I'm trying to create a linq query based on some dynamic/optional arguments passed into a method.
User [Table] -> zero to many -> Vehicles [Table]
User [Table] -> zero to many -> Pets
So we want all users (including any vechile and/or pet info). Optional filters are
Vehicle numberplate
Pet name
Because the vehicle and pet tables are zero-to-many, i usually have outer joins between the user table and the vehicle|pet table.
To speed up the query, i was trying to create the dynamic linq and if we have an optional argument provided, redfine the outer join to an inner join.
(The context diagram will have the two tables linked as an outer join by default.)
Can this be done?
I'm also not sure if this SO post can help me, either.
I think you are heading in the wrong direction. You can easily use the fact that LINQ queries are composable here.
First, you would always use the outer join, and get all users with the appropriate vehicles and pets:
// Get all the users.
IQueryable<User> users = dbContext.Users;
Then you would add the filters if necessary:
// If a filter on the pet name is required, filter.
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(petNameFilter))
{
// Filter on pet name.
users = users.Where(u => u.Pets.Where(
p => p.Name == petNameFilter).Any());
}
// Add a filter on the license plate number.
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(licensePlateFilter))
{
// Filter on the license plate.
users = users.Where(
u => u.Cars.Where(c => c.LicensePlace == licensePlateFilter).Any());
}
Note that this will not filter out the pets or cars that don't meet the filter, as it is simply looking for the users that have pets with that name, or cars with that plate.
If you are trying to change tables or joins of a LINQ to SQL query at runtime you need to do that with reflection. LINQ expressions are not special; same as working with any other object call - you can change the value of properties and variables at runtime, but choosing which properties to change or which methods to call requires reflecting.
I would add to that by pointing out dynamically creating LINQ expressions via reflection is probably a little silly for most (all?) cases, since under the hood the expression is essentially reflected back into SQL statements. Might as well write the SQL yourself if you are doing it on-the-fly. The point of LINQ is to abstract the data source from the developer, not the end-user.
This is how I do what you are asking...
var results = u from dc.Users
join veh from dc.vehicles on u.userId equals v.userId into vtemp from v in vtemp.DefaultIfEmpty()
join pet from dc.pets on u.userId equals p.userId into ptemp from p in ptemp.DefaultItEmpty()
select new { user = u, vehicle = v, pet = p };
if ( !string.IsNullOrEmpty(petName) )
{
results = results.Where(r => r.pet.PetName == petName);
}
if ( !string.IsNullOrEmpty(licNum) )
{
results = results.Where(r => r.vehicle.LicNum == licNum);
}
Related
please I'm working on a ASP.NET MVC project with Entity Framework.
I try to write a Linq Query that give me some data, this Query will join two entities and grouping by data, so the issue is when I try to get the properties of second joined entity I don't see them in Intellisense, I need these properties to select them.
What I try :
var R = (from N in SCHOOL_DB_Context.Con.NT_CTR join S in SCHOOL_DB_Context.Con.STGs on N.STG_nt equals S.CD_STG where N.CTR_nt==CTR group N by N.STG_nt into G select new NT_CTR_Anal { /*Here where I want to select some properties from second entity*/ } )
So please any help about this issue ?
Take a look at tis fragment:
group N by N.STG_nt into G
The part between by and into is the key(s), and similar to SQL there you have access to all aliases (variables) from from and join clauses. The name after into is LINQ specific and represents the alias (variable) for accessing the GroupBy result. But what is between group and 'by'? There is no SQL equivalent.
Well, the result of GroupBy is of type IGrouping<TKey, TElement>, which has property TKey Key and also is IEnumerable<TElement>. The TKey is comong from the expression between by and into, while TElement (which is what you can access through into variable is coming from the expression between group and by.
In your sample you've put N there, that`s why you have access only to its properties.
