When you query an EntitySet property on a model object in Linq-to-SQL, it returns all rows from the entityset and does any further querying client-side.
This is confirmed in a few places online and I've observed the behavior myself. The EntitySet does not implement IQueryable.
What I've had to do is convert code like:
var myChild = ... ;
// Where clause performed client-side.
var query = myChild.Parents().Where(...) ;
to:
var myChild = ... ;
// Where clause performed in DB and only minimal set of rows returned.
var query = MyDataContext.Parents().Where(p => p.Child() == myChild) ;
Does anyone know a better solution?
A secondary question: is this fixed in the Entity Framework?
An EntitySet is just a collection of entities. It implements IEnumerable, not IQueryable. The Active Record pattern specifies that entities be directly responsible for their own persistence. OR mapper entities don't have any direct knowledge of the persistence layer. OR Mappers place this responsibility, along with Unit Of Work, and Identity Map responsibilities into the Data Context. So if you need to query the data source, you gotta use the context (or a Table object). To change this would bend the patterns in use.
I had a similar problem: How can I make this SelectMany use a join. After messing with LINQPad for a good amount of time I found a decent workaround. The key is to push the EntitySet you are looking at inside a SelectMany, Select, Where, etc. Once it's inside that it becomes an Expression and then the provider can turn it into a proper query.
Using your example try this:
var query = from c in Children
where c == myChild
from p in c.Parents
where p.Age > 35
select p;
I'm not able to 100% verify this query as I don't know the rest of your model. But the first two lines of the query cause the rest of it to become an Expression that the provider turns into a join. This does work with my own example that is on the question linked to above.
Related
I am getting an IQueryable from my database and then I am getting another IQueryable from that first one -that is, I am filtering the first one.
My question is -does this affect performance? How many times will the code call the database? Thank you.
Code:
DataContext _dc = new DataContext();
IQueryable offers =
(from o in _dc.Offers
select o);
IQueryable filtered =
(from o in offers
select new { ... } );
return View(filtered);
The code you have given will never call the database since you're never using the results of the query in any code.
IQueryable collections aren't filled until you iterate through them...and you're not iterating through anything in that code sample (ah, the beauty of lazy initialization).
That also means that each of those statements will be executed as its own query against the database which results in no performance cost over doing two completely independent queries.
SO is not a replacement for developer tools. There are many good free tools able to tell you exactly what this code translates into and how it works. Use Reflector on this method and look at what code is generated and reason for yourself what is going on from there.
I'm working my way through the MVC Storefront code and trying to follow the path of a repository, a service and a model that is a poco, outside of the dbml/data context. It's pretty easy to follow actually, until I started writing tests and things failed in a way I just don't understand.
In my case, the primary key is a uniqueidentifier instead of an int field. The repository returns an IQueryable:
public IQueryable<Restaurant> All()
{
return from r in _context.Restaurants select new Restaurant(r.Id)
{
Name = r.Name
};
}
In this case, Restaurant is a Models.Restaurant of course, and not _context.Restaurants.Restaurant.
Filtering in the service class (or in repository unit tests) against All(), this works just as expected:
var results = Repository.All().Where(r => r.Name == "BW<3").ToList();
This works just fine, has one Model.Restaurant. Now, if I try the same things with the pkid:
var results = Repository.All().Where(r => r.Id == new Guid("088ec7f4-63e8-4e3a-902f-fc6240df0a4b")).ToList();
If fails with:
The member 'BurningPlate.Models.Restaurant.Id' has no supported translation to SQL.
If seen some similiar posts where people say it's because r => r.Id is [Model.Restaurants] is a class level the linq2sql layer isn't aware of. To me, that means the the first version shouldn't work either. Of course, if my pk is an int, it works just fine.
What's really going on here? Lord knows, it's not very intuitive to have one work and one not work. What am I misunderstanding?
I think the problem here is due to using a constructor overload, and expecting the query to fill it in. When you do a projection like this, you have to put all the things you want to be in the projection query in the actual projection itself. Otherwise Linq won't include that in the SQL query.
So, rewrite your bits like so:
return from r in _context.Restaurants select new Restaurant()
{
Id=r.Id,
Name = r.Name
};
This should fix it up.
Not having actually typed this code out, have you tried
var results = Repository.All().Where(r => r.Id.Equals(new Guid("088ec7f4-63e8-4e3a-902f-fc6240df0a4b")).ToList()
Ninja
this probably has to do with fact that you trying to instantiate the guid in the query, and I think that LINQ to SQL is trying to convert that to actual SQL code before the object is created.
