For example I have the following x++ query.
Select EcoResproduct
join tableX
where EcoResproduct.RecId == tableX.Product
|| EcoResproduct.RecId == tableX.DistinctProductVariant;
Is that possible to do the same thing through AOT query without using a union query or adding two times the same datasource and without using QueryBuildDataSource object and X++ at all .
Thanks in advance
PS: I made my question more clear.
Initial incorrect answer:
Is that possible to do the same thing through an AOT query without using a union query or adding two times the same datasource
No.
Correct answer, thanks to the commenters:
Query q = new Query();
QueryBuildDataSource qbds1 = q.addDataSource(tableNum(EcoResproduct));
QueryBuildDataSource qbds2 = qbds1.addDataSource(tableNum(TableX));
qbds2.addrange(fieldNum(TableX, RecId)).value(strFmt('((%2.Product == %1.RecId) || (%2.DistinctProductVariant == %1.RecId))', qbds1.name(), qbds2.name()));
info(qbds1.toString());
Related
Apparently I'm missing something with how LINQ to entities works. Hopefully one of you all can educate me.
Please try the below locally and let me know if you are seeing the same results. Something is really strange here...
Lets look at a very simple LINQ expression using navigation properties.
This was generated in LinqPad in a C# statement.
var result = (from ge in group_execution
where ge.automation_sequences.project.client_id == 1 && ge.parent_group_exec_id != null
select new
{
ge.id,
ge.parent_group_exec_id,
ge.automation_sequences.project.client_id
});
result.Dump();
OR, we can use joins...which will lead to the same bad results, but lets continue...
var result = (from ge in group_execution
join aseq in automation_sequences on ge.automation_sequence_id equals aseq.id
join p in project on aseq.project_id equals p.id
where p.client_id == 1 && ge.parent_group_exec_id != null
select new
{
ge.id,
ge.parent_group_exec_id,
p.client_id
});
result.Dump();
These very simple LINQ expressions generate the following SQL:
SELECT
[Filter1].[id1] AS [id],
[Filter1].[parent_group_exec_id] AS [parent_group_exec_id],
[Extent5].[client_id] AS [client_id]
FROM (SELECT [Extent1].[id] AS [id1], [Extent1].[automation_sequence_id] AS [automation_sequence_id], [Extent1].[parent_group_exec_id] AS [parent_group_exec_id]
FROM [dbo].[group_execution] AS [Extent1]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[automation_sequences] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[automation_sequence_id] = [Extent2].[id]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[project] AS [Extent3] ON [Extent2].[project_id] = [Extent3].[id]
WHERE ([Extent1].[parent_group_exec_id] IS NOT NULL) AND (1 = [Extent3].[client_id]) ) AS [Filter1]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [dbo].[automation_sequences] AS [Extent4] ON [Filter1].[automation_sequence_id] = [Extent4].[id]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [dbo].[project] AS [Extent5] ON [Extent4].[project_id] = [Extent5].[id]
This baffles me. For the life of me I can't understand why LINQ is doing this. It's horrible, just look at the execution plan:
Now lets manually clean this up in SSMS and view the correct SQL and execution plan:
Much better, but how do we get LINQ to act this way?
Is anyone else seeing this? Has anyone else ever saw this and corrected it and if so how?
Thanks for looking into this.
UPDATE, attempting Chris Schaller fix:
var result = (from ge in group_execution
select new
{
ge.id,
ge.parent_group_exec_id,
ge.automation_sequences.project.client_id
}).Where(x=>x.client_id == 1 && x.parent_group_exec_id != null);
result.Dump();
Just so you all know I'm monitoring the SQL through SQL Server Profiler. If anyone knows of any issues doing it this way let me know.
UPDATE, a fix for JOINS, but not nav properties, and a cause, but why?
Here's your solution:
var result = (from ge in group_execution.Where(x=>x.parent_group_exec_id != null)
join aseq in automation_sequences on ge.automation_sequence_id equals aseq.id
join p in project on aseq.project_id equals p.id
where p.client_id == 1// && ge.parent_group_exec_id != null
select new
{
ge.id,
ge.parent_group_exec_id,
p.client_id
});
result.Dump();
Null checks shouldn't cause the framework to mess up like this. Why should I have to write it this way? This just seems like a defect to me in the framework. It will make my dynamic expressions a little bit more difficult to write, but maybe I can find a way.
Navigation Properties still mess up...so I'm still really sad. Picture below:
var result = (from ge in group_execution.Where(x=>x.parent_group_exec_id != null)
where ge.automation_sequences.project.client_id == 1// && ge.parent_group_exec_id != null
select new
{
ge.id,
ge.parent_group_exec_id,
ge.automation_sequences.project.client_id
});
result.Dump();
move your where clause to after you have defined the structure of the select statement
var result = (from ge in group_execution
select new
{
ge.id,
ge.parent_group_exec_id,
ge.automation_sequences.project.client_id
}).Where(x => x.client_id == 1 && x.parent_group_exec_id != null)
result.Dump();
Remember that Linq-to-entities flattens the results of queries to execute as SQL and then hydrates the object graph from those results.
