Normally I use stored procedures / work in SQL so apologies if I get the terminology slightly off here..
I have a database, with 3 seperate tables, and I need to search multiple fields in each of the 3 tables.
Im sure that I am not doing this the mose effective way, initially I am trying to do it in simple seteps to understand it.
I have the following;
var foo1 = entities.table1.Where(a => a.bodyText.Contains(searchString) || a.pageTitle.Contains(searchString));
var foo2 = entities.table2.Where(b => b.newsArticle.Contains(searchString) || b.newsArticle.Contains(searchString));
var foo3 = entities.table3.Where(c => c.ImageDescriptionContains(searchString));
I need to combine all these results into a single repeater for display.
At this point all 3 sets of data are in seperate, unique collections of anonymous data. So whats the best way of converting these into a single coherent bindable source?
I was thinking of itereating through each list in turn, pulling out the fields I need to display and putting them in a new class, then binding a lsit of these classes to the repeater.
But it all seems a bit clunky to me.
Is there a way of doing the search across all 3 tables in one go, and returning just the fields I need from each table, with a common name (i.e. in SQL I could write
select b.newsArticle as myText,
or
select newsArticle, ''
to return the news article and an empty string).
This would combine:
var foos = foo1.ToList();
foos.AddRange(foo2);
foos.AddRange(foo3);
To get just what you want:
var myExtractedValues = foos.Select(x => new {
Article = !string.IsNullOrEmpty(x.newsArticle))
? x.newsArticle
: string.Empty});
I have used an anonymous type here but you could swap the new {} with a type of your own.
I reverse the operator on the IsNullOrEmpty but that is just a personal preference (I prefer how is reads.)
To get all the results in one go you'll need to define a common class that will be used by all three queries to store the result. This class may be as well anonymous but I'll name it just for clarity.
class Data
{
public string Text{ get; set;}
}
Now, in your code you'll fetch instances of Data from database and you can use Union:
using( var entities = new YourDataContext)
{
var foo1 = entities.table1
.Where(a => a.bodyText.Contains(searchString) ||
a.pageTitle.Contains(searchString))
.Select(a => new Data{ Text = a.bodyText});
var foo2 = entities.table2
.Where(b => b.newsArticle.Contains(searchString) ||
b.newsArticle.Contains(searchString))
.Select(b => new Data{ Text = b.newsArticle});
var foo3 = entities.table3
.Where(c => c.ImageDescription.Contains(searchString))
.Select(c => new Data{ Text = c.ImageDescription});
return foo1.Union(foo2).Union(foo3);
}
Related
I've a JSON model that contains strings instead of dates (the model is generated via T4TS, so I cannot change that).
The code is currently using an expanded model extending the original json, where the dates are recalculated on new fields.
I was wondering if it would be possible to apply the filters on the fields being string without adding that additional step of extending the model.
private makeNumeric(label: string, property: string) {
return {
label: label,
key: property,
prepareDimension: (crossfilter) => (CrossfilterUtils.makeNumeric(crossfilter, property)),
prepareGroup: (dimension) => {
if (!this.values[property]) {
var group = CrossfilterUtils.makeNumericGroup(dimension);
this.values[property] = group;
}
return this.values[property];
},
valuesAreOrdinal: false
};
}
I haven't used the crossfilter library much before and by looking at the documentation I can't seem to reconcile it with the code (heritage code, to put it that way).
The incoming date format looks like this: "2020-10-22T07:26:00Z"
The typescript model I'm working with is like this:
interface MyModel {
...
CreatedDate?: string;
}
Any idea?
The usual pattern in JavaScript is to loop through the data and do any conversions you need:
data.forEach(function(d) {
d.date = new Date(d.date);
d.number = +d.number;
});
const cf = crossfilter(data);
However, if this is not allowed due to TS, you can also make the conversions when creating your dimensions and groups:
const cf = crossfilter(data);
const dateDim = cf.dimension(d => new Date(d.date));
const monthGroup = dateDim.group(date => d3.timeMonth(date))
.reduceSum(d => +d.number);
I find this a little less robust because you have to remember to do this everywhere. It's a little harder to reason about the efficiency since you have to trust that crossfilter uses the accessors sparingly, but I don't recall seeing this be a problem in practice.
I created a table with relation with ApplicationUser and when I want to get with eager-loading, I could not get all columns from that table my search base on user authentication.
var UserSites = await _SqldbContext.Users
.Where(x => x.UserName == User.Identity.Name)
.Include(x => x.sites)
.ToListAsync() ;
return Json(UserSites);
But in return I only get one row of that table with two columns
[{"sites":[{"id":1,"userId":"c0e8be95-535c-449c-9aa1-06702cd4c983"
but I have more rows with this userId and also here I get only two columns but I have more than two columns, I am not sure what is wrong here please help me.
I think ToListAsync() works properly and If you make break point you may see all data from your site but here I think Json does not show it properly, instead of start from User table in your example I started with your proposed table name sites (to get all data of this table)
var UserSites = await _SqldbContext.sites.Include(x => x.[Name Of User in relation table]).Where(y=>y.[Name Of User in relation table].UserName== User.Identity.Name)
.ToListAsync();
List<sites> siteObject=new List<sites>();
UserSites.ForEach(x =>
{
sites site = new sites() {
// fill property of your class
};
siteObject.Add(site);
});
return Json(siteObject);
I hope this code works for you.
I want to assign Linq Query result to dropdownlist which contain a
Distinct function
My Code:-
var area = de.City_Area_View
.Select(m => new { m.Area_Id, m.Area_Name})
.Distinct()
.ToList();
drpfilter.DataTextField = "Area_Name";
drpfilter.DataValueField = "Area_Id";
drpfilter.DataSource = area;
drpfilter.DataBind();
Problem :- When I write this code then I get Below Error
Error:- The method 'Distinct' is not supported.