In order to have access to other properties, you would use the typical LINQ construct for "composite" things, which is anonymous type projection, e.g.
var R = (
from N in SCHOOL_DB_Context.Con.NT_CTR
join S in SCHOOL_DB_Context.Con.STGs on N.STG_nt equals S.CD_STG
where N.CTR_nt == CTR
group new { N, S } by N.STG_nt into G
select new NT_CTR_Anal
{
G.Key, // N.STG_nt
SomeNPropSum = G.Sum(e => e.N.SomeNProp),
SomeSPropSum = G.Sum(e => e.S.SomeSProp),
};
As you can see, now you have access to both N and S properties inside grouping aggregate methods.
I have a query below which is supposed to group the result by Id, EntityName, DocType, Jurisdiction. For each group the query also returns the ProductList items.
At the moment if the group contains one or more than one product, Then i can see the result giving out a group with a combination of Id,EntityName,DocType,Jurisdiction and ProductList, However if the result doesnt contain products for a particular group i do not see the group at all. What i would like to do is show the groups even if does not have any products in its group. So if the count of ProductList is zero, i would like to set
ProductList= new List NettingAgreementProductDto. Any input would be highly appreciated.
var result = from nae in nettingAgreementEntities.Result
join no in nettingOpinions.Result
on nae.EntityId equals no.EntityId
join np in nettingProducts.Result
on no.ProductId equals np.Id
group np by new
{ nae.EntityId,
nae.EntityName,
nae.DocType,
nae.Jurisdiction
} into g
select new NettingAgreementEntityDto
{
Id = g.Key.EntityId,
EntityName = g.Key.EntityName,
DocType = g.Key.DocType,
Jurisdiction = g.Key.Jurisdiction,
ProductList = g.Select(x => new
NettingAgreementProductDto
{
Id = x.Id,
Name = x.Name
}).ToList()
};
To recap from the comments, currently your query is using Inner Join for associating NettingAgreementEntity with NettingAgreementProducts. This not only multiplies the result set (and thus requires you to use GroupBy after), but also filters out the NettingAgreementEntity without NettingAgreementProducts.
You can achieve the goal by switching to Group Join (or Left Outer Join + GroupBy).
But why entering all these complications. EF navigation properties allow you to almost forget about manual joins, and also allow you to easily see the multiplicity, thus whether you need to group the result or not.
So what I would suggest is to add the currently missing collection navigation property to your NettingAgreementEntity class:
public class NettingAgreementEntity
{
// ...
public virtual ICollection<NettingOpinion> Opinions { get; set; }
}
Optionally do the same for NettingAgreementProduct in case in the future you need something similar for products (it's a many-to-many relationship and should be able to be queried from both sides).
Also I would rename the NettingOpinion class navigation properties NettingAgreementProductNavigation and NettingAgreementEntityNavigation to something shorter, for instance Product and Entity. These names (as well as the names of the collection navigation properties) do not affect the database schema, but IMHO provide better readability.
Once you have that, you'll see that the desired LINQ query is a matter of simple Selects which convert entity class to DTO and let EF query translator produce the necessary joins for you:
var result = db.Set<NettingAgreementEntity>()
.Selec(nae => new NettingAgreementEntityDto
{
Id = nae.EntityId,
EntityName = nae.EntityName,
DocType = nae.DocType,
Jurisdiction = nae.Jurisdiction,
ProductList = nae.Opinions
.Select(no => new NettingAgreementProductDto
{
no.Product.Id,
no.Product.Name,
}).ToList(),
});
I need to write some linq (linq-to-sql) for a search page that allows the user to search for cars and optionally include search criteria for the car's parts. The two tables are CAR and CAR_PARTS. Here is what I have so far:
var query = db.CAR;
//if the user provides a car name to search by, filter on car name (this works)
if(model.CarName != "")
{
query = from c in query
where c.Name == model.CarName
select c;
}
//if the user provides a car part name to filter on, join the CAR_PART table
if(model.CarPartName != "")
{
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartName == model.CarPartName
select c;
}
//if the user provides a car part code to filter on, join the CAR_PART table
if(model.CarPartCode != "")
{
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartCode == model.CarPartCode
select c;
}
If the user decides they want to search on both CarPartName and CarPartCode, this logic would result in the CAR_PART table being joined twice. This feels wrong to me, but is this the correct way to handle this?