When your query uses navigation properties or joins the query parser has to allow for zero results from those sub queries (Extents) to make sure that all columns that are required in the output and any interim processing are represented. By explicitly specifying a filter on a table for != null early in the query the parser knows that there is no further possibility that the field and any relationships linked by that field will be null, until then the parser prepares the query as if the joins will return null results
It is worth checking, but i wonder if UseDatabaseNullSemantics has anything to do with this?
Try:
dbContext.Configuration.UseDatabaseNullSemantics = false
In Linq, we can specify Where clauses as often as we like, improve the resulting SQL we should filter early in the query and granularly.
The parser engine is optimized to follow and implement your query sequentially, and generate good SQL at the end of it. Don't try to write linq-to-entities the same way that you structure your SQL, I know it's counter intuitive because the syntax is similar
A good technique is to assume that before each clause all the records from the previous statements have been loaded into memory, and that the next operation will affect all of those records. So you want to reduce the records before each additional operation by specifying a filter before moving on to the next clause
In general, if you have a filter condition based on the root table, apply this to the query before define all other joins and filters and even selects, you will get much cleaner sql.
I want to update multiple SalesQuotationLines the match Quotation Id X.
salesQuotationLine = salesQuotationLine::find(quotationId,true);
salesQuotationLine.selectForUpdate(true);
if(salesQuotationLine) {
ttsBegin;
SalesQuotationLine.Field = newFieldValue;
salesQuotationLine.update();
ttscommit;
The problem is, this is only updating the first record that is found within the find method.
How can I make sure, all records that match the QuotationID are being updated?
you can use this code:
while select forupdate salesQuotationLine
where salesQuotationLine.quotationId == quotationId
{
salesQuotationLine..Field = newFieldValue;
ttsbegin;
salesQuotationLine.update();
ttscommit;
}
Or can Use _update_recordset_
ttsbegin;
update_recordset salesQuotationLine
setting
Field = newFieldValue
where salesQuotationLine.quotationId == quotationId
ttscommit;
I hope to understock the question.
Dynanics AX 2012 provides way to use X++ SQL statements to enhance performance. This option is update_recordset which enables you to update multiple rows in a single trip to the server:
update_recordset salesQuotationLine
setting
Field = newFieldValue
where salesQuotationLine.quotationId == quotationId;
I've got a complex query written in SQL which works.
SELECT Instruments.Id as [Id], Instruments.ShareCode as [Share Code], Instruments.Name AS [Short Name], Instruments.Description as [Share Name],
InstrumentGames.Instrument_Id,
InstrumentGames.Game_Id, Games.Name AS [Game Name],
Entries.Name AS [Entry Name], AspNetUsers.UserName, AspNetUsers.Id as [User_Id],
Sectors.Name AS Sector_Id, Sectors.ShortName AS Sector
FROM AspNetUsers INNER JOIN
Entries ON AspNetUsers.Id = Entries.User_Id INNER JOIN
Games ON Entries.Game_Id = Games.Id INNER JOIN
InstrumentGames ON Games.Id = InstrumentGames.Game_Id INNER JOIN
Instruments ON InstrumentGames.Instrument_Id = Instruments.Id INNER JOIN
Sectors ON Instruments.Sector_Id = Sectors.Id
WHERE Instruments.Listed = 'true' and InstrumentGames.Game_Id = 2 and Entries.User_Id = 'd28d6552-7d98-476c-82cb-063e7ef45cb6'
I'm using Entity code first models and trying to convert what I have in SQL to a linq query.
I've come up with:
public static Models.Instrument GetShare(string shareSearchCriteria,
Models.Game selectedGame,
string userId)
{
var _db = new JSEChallenge.Models.ApplicationDbContext();
var records = (from instru in _db.Instruments
from e in _db.Entries
where (instru.ShareCode.Contains(shareSearchCriteria) ||
instru.Name.Contains(shareSearchCriteria) ||
instru.Description.Contains(shareSearchCriteria))
where (instru.Listed == true &&
instru.Games.Contains(selectedGame) &&
e.User_Id == userId)
select instru).ToList();
return records.FirstOrDefault();
}
But I keep getting this error:
Unable to create a constant value of type 'X.Models.Game'. Only primitive types or enumeration types are supported in this context.
I think the issue is the m2m table InstrumentGames. In my SQL query I can join it easily but in my C# I cannot. The way I usually find m2m records is syntax like instru.Games.Contains(selectedGame)
Unfortunately I still cannot get this to work.
How do I implement this kind of query in Linq?
Not sure if it will work, but try instru.Games.Any(q => q.Id == selectedGame.Id) instead of instru.Games.Contains(selectedGame).
Hope this helps!