I get System.NotSupportedException.
I want to assign a Distinct name of area to the DropDownList
So please help me for this problem.
If your set is small enough (so you don't mind fetching all the values from the database), the simplest thing would be to force the distinct part to be performed locally:
var area = de.City_Area_View
.Select(m => new { m.Area_Id, m.Area_Name})
.AsEnumerable()
.Distinct()
.ToList();
AsEnumerable simply "changes" the expression type to IEnumerable<T> instead of IQueryable<T>, so that the compiler calls Enumerable.Distinct instead of Queryable.Distinct - and Enumerable.Distict will definitely work.
I have two sample tables:
SCENARIO 1
TABLE 1 - INGREDIENT
ingredientId(PK, int, not null)
userId(FK, int, not null)
timestamp(datetime, not null)
TABLE 2 - INGREDIENT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ingredientAdditionalInformationId(PK, int, not null)
ingredientId(FK, int, not null)
isApproved(bit, not null)
unitsConverted(bit, not null)
SELECT SENTENCE IN CODE BEHIND:
public IQueriable GetIngredientData(int ingredientId)
{
using (var context = new MyEntities())
{
var result = context.Ingredient
.Where(i => i.ingredientId == ingredientId)
.Select(i => new
{
i.ingredientId,
i.userId
i.IngredientAdditionalInformation.FirstOrDefault(iai => iai.ingredientId = i.ingredientId).isApproved
i.IngredientAdditionalInformation.FirstOrDefault(iai => iai.ingredientId = i.ingredientId).unitsConverted
});
return result.ToList().AsQueriable();
}
}
or select with join (I know that you can join with method syntax but I can write join with query method faster)
public IQueriable GetIngredientData(int ingredientId)
{
using (var context = new MyEntities())
{
var result = from i in context.Ingredient
join iai in context.IngredientAdditionalInformation on i.ingredientId equals iai.ingredientId
where i.ingredientId == 1
select new
{
i.ingredientId,
i.userId
iai.isApproved
iai.unitsConverted
};
return result.ToList().AsQueriable();
}
}
Which one is better/faster with join or FirstOrDefault() or I should write database table different like in example 2 below:
SCENARIO 2
TABLE 1 - INGREDIENT
ingredientId(PK, int, not null)
userId(FK, int, not null)
timestamp(datetime, not null)
TABLE 2 - INGREDIENT
ingredientId(PK, FK, int, not null) //WITHOUT PRIMARY (ingredientAdditionalInformationId) AUTO INCREMENT KEY)
isApproved(bit, not null)
unitsConverted(bit, not null)
Because I know that every ingredient have only one additional info...
SELECT SENTENCE IN CODE
using (var context = new MyEntities())
{
var result = context.Ingredient
.Where(i => i.ingredientId = 1)
.Select(i => new
{
i.ingredientId,
i.userId
i.IngredientAdditionalInformation.isApproved
i.IngredientAdditionalInformation.unitsConverted
});
}
I would like to know which table design is better (SCENARIO1 or SCENARIO2) for optimized select, if I really need auto increment key in ingredientAdditionalInformation if I know that there will be only one entry for every Ingredient and if this is the right way to use entity framework?
If you're maintaining a one-to-one relationship between the two tables, then your second design is better, because it will also ensure referential integrity in your database.
You can then make the property a single navigation property in your entity framework model, and simplify your EF query as follows. If you have lazy loading of navigational properties enabled in your model, you may be able to get away without using the include if you're
var result = from i in context.Ingredient.Include("IngredientAdditionalInformation") select i;
And then access the properties as follows:
i.IngredientAdditionalInformation.isApproved
However, do you really need an additional table? With only three properties on each I'd just combine them into one table and then you have all the properties available to you immediately.
Scenario 2 is better since you are saying there is a one-to-one relationship between the two tables.
Another option you should explore is using Table Per Type Inheritance. You will not need to specify eager loading using Include nor joins in this case.
Assuming your table1 = IngredientBase and table2 = Ingredients and in your context you have set up
public IQueryable<Ingredient> Ingredients {
get { return IngredientBases.OfType<Ingredient>(); } }
then you'll just need
using (var context = new MyEntities())
{
var result = context.Ingredients.Where(i => i.ingredientId = 1);
}
SQL wise, the 2nd select of scenario1 and scenario2 will produce nearly equivalent plans. But performance wise, scenario2 will be better, not to mention being the right design for a 1-1 relationship tables.
I have a database of records that each have a title. I want to be able to search through this database with a search string that will be separated into a list or an array.
So for example if I search with "Book Dog", it will search for all titles that have "Book" or "Dog" in the title.
I'm using entity framework and I guess the simplest way to write down what I want to do is
string[] words;
var posts = (from p in ctx.posts
where p.title.contains(words)
select p).ToList();
I've tried using a StringExtension I found online, but I would get the following error
"LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'Boolean ContainsAny(System.String, System.String[])' method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression."
And the extension is
public static bool ContainsAny(this string str, params string[] values)
{
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(str) || values.Length > 0)
{
foreach (string value in values)
{
if (str.Contains(value))
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Are you looking for this?
var posts = (from p in ctx.posts
where words.Any(w => p.title.Contains(w))
select p).ToList();
Is this what you need:
ctx.posts.Where(post => words.Any(word => post.Title.Contains(word)))
I was searching for something like your question (Registration form), but my question was: How to find if the whole name that I have entered (from text box) is the same totally to a record in the database ?
I tried this and worked fine:
db.Users.Any(x => x.UserName.Equals(txtUsername.Text))
Or for your code like this:
ctx.posts.Any(x => x.title.Equals(words))
It may be useful for others.