Try instantiating before the query and not on the query.
Can I use partial classes to create properties that points to an association property generated by the L2S designer. Also, will I be able to use the new property in queries?
How can I achieve this?
If you just want to give a different name to the association property, just use the Property page for the association and rename the parent and/or child property. That will change the name of the EntityRef/EntitySet in the class.
EDIT: The downside of using a separate property in a partial class is that LINQ won't be able to use it when generating queries -- essentially you'll be forced to always get the entities before you can use the related properties on the object. By renaming you allow LINQ to use the related properties in constructing the query which can result in a more efficient query. For example, if you want to get entities where a related entity has a particular property value, using the attribute decorated entity will allow LINQ to generate the SQL to pull just those matching values from the database. With the naive property implementation (that simply references the underlying relation property, in effect renaming it), you will be forced to first get all entities, then do the filtering in your application.
Yes you can, but you have to apply the same attributes as the linq2sql generated property i.e.
[Association(Name="Test_TestData", Storage="_TestDatas", ThisKey="SomeId", OtherKey="OtherId")]
public System.Data.Linq.EntitySet<TestData> MyTestDatas
{
get
{
return this.TestDatas;
}
}
TestDatas being the original relation.
Update: A sample query I ran:
var context = new DataClasses1DataContext();
var tests =
from d in context.Tests
where d.MyTestDatas.Any(md=>md.MyId == 2)
select new
{
SomeId = d.SomeId,
SomeData = d.SomeData,
Tests = d.MyTestDatas
};
foreach (var test in tests)
{
var data = test.Tests.ToList();
}
I am a bit of a newbie when it comes to Linq to SQL but I hope you can help out. I've written the following Linq to SQL statement with Extension Methods:
Cedb.ClassEvents.Where(c => c.ClassID == 1).Select(c => c).Single()
Where Cedb is the Datacontext, ClassEvents is a table (for classes and events being held at a facility) and ClassID is a unique integer key.
This query runs fine in LinqPad (without Cedb). When it returns, it says that the return type is "ClassEvent". In Intellisense in Visual studio, it tells me that the return type of this query is ClassEvent (created in my data model). However, when I try to place the results in a variable:
var classEvent = Cedc.ClassEvents.Where(c.ClassID == 1).Select(c => c).Single();
then I get an error: InvalidCastException: Specified cast is not valid. The same thing happens if I use the "ClassEvent" class in place of the var. I'm new to this but this one seems like a true slam dunk rather than a bug. Is there something about the Single method that I don't know that is leading to the error? Any help would be appreciated!
Slace - and any other interested parties. The cause of the "Invalid Cast Exception" error was a change in the underlying data model. A smallint field had been changed to bit. Thus, when the system tried to map the query results onto the "ClassEvent" data structure, the conflict between the model (which had not been updated) and the data table emerged.
Nonetheless, I do appreciate the answer!
You don't need to do both a Select and a Single, in fact, you don't even need the Where, you can get away with (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb535118.aspx):
var classEvent = Cedc.ClassEvents.Single(c => c.ClassID == 1);
I'd also recommend against using Single unless you're 100% sure that the Func<T, bool> will always return a value, as if it doesn't return a value you will have an exception thrown. Better is using SingleOrDefault and doing a null check before interaction with the object (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb549274.aspx)
Now that LINQ to SQL is a little more mature, I'd like to know of any techniques people are using to create an n-tiered solution using the technology, because it does not seem that obvious to me.
LINQ to SQL doesn't really have a n-tier story that I've seen, since the objects that it creates are created in the class with the rest of it, you don't really have an assembly that you can nicely reference through something like Web Services, etc.
The only way I'd really consider it is using the datacontext to fetch data, then fill an intermediary data model, passing that through, and referencing it on both sides, and using that in your client side - then passing them back and pushing the data back into a new Datacontext or intellgently updating rows after you refetch them.
That's if I'm understanding what you're trying to get at :\
I asked ScottGu the same question on his blog when I first started looking at it - but I haven't seen a single scenario or app in the wild that uses LINQ to SQL in this way. Websites like Rob Connery's Storefront are closer to the provider.
Hm, Rockford Lhotka sad, that LINQ to SQL is wonderful technology for fetching data from database. He suggests that afterwards they'll must to be bind to "reach domain objects" (aka. CSLA objetcs).
Seriously speaking, LINQ to SQL had it's support for n-tier architecture see DataContext.Update method.
