I saw this post Linq int to string, and tried it
var personalInfoQuery = from t in crnnsupContext.Tombstones
join i in crnnsupContext.InitialEducations on t.InitialEducation equals SqlFunctions.StringConvert((double)i.InitalEducationID)
where t.RegNumber == 25952
select new CPersonalInfo
{
Tombstone = t,
InitialEducation = i
};
in the database t.InitialEducation is char, i.InitalEducationID is int, but the retrieved result is null. I am pretty sure the value is not empty in the SQL server. So I think the problem is SqlFunctions.StringConvert((double)i.InitalEducationID)
when i remove the join statement, it got this person's information.
Does anyone know why. thanks
Finally find the reason!!
t.InitialEducation is nvarchar(1) in the database, i.InitalEducationID is int, after I modified to SqlFunctions.StringConvert((double)i.InitialEducationID, 1) it works!
"1" is the length of the returned string, the default length is 10, I guess there are some extra space.
Since you're using the SqlFunctions.StringConvert method, I'm assuming you're using EF as the underlying LINQ provider, no?
From the information given, it would appear that you're looking to do a 1 to many join on those properties. The code you've written could coalesce (not enough info on the context to be certain) as an INNER JOIN in SQL, so to force the LEFT JOIN behavior, you can add a .DefaultIfEmpty() call:
crnnsupContext.InitialEducations.DefaultIfEmpty()
Related
I’m attempting to count records that match specific criteria, including one field being null, but including the null clause results in no records being found.
If I output the contents of the field, it comes back as “(null)”. I’ve tried IS NULL and ISNULL, both of which appear that they should work when looking at other sources, but they both fail for me.
SELECT calls.contact_number, calls.contact_name, COUNT(notes.id) AS note_count
FROM calls LEFT JOIN notes on calls.id = notes.call_id
WHERE calls.contact_number = "123" AND notes.group_id ISNULL
GROUP BY calls.contact_number
This returns no records, whereas I’m expecting it to return one.
Move the condition in the ON clause:
SELECT calls.contact_number, calls.contact_name, COUNT(notes.id) AS note_count
FROM calls LEFT JOIN notes
ON calls.id = notes.call_id AND notes.group_id IS NULL
WHERE calls.contact_number = "123"
GROUP BY calls.contact_number, calls.contact_name
After grabbing a copy of the database, the notes.group_id field was determined to be an integer type, and the record in question actually contained a 0.
The successful query ended up being
SELECT calls.contact_number, calls.contact_name, COUNT(notes.id) as note_count
FROM calls LEFT JOIN notes
ON calls.id = notes.call_id
WHERE calls.contact_number = “123” AND (notes.group_id IS NULL OR notes.group_id = 0)
GROUP BY calls.contact_number
Not sure why the NSLog output of the returned value for group_id was ‘(null)’, some weird conversion?
I am comming to ASP .NET Core from PHP w/ MySQL.
The problem:
For the illustration, suppose the following two tables:
T: {ID, Description, FK} and States: {ID, ID_T, Time, State}. There is 1:n relationship between them (ID_T references T.ID).
I need all the records from T with some specific value of FK (lets say 1) along with the related newest record in States (if any).
In terms of SQL it can be written as:
SELECT T.ID, T.Description, COALESCE(s.State, 0) AS 'State' FROM T
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT ID_T, MAX(Time) AS 'Time'
FROM States
GROUP BY ID_T
) AS sub ON T.ID = sub.ID_T
LEFT JOIN States AS s ON T.ID = s.ID_T AND sub.Time = s.Time
WHERE FK = 1
I am struggling to write an efficient equivalent query in LINQ (or the fluent API). The best working solution I've got so far is:
from t in _context.T
where t.FK == 1
join s in _context.States on t.ID equals o.ID_T into _s
from s in _s.DefaultIfEmpty()
let x = new
{
id = t.ID,
time = s == null ? null : (DateTime?)s.Time,
state = s == null ? false : s.State
}
group x by x.id into x
select x.OrderByDescending(g => g.time).First();
When I check the resulting SQL query in the output window when executed it is just like:
SELECT [t].[ID], [t].[Description], [t].[FK], [s].[ID], [s].[ID_T], [s].[Time], [s].[State]
FROM [T] AS [t]
LEFT JOIN [States] AS [s] ON [T].[ID] = [s].[ID_T]
WHERE [t].[FK] = 1
ORDER BY [t].[ID]
Not only it selects more columns than I need (in the real scheme there are more of them). There is no grouping in the query so I suppose it selects everything from the DB (and States is going to be huge) and the grouping/filtering is happening outside the DB.