How would you write this?
It's legal to do so, but whether it makes sense, depends on your datamodel and your desired outcome.
Generally your code does the following if partname and partcode are defined
Join the cars table with the parts table with partname as join condition
Join the result of the first join again with the parts table with partcode as join condition.
Thus, this is equal to a join with join condition car.partname = part.name and car.partcode = part.code. I don't know, whether this is your desired behaviour or not.
There are some cases to distinguish
Joining with AND condition
CASE 1.1: name and code of a part are keys in the parts table
In this case for each name and code are each unique in the parts table, thus for each name there is exactly one code. The double join is not necessary, and may even lead to wrong results, because
if selected name and code identify the same part, it's the first join will already get the desired results
if name and code identifiy different parts, your result will be empty because the condition cannot be fullfilled.
In that situation I would suggest to write is as follows
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartName)){
// your join on partname
} else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartCode)) {
// your join on partcode
}
CASE 1.2: name and code of a part are NOT keys in the parts table
In this case, neither name nor code may be unique, and for one name there may be different codes and vice versa. Here the double join is necessary and will only return results containing parts which match both, name and code
Joining with OR condition
If on the other hand you want your join condition to be like car.partname = part.name and car.partcode = part.code you have to consider the following cases
CASE 2.1 name and code are keys
Here applies the same as above in case 1.1
CASE 2.2 name and code are NOT keys
Here you can't use the stepwise approach, because the result of the first join will only contain cars, where the name matches. There may be parts where only the code condition matches, but they can never be included in the final result, if they are not contained in the result of the first match. So in this case, you will have to define your query something like this
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartName) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartCode)) {
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartName == model.CarPartName || parts.PartCode == model.CarPartCode
select c;
} else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartName)) {
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartName == model.CarPartName
select c;
} else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartCode)) {
query = from c in query
join parts in db.CAR_PARTS on c.ID equals parts.CarID
where parts.PartCode == model.CarPartCode
select c;
}
What is wrong in there is actually with proper relations you don't need the join at all. Add that the behavior of LinqToSQL you can write that as:
var query = db.CAR
.Where( c =>
( string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarName)
|| c.Name == model.CarName ) &&
( string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartName)
|| c.Parts.Any( p => p.PartName == model.CarPartName )) &&
( string.IsNullOrEmpty(model.CarPartCode)
|| c.Parts.Any( p => p.PartCode == model.CarPartCode )));
Yours would work provided query is IQueryable (db.CAR.AsQueryable()). The two Linq approaches are similar but not the same. Depending on your real necessity yours might be the correct one or the wrong one. Yours would produce two inner joins, while this one simply create 2 exists check. Assume you have:
Car, Id:5, Name: Volvo
And parts like:
CarID:5, PartName:HeadLights, PartCode:1 ... other details
CarID:5, PartName:HeadLights, PartCode:2 ... other details
CarID:5, PartName:HeadLights, PartCode:3 ... other details
If user asks with model.CarName = "Volvo" and model.PartName = "HeadLights", you would get back the same Volvo 3 times. In second approach, you get back a single Volvo.
HTH
I feel more comfortable with fluent syntax, but I'm sure something similar to the following will work for you. I would check the fields in your model as part of a Select statement and then conditionally join using one field or the other. If neither are set, leave it null.
var query = db.CAR;
if (!string.IsNullOrWhitespace(model.CarName))
{
query = query.Where(car => car.Name == model.CarName);
}
var items = query.Select(car => new
{
Car = car, // maybe better to split this up into different fields, but I don't know what the car object looks like
// I assume your Car entity model has a navigation property to parts:
CarPart = !string.IsNullOrWhitespace(model.CarPartName)
? car.Parts.FirstOrDefault(part => part.PartName == model.CarPartName)
: !string.IsNullOrWhitespace(model.CarPartCode)
? car.Parts.FirstOrDefault(part => part.PartCode == model.CarPartCode)
: null
})
.ToList();
This does mean that the Code will be ignored if the Name is filled in. Reverse it if it needs to be the other way around. Or if you want to use both fields, you can put the string null checks in the Where clause.