You might want to look into the ADO .Net Entity Framework as an alternative to LINQ to SQL, although it does support LINQ as well. I believe LINQ to SQL is designed to be fairly lightweight and simple, whereas the Entity Framework is more heavy duty and probably more suitable in large Enterprise applications.
OK, I am going to give myself one possible solution.
Inserts/Updates were never an issue; you can wrap the business logic in a Save/Update method; e.g.
public class EmployeesDAL
{
...
SaveEmployee(Employee employee)
{
//data formatting
employee.FirstName = employee.FirstName.Trim();
employee.LastName = employee.LastName.Trim();
//business rules
if(employee.FirstName.Length > 0 && employee.LastName.Length > 0)
{
MyCompanyContext context = new MyCompanyContext();
//insert
if(employee.empid == 0)
context.Employees.InsertOnSubmit(employee);
else
{
//update goes here
}
context.SubmitChanges();
}
else
throw new BusinessRuleException("Employees must have first and last names");
}
}
For fetching data, or at least the fetching of data that is coming from more than one table you can use stored procedures or views because the results will not be anonymous so you can return them from an outside method. For instance, using a stored proc:
public ISingleResult<GetEmployeesAndManagersResult> LoadEmployeesAndManagers()
{
MyCompanyContext context = new MyCompanyContext();
var emps = context.GetEmployeesAndManagers();
return emps;
}
Seriously speaking, LINQ to SQL had it's support for n-tier architecture see DataContext.Update method
Some of what I've read suggests that the business logic wraps the DataContext - in other words you wrap the update in the way that you suggest.
The way i traditionally write business objects i usually encapsulate the "Load methods" in the BO as well; so I might have a method named LoadEmployeesAndManagers that returns a list of employees and their immediate managers (this is a contrived example) . Maybe its just me, but in my front end I'd rather see e.LoadEmployeesAndManagers() than some long LINQ statement.
Anyway, using LINQ it would probably look something like this (not checked for syntax correctness):
var emps = from e in Employees
join m in Employees
on e.ManagerEmpID equals m.EmpID
select new
{ e,
m.FullName
};
Now if I understand things correctly, if I put this in say a class library and call it from my front end, the only way I can return this is as an IEnumerable, so I lose my strong typed goodness. The only way I'd be able to return a strongly typed object would be to create my own Employees class (plus a string field for manager name) and fill it from the results of my LINQ to SQL statement and then return that. But this seems counter intuitive... what exactly did LINQ to SQL buy me if I have to do all that?
I think that I might be looking at things the wrong way; any enlightenment would be appreciated.
"the only way I can return this is as an IEnumerable, so I lose my strong typed goodness"
that is incorrect. In fact your query is strongly typed, it is just an anonymous type. I think the query you want is more like:
var emps = from e in Employees
join m in Employees
on e.ManagerEmpID equals m.EmpID
select new Employee
{ e,
m.FullName
};
Which will return IEnumerable.
Here is an article I wrote on the topic.
Linq-to-sql is an ORM. It does not affect the way that you design an N-tiered application. You use it the same way you would use any other ORM.
#liammclennan
Which will return IEnumerable. ... Linq-to-sql is an ORM. It does not affect the way that you design an N-tiered application. You use it the same way you would use any other ORM.
Then I guess I am still confused. Yes, Linq-to-Sql is an ORM; but as far as I can tell I am still littering my front end code with inline sql type statements (linq, not sql.... but still I feel that this should be abstracted away from the front end).
Suppose I wrap the LINQ statement we've been using as an example in a method. As far as I can tell, the only way I can return it is this way:
public class EmployeesDAL
{
public IEnumerable LoadEmployeesAndManagers()
{
MyCompanyContext context = new MyCompanyContext();
var emps = from e in context.Employees
join m in context.Employees
on e.ManagerEmpID equals m.EmpID
select new
{ e,
m.FullName
};
return emps;
}
}
From my front end code I would do something like this:
EmployeesDAL dal = new EmployeesDAL;
var emps = dal.LoadEmployeesAndManagers();
This of course returns an IEnumerable; but I cannot use this like any other ORM like you say (unless of course I misunderstand), because I cannot do this (again, this is a contrived example):
txtEmployeeName.Text = emps[0].FullName
This is what I meant by "I lose strong typed goodness." I think that I am starting to agree with Crucible; that LINQ-to-SQL was not designed to be used in this way. Again, if I am not seeing things correctly, someone show me the way :)