The questions:
What would you do?
Is there an efficient query in LINQ / Fluent API?
If not, what workarounds can be used?
Raw SQL ruins the concept of abstracting from a specific DB technology and its use is very clunky in current Entity Framework Core (but maybe its the best solution).
To me, this looks like a good example for using a database view - again, not really supported by Entity Framework Core (but maybe its the best solution).
What happens if you try to do a more straight forward translation to LINQ?
var latestState = from s in _context.States
group s by s.ID_T into sg
select new { ID_T = sg.Key, Time = sg.Time.Max() };
var ans = from t in _context.T
where t.FK == 1
join sub in latestState on t.ID equals sub.ID_T into subj
from sub in subj.DefaultIfEmpty()
join s in _context.States on new { t.ID, sub.Time } equals new { s.ID, s.Time } into sj
from s in sj.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new { t.ID, t.Description, State = (s == null ? 0 : s.State) };
Apparently the ?? operator will translate to COALESCE and may handle an empty table properly, so you could replace the select with:
select new { t.ID, t.Description, State = s.State ?? 0 };
OK. Reading this article (almost a year old now), Smit's comment to the original question and other sources, it seems that EF Core is not really production ready yet. It is not able to translate grouping to SQL and therefore it is performed on the client side, which may be (and in my case would be) a serious problem. It corresponds to the observed behavior (the generated SQL query does no grouping and selects everything in all groups). Trying the LINQ queries out in Linqpad it always translates to a single SQL query.
I have downgraded to EF6 following this article. It required some changes in my model's code and some queries. After changing .First() to .FirstOrDefault() in my original LINQ query it works fine and translates to a single SQL query selecting only the needed columns. The generated query is much more complex than it is needed, though.
Using a query from NetMage's answer (after small fixes), it results in a SQL query almost identical to my own original SQL query (there's only a more complex construct than COALESCE).
var latestState = from s in _context.States
group s by s.ID_T into sg
select new { ID = sg.Key, Time = sg.Time.Max() };
var ans = from t in _context.T
where t.FK == 1
join sub in latestState on t.ID equals sub.ID into subj
from sub in subj.DefaultIfEmpty()
join s in _context.States
on new { ID_T = t.ID, sub.Time } equals new { s.ID_T, s.Time }
into sj
from s in sj.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new { t.ID, t.Description, State = (s == null ? false : s.State) };
In LINQ it's not as elegant as my original SQL query but semantically it's the same and it does more or less the same thing on the DB side.
In EF6 it is also much more convenient to use arbitrary raw SQL queries and AFAIK also the database views.
The biggest downside of this approach is that full .NET framework has to be targeted, EF6 is not compatible with .NET Core.
i am bit confused by the nature and working of query , I tried to access database which contains each name more than once having same EMPid so when i accessed it in my DROP DOWN LIST then same repetition was in there too so i tried to remove repetition by putting DISTINCT in query but that didn't work but later i modified it another way and that worked but WHY THAT WORKED, I DON'T UNDERSTAND ?
QUERY THAT DIDN'T WORK
var names = (from n in DataContext.EmployeeAtds select n).Distinct();
QUERY THAT WORKED of which i don't know how ?
var names = (from n in DataContext.EmployeeAtds select new {n.EmplID, n.EmplName}).Distinct();
why 2nd worked exactly like i wanted (picking each name 1 time)
i'm using mvc 3 and linq to sql and i am newbie.
Both queries are different. I am explaining you both query in SQL that will help you in understanding both queries.