Trying to get a linq query (or lambda syntax) for the following SQL which Selects all "Data" which in the joining table have an Attribute equal to "blob".
EXCEPT: without explictly using the Join, but the
select data.*
from data
join settings on data.DataID = settings.DataID
where settings.Attribute = 'blob'
Explicitly defining the join
from d in dbcontext.Data
join s in dbcontext.Settings on d.DataID equals s.DataID
where s.Attribute == "blob"
select d
but is there a way to use the context dbcontext.Data.Settings
like the following?
from d in dbcontext.Data
where d.Settings.Attribute == "blob"
select d
Settings is a collection Type, so things like .Contains, and .Where come to mind.
using .Contains, my understanding is i would need to pass in an object type
where d.Settings.Contains(new Settings(d.DataID, "blob", null))
but i dont care about the null (Value) matching, just column Settings
some table structures
Data
DataID
Name
Settings
DataID
Attribute
Value
As I understand, you have Settings collection navigation property, so instead of explicit join you could simply use it ("navigate"):
from d in dbcontext.Data
from s in d.Settings
where s.Attribute == "blob"
select d
Alternatively you could use Any extension method which in this case is more appropriate than Contains (although Contains can also be used, but needs to be combined with Select):
dbcontext.Data.Where(d => d.Settings.Any(s => s.Attribute == "blob"))
For completeness, here is the Contains version:
dbcontext.Data.Where(d => d.Settings.Select(s => s.Attribute).Contains("blob"))
If I understand your question correctly, you want to create a LINQ that will grab any DataID that has an attribute of of "Blah" that is stored in another table.
If so this may work.
var dataIDs = Setting.Where(entry => entry.Attribute == "Blah")
.Select(entry => entry.DataID); // gets all DataIDs that match the attribute
var data = Data.Where(entry => entry.DataID in dataIDs); // gets data info based on DataIDs.
It should work, but what you should do instead is do an left join somewhat like
select a.*
from data a
left join settings b
on a.DataID = b.DataID
where b.Attribute = 'blob'
but in LINQ. This query would allow you to fetch all the data for DataIDs that match attribute 'blob. I haven't done it in LINQ so if someone more familiar with left joins with linq could respond that might work better
I have a fairly complicated join query that I use with my database. Upon running it I end up with results that contain an baseID and a bunch of other fields. I then want to take this baseID and determine how many times it occurs in a table like this:
TableToBeCounted (One to Many)
{
baseID,
childID
}
How do I perform a linq query that still uses the query I already have and then JOINs the count() with the baseID?
Something like this in untested linq code:
from k in db.Kingdom
join p in db.Phylum on k.KingdomID equals p.KingdomID
where p.PhylumID == "Something"
join c in db.Class on p.PhylumID equals c.PhylumID
select new {c.ClassID, c.Name};
I then want to take that code and count how many orders are nested within each class. I then want to append a column using linq so that my final select looks like this:
select new {c.ClassID, c.Name, o.Count()}//Or something like that.
The entire example is based upon the Biological Classification system.
Assume for the example that I have multiple tables:
Kingdom
|--Phylum
|--Class
|--Order
Each Phylum has a Phylum ID and a Kingdom ID. Meaning that all phylum are a subset of a kingdom. All Orders are subsets of a Class ID. I want to count how many Orders below to each class.
select new {c.ClassID, c.Name, (from o in orders where o.classId == c.ClassId select o).Count()}
Is this possible for you? Best I can do without knowing more of the arch.
If the relationships are as you describe:
var foo = db.Class.Where(c=>c.Phylum.PhylumID == "something")
.Select(x=> new { ClassID = x.ClassID,
ClassName = x.Name,
NumOrders= x.Order.Count})
.ToList();
Side question: why are you joining those entities? Shouldn't they naturally be FK'd, thereby not requiring an explicit join?