}
Remember, this won't change the order of the records in the database or anywhere else - only the order that you can retrieve them from the values enumeration.
Because your values variable is a result of a Linq expression, so that it doest not really have values until you calling a method such as ToList, ToArray, etc.
Get back to your example, the variable x in OrderBy method, will be treated as p.SearchColumn3 and therefore, it's a string.
To avoid that, you need to let p.SearchColumn3 become integer before OrderBy method.
You should add a let statement in to your code as below:
var values = (from p in context.Products
where p.LockedSince == null
let val = Convert.ToInt32(p.SearchColumn3)
select val).Distinct();
values = values.OrderBy(x => x);
In addition, you can combine order by statement with the first, it will be fine.
I am trying to do a join with a sub query and can't seem to get it. Here is what is looks like working in sql. How do I get to to work in linq?
SELECT po.*, p.PermissionID
FROM PermissibleObjects po
INNER JOIN PermissibleObjects_Permissions po_p ON (po.PermissibleObjectID = po_p.PermissibleObjectID)
INNER JOIN Permissions p ON (po_p.PermissionID = p.PermissionID)
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(
SELECT u_po.PermissionID, u_po.PermissibleObjectID
FROM Users_PermissibleObjects u_po
WHERE u_po.UserID = '2F160457-7355-4B59-861F-9871A45FD166'
) used ON (p.PermissionID = used.PermissionID AND po.PermissibleObjectID = used.PermissibleObjectID)
WHERE used.PermissionID is null
Without seeing your database and data model, it's pretty impossible to offer any real help. But, probably the best way to go is:
download linqpad - http://www.linqpad.net/
create a connection to your database
start with the innermost piece - the subquery with the "where" clause
get each small query working, then join them up. Linqpad will show you the generated SQL, as well as the results, so build your small queries up until they are right
So, basically, split your problem up into smaller pieces. Linqpad is fantastic as it lets you test these things out, and check your results as you go
hope this helps, good luck
Toby
The LINQ translation for your query is suprisingly simple:
from pop in PermissibleObjectPermissions
where !pop.UserPermissibleObjects.Any (
upo => upo.UserID == new Guid ("2F160457-7355-4B59-861F-9871A45FD166"))
select new { pop.PermissibleObject, pop.PermissionID }
In words: "From all object permissions, retrieve those with at least one user-permission whose UserID is 2F160457-7355-4B59-861F-9871A45FD16".
You'll notice that this query uses association properties for navigating relationships - this avoids the need for "joining" and simplfies the query. As a result, the LINQ query is much closer to its description in English than the original SQL query.
The trick, when writing LINQ queries, is to get out of the habit of "transliterating" SQL into LINQ.
It is second nature for me to whip up some elaborate SQL set processing code to solve various domain model questions. However, the trend is not to touch SQL anymore. Is there some pattern reference or conversion tool out there that helps convert the various SQL patterns to Linq syntax?
I would look-up ways to code things like the following code: (this has a sub query):
SELECT * FROM orders X WHERE
(SELECT COUNT(*) FROM orders Y
WHERE Y.totalOrder > X.totalOrder) < 6
(Grab the top five highest total orders with side effects)
Alternatively, how do you know Linq executes as a single statement without using a debugger? I know you need to follow the enumeration, but I would assume just lookup the patterns somewhere.
This is from the MSDN site which is their example of doing a SQL difference. I am probably wrong, but I wouldn't think this uses set processing on the server (I think it pulls both sets locally then takes the difference, which would be very inefficient). I am probably wrong, and this could be one of the patterns on that reference.
SQL difference example:
var differenceQuery =
(from cust in db.Customers
select cust.Country)
.Except
(from emp in db.Employees
select emp.Country);
Thanks
-- Update:
-- Microsoft's 101 Linq Samples in C# is a closer means of constructing linq in a pattern to produce the SQL you want. I will post more as I find them. I am really looking for a methodology (patterns or a conversion tool) to convert SQL to Linq.
-- Update (sql from Microsoft's difference pattern in Linq):
SELECT DISTINCT [t0].[field] AS [Field_Name]
FROM [left_table] AS [t0]
WHERE NOT (EXISTS(
SELECT NULL AS [EMPTY]
FROM [right_table] AS [t1]
WHERE [t0].[field] = [t1].[field]
))
That's what we wanted, not what I expected. So, that's one pattern to memorize.
If you have hand-written SQL, you can use ExecuteQuery, specifying the type of "row" class as a function template argument:
var myList = DataContext.ExecuteQuery<MyRow>(
"select * from myview");
The "row" class exposes the columns as public properties. For example:
public class MyRow {
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
....
}
You can decorate the columns with more information:
public class MyRow {
....
[Column(Storage="NameColumn", DbType="VarChar(50)")]
public string Name { get; set; }
....
}
In my experience linq to sql doesn't generate very good SQL code, and the code it does generate breaks down for large databases. What linq to sql does very well is expose stored procedures to your client. For example:
var result = DataContext.MyProcedure(a,b,c);
This allows you to store SQL in the database, while having the benefits of an easy to use, automatically generated .NET wrapper.
To see the exact SQL that's being used, you can use the SQL Server Profiler tool:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187929.aspx
The Linq-to-Sql Debug Visualizer:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/07/31/linq-to-sql-debug-visualizer.aspx
Or you can write custom code to log the queries:
http://goneale.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/log-linq-2-sql-query-execution-to-consoledebug-window/
This is why Linq Pad was created in the first place. :) It allows you to easily see what the output is. What the results of the query would be etc. Best is it's free. Maybe not the answer to your question but I am sure it could help you.
If you know exactly the sql you want, then you should use ExecuteQuery.
I can imagine a few ways to translate the query you've shown, but if you're concerned that "Except" might not be translated.
Test it. If it works the way you want then great, otherwise:
Rewrite it with items you know will translate, for example:
db.Customers.Where(c => !db.Employees.Any(e => c.Country == e.Country) );
If you are concerned about the TSQL generated, then I would suggest formalising the queries into stored procedures or UDFs, and accessing them via the data-context. The UDF approach has slightly better metadata and composability (compared to stored procedure) - for example you can add addition Where/Skip/Take etc to a UDF query and have it run at the database (but last time I checked, only LINQ-to-SQL (not Entity Framework) supported UDF usage).
You can also use ExecuteQuery, but there are advantages of letting the database own the fixed queries.
Re finding what TSQL executed... with LINQ-to-SQL you can assign any TextWriter (for example, Console.Out) to DataContext.Log.
I believe the best way is to use stored procedures. In this case you has full control on the SQL.