Your first query is:
var names = (from n in DataContext.EmployeeAtds select n).Distinct();
SQL:-
SELECT DISTINCT [t0].[EmplID], [t0].[EmplName], [t0].[Dept]
FROM [EmployeeAtd] AS [t0]
Your second query is:
(from n in EmployeeAtds select new {n.EmplID, n.EmplName}).Distinct()
SQL:-
SELECT DISTINCT [t0].[EmplID], [t0].[EmplName] FROM [EmployeeAtd] AS
[t0]
Now you can see SQL query for both queries. First query is showing that you are implementing Distinct on all columns of table but in second query you are implementing distinct only on required columns so it is giving you desired result.
As per Scott Allen's Explanation
var names = (from n in DataContext.EmployeeAtds select n).Distinct();
The docs for Distinct are clear – the method uses the default equality comparer to test for equality, and the default comparer sees 4 distinct object references. One way to get around this would be to use the overloaded version of Distinct that accepts a custom IEqualityComparer.
var names = (from n in DataContext.EmployeeAtds select new {n.EmplID, n.EmplName}).Distinct();
Turns out the C# compiler overrides Equals and GetHashCode for anonymous types. The implementation of the two overridden methods uses all the public properties on the type to compute an object's hash code and test for equality. If two objects of the same anonymous type have all the same values for their properties – the objects are equal. This is a safe strategy since anonymously typed objects are essentially immutable (all the properties are read-only).
Try this:
var names = DataContext.EmployeeAtds.Select(x => x.EmplName).Distinct().ToList();
Update:
var names = DataContext.EmployeeAtds
.GroupBy(x => x.EmplID)
.Select(g => new { EmplID = g.Key, EmplName = g.FirstOrDefault().EmplName })
.ToList();
Actually I spend whole day on the EntityFramework for foreign key.
assume we have two table.
Process(app_id,process_id)
LookupProcessId(process_id, process_description)
you can understand two tables with names, first table ,use process_id to indicate every application, and description is in the seoncd table.
Actually i try many times and figure out how to do inquery: it was like
Dim result = (from x in db.Processes where x.LookupProcess is (from m in db.LookupProcessIds where descr = "example" select m).FirstOrDefault() select x).FirstOrDefault()
First I want to ask is there easier way to do it.
Second i want to ask question is about insert
p As New AmpApplication.CUEngData.Process
p.app_id=100
p.LookupProcess = (from m in db.LookupProcessIds where descr = "example" select m).FirstOrDefault()
db.AddToProcesses(p)
db.SaveChanges()
from appearance it looks fine, but it give me error says
Entities in 'AmpCUEngEntities.Processes' participate in the 'FK_Process_LookupProcess' relationship. 0 related 'LookupProcess' were found. 1 'LookupProcess' is expected.
can i ask is that insert wrong? and is that my query correct?
For your first question:
Dim result = (from x in db.Processes
where x.LookupProcess.descr = "example"
select x).FirstOrDefault()
Actually, you missed some concepts from DataEntityModel, and its Framework. To manipulate data, you have to call object from contextual point of view. Those allow you to specify to the ObjectStateManager the state of an DataObject. In your case, if you have depending data from FK, you will have to add/update any linked data from leaf to root.
This example demonstrate simple (no dependances) data manipulation. A select if existing and an insert or update.
If you want more info about ObjectStateManager manipulation go to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb156104.aspx
Dim context As New Processing_context 'deseign your context (this one is linked to a DB)
Dim pro = (From r In context.PROCESS
Where r.LOOKUPPROCESS.descr = LookupProcess.descr
Select r).FirstOrDefault()
If pro Is Nothing Then 'add a new one
pro = New context.PROCESS With {.AP_ID = "id", .PROCESS_ID = "p_id"}
context.PROCESS.Attach(pro)
context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(pro, System.Data.EntityState.Added)
Else
'update data attibutes
pro.AP_ID = "id"
pro.PROCESS_ID = "p_id"
context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(pro, System.Data.EntityState.Modified)
'context.PROCESS.Attach(pro)
End If
context.SaveChanges()
I hope this will help. Have a nice day!
For your first question, to expand on what #jeroenh suggested:
Dim result = (from x in db.Processes.Include("LookupProcess")
where x.LookupProcess.descr = "example"
select x).FirstOrDefault()
The addition of the Include statement will hydrate the LookupProcess entities so that you can query them. Without the Include, x.LookupProcess will be null which would likely explain why you got the error you did.