I'm using the Massive Query method to write a simple join query against an Oracle database. This is my code with the query simplified even further by taking out some columns:
dynamic logTable = new DynamicModel("mydatabase", "table1");
var sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append("select CONTACT_ID from table1 inner join table2 on table1.ID = table2.ID ");
sb.Append("where table1.ID=:0");
dynamic dbResult = logTable.Query(sb.ToString(), id);
The following code gives me an error: 'object' does not contain a definition for 'CONTACT_ID'
string id = dbResult.CONTACT_ID.ToString();
If I take the exact query and run it through sqldeveloper, I get back the expected results. If I try to Query through Massive without a join, I get back an object I can work with.
Any ideas?
My mistake! I was expecting my query to return only one record, but forgot that Query returns IEnumerable. Solution is to take First() or loop over the results.
I have this SQL query:
SELECT Sum(ABS([Minimum Installment])) AS SumOfMonthlyPayments FROM tblAccount
INNER JOIN tblAccountOwner ON tblAccount.[Creditor Registry ID] = tblAccountOwner.
[Creditor Registry ID] AND tblAccount.[Account No] = tblAccountOwner.[Account No]
WHERE (tblAccountOwner.[Account Owner Registry ID] = 731752693037116688)
AND (tblAccount.[Account Type] NOT IN
('CA00', 'CA01', 'CA03', 'CA04', 'CA02', 'PA00', 'PA01', 'PA02', 'PA03', 'PA04'))
AND (DATEDIFF(mm, tblAccount.[State Change Date], GETDATE()) <=
4 OR tblAccount.[State Change Date] IS NULL)
AND ((tblAccount.[Account Type] IN ('CL10','CL11','PL10','PL11')) OR
CONTAINS(tblAccount.[Account Type], 'Mortgage')) AND (tblAccount.[Account Status ID] <> 999)
I have created a Linq query:
var ownerRegistryId = 731752693037116688;
var excludeTypes = new[]
{
"CA00", "CA01", "CA03", "CA04", "CA02",
"PA00", "PA01", "PA02", "PA03", "PA04"
};
var maxStateChangeMonth = 4;
var excludeStatusId = 999;
var includeMortgage = new[] { "CL10", "CL11", "PL10", "PL11" };
var sum = (
from account in context.Accounts
from owner in account.AccountOwners
where owner.AccountOwnerRegistryId == ownerRegistryId
where !excludeTypes.Contains(account.AccountType)
where account.StateChangeDate == null ||
(account.StateChangeDate.Month - DateTime.Now.Month)
<= maxStateChangeMonth
where includeMortgage.Contains(account.AccountType) ||
account.AccountType.Contains("Mortgage")
where account.AccountStatusId != excludeStatusId
select account.MinimumInstallment).ToList()
.Sum(minimumInstallment =>
Math.Abs((decimal)(minimumInstallment)));
return sum;
Are they equal/same ? I dont have records in db so I cant confirm if they are equal. In SQL there are brackets() but in Linq I didnt use them so is it ok?
Please suggest.
It is not possible for us to say anything about this, because you didn't show us the DBML. The actual definition of the mapping between the model and the database is important to be able to see how this executes.
But before you add the DBML to your question: we are not here to do your work, so here are two tips to find out whether they are equal or not:
Insert data in your database and run the queries.
Use a SQL profiler and see what query is executed by your LINQ provider under the covers.
If you have anything more specific to ask, we will be very willing to help.
The brackets will be generated by LINQ provider, if necessary.
The simplest way to check if the LINQ query is equal to the initial SQL query is to log it like #Atanas Korchev suggested.
If you are using Entity Framework, however, there is no Log property, but you can try to convert your query to an ObjectQuery, and call the ToTraceString method then:
string sqlQuery = (sum as ObjectQuery).ToTraceString();
UPD. The ToTraceString method needs an ObjectQuery instance for tracing, and the ToList() call already performs materialization, so there is nothing to trace. Here is the updated code:
var sum = (
from account in context.Accounts
from owner in account.AccountOwners
where owner.AccountOwnerRegistryId == ownerRegistryId
where !excludeTypes.Contains(account.AccountType)
where account.StateChangeDate == null ||
(account.StateChangeDate.Month - DateTime.Now.Month)
<= maxStateChangeMonth
where includeMortgage.Contains(account.AccountType) ||
account.AccountType.Contains("Mortgage")
where account.AccountStatusId != excludeStatusId
select account.MinimumInstallment);
string sqlQuery = (sum as ObjectQuery).ToTraceString();
Please note that this code will not perform the actual query, it is usable for testing purposes only.
Check out this article if you are interested in ready-for-production logging implementation.
There can be a performance difference:
The SQL query returns a single number (SELECT Sum...) directly from the database server to the client which executes the query.
In your LINQ query you have a greedy operator (.ToList()) in between:
var sum = (...
...
select account.MinimumInstallment).ToList()
.Sum(minimumInstallment =>
Math.Abs((decimal)(minimumInstallment)));
That means that the query on the SQL server does not contain the .Sum operation. The query returns a (potentially long?) list of MinimumInstallments. Then the .Sum operation is performed in memory on the client.
So effectively you switch from LINQ to Entities to LINQ to Objects after .ToList().
BTW: Can you check the last proposal in your previous question here which would avoid .ToList() on this query (if the proposal should work) and would therefore be closer to the SQL statement.