If using the literal string as an argument to Include is not ideal, see Returning from a DbSet 3 tables without the error "cannot be inferred from the query" for an example of doing this using nested entities.
For your second question, this line
p.LookupProcess = (from m in db.LookupProcessIds
where descr = "example" select m).FirstOrDefault()
Could cause you problems later on because if there is no LookupProcessId with a process_description of "example", you are going to get null. From MSDN:
The default value for reference and nullable types is null.
Because of this, if p.LookupProcess is null when you insert the entity, you will get the exception:
Entities in 'AmpCUEngEntities.Processes' participate in the 'FK_Process_LookupProcess' relationship. 0 related 'LookupProcess' were found. 1 'LookupProcess' is expected.
To avoid this kind of problem, you will need to check that p.LookupProcess is not null before it goes in the database.
If Not p.LookupProcess Is Nothing Then
db.AddToProcesses(p)
db.SaveChanges()
End If
In SQLite I can run the following query to get a list of columns in a table:
PRAGMA table_info(myTable)
This gives me the columns but no information about what the primary keys may be. Additionally, I can run the following two queries for finding indexes and foreign keys:
PRAGMA index_list(myTable)
PRAGMA foreign_key_list(myTable)
But I cannot seem to figure out how to view the primary keys. Does anyone know how I can go about doing this?
Note: I also know that I can do:
select * from sqlite_master where type = 'table' and name ='myTable';
And it will give the the create table statement which shows the primary keys. But I am looking for a way to do this without parsing the create statement.
The table_info DOES give you a column named pk (last one) indicating if it is a primary key (if so the index of it in the key) or not (zero).
To clarify, from the documentation:
The "pk" column in the result set is zero for columns that are not
part of the primary key, and is the index of the column in the primary
key for columns that are part of the primary key.
Hopefully this helps someone:
After some research and pain the command that worked for me to find the primary key column name was:
SELECT l.name FROM pragma_table_info("Table_Name") as l WHERE l.pk = 1;
For the ones trying to retrieve a pk name in android, and while using the ROOM library.
#Oogway101's answer was throwing an error: "no such column [your_table_name] ... etc.. etc...
my way of query submition was:
String pkSearch = "SELECT l.name FROM pragma_table_info(" + tableName + ") as l WHERE l.pk = 1;";
database.query(new SimpleSQLiteQuery(pkSearch)
I tried using the (") quotations and still error.
String pkSearch = "SELECT l.name FROM pragma_table_info(\"" + tableName + "\") as l WHERE l.pk = 1;";
So my solution was this:
String pragmaInfo = "PRAGMA table_info(" + tableName + ");";
Cursor c = database.query(new SimpleSQLiteQuery(pragmaInfo));
String id = null;
c.moveToFirst();
do {
if (c.getInt(5) == 1) {
id = c.getString(1);
}
} while (c.moveToNext() && id == null);
Log.println(Log.ASSERT, TAG, "AbstractDao: pk is: " + id);
The explanation is that:
A) PRAGMA table_info returns a cursor with various indices, the response is atleast of length 6... didnt check more...
B) index 1 has the column name.
C) index 5 has the "pk" value, either 0 if it is not a primary key, or 1 if its a pk.
You can define more than one pk so this will not bring an accurate result if your table has more than one (IMHO more than one is bad design and balloons the complexity of the database beyond human comprehension).
So how will this fit into the #Dao? (you may ask...)
When making the Dao "abstract" you have access to a default constructor which has the database in it:
from the docummentation:
An abstract #Dao class can optionally have a constructor that takes a Database as its only parameter.
this is the constructor that will grant you access to the query.
There is a catch though...
You may use the Dao during a database creation with the .addCallback() method:
instance = Room.databaseBuilder(context.getApplicationContext(),
AppDatabase2.class, "database")
.addCallback(
//You may use the Daos here.
)
.build();
If you run a query in the constructor of the Dao, the database will enter a feedback loop of infinite instantiation.
This means that the query MUST be used LAZILY (just at the moment the user needs something), and because the value will never change, it can be stored. and never re-queried.