Follow up to this question. I have the following code:
string[] names = new[] { "Bob", "bob", "BoB" };
using (MyDataContext dataContext = new MyDataContext())
{
foreach (var name in names)
{
string s = name;
if (dataContext.Users.SingleOrDefault(u => u.Name.ToUpper() == s.ToUpper()) == null)
dataContext.Users.InsertOnSubmit(new User { Name = name });
}
dataContext.SubmitChanges();
}
...and it inserts all three names ("Bob", "bob" and "BoB"). If this was Linq-to-Objects, it wouldn't.
Can I make it look at the pending changes as well as what's already in the table?
I don't think that would be possible in general. Imagine you made a query like this:
dataContext.Users.InsertOnSubmit(new User { GroupId = 1 });
var groups = dataContext.Groups.Where(grp => grp.Users.Any());
The database knows nothing about the new user (yet) because the insert wasn't commited yet, so the generated SQL query might not return the Group with Id = 1. The only way the DataContext could take into account the not-yet-submitted insert in cases like this would be to get the whole Groups-Table (and possibly more tables, if they are affected by the query) and perform the query on the client, which is of course undesirable. I guess the L2S designers decided that it would be counterintuitive if some queries took not-yet-committed inserts into account while others wouldn't, so they chose to never take them into account.
Why don't you use something like
foreach (var name in names.Distinct(StringComparer.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
to filter out duplicate names before hitting the database?
Why dont you try something like this
foreach (var name in names)
{
string s = name;
if (dataContext.Users.SingleOrDefault(u => u.Name.ToUpper() == s.ToUpper()) == null)
{
dataContext.Users.InsertOnSubmit(new User { Name = name });
break;
}
}
I am sorry, I don't understand LINQ to SQL as much.
But, when I look at the code, it seems you are telling it to insert all the records at once (similar to a transaction) using SubmitChanges and you are trying to check the existence of it from the DB, when the records are not inserted at all.
EDIT: Try putting the SubmitChanges inside the loop and see that the code will run as per your expectation.
You can query the appropriate ChangeSet collection, such as
if(
dataContext.Users.
Union(dataContext.GetChangeSet().Inserts).
Except(dataContext.GetChangeSet().Deletes).
SingleOrDefault(u => u.Name.ToUpper() == s.ToUpper()) == null)
This will create a union of the values in the Users table and the pending Inserts, and will exclude pending deletes.
Of course, you might want to create a changeSet variable to prevent multiple calls to the GetChangeSet function, and you may need to appropriately cast the object in the collection to the appropriate type. In the Inserts and Deletes collections, you may want to filter it with something like
...GetChangeSet().Inserts.Where(o => o.GetType() == typeof(User)).OfType<User>()...
Related
SQL Server 2008 Ent
ASP.NET MVC 2.0
Linq-to-SQL
I am building a gaming site, that tracks when a particular player (toon) had downed a particular monster (boss). Table looks something like:
int ToonId
int BossId
datetime LastKillTime
I use a 3d party service that gives me back latest information (toon,boss,time).
Now I want to update my database with that new information.
Brute force approach is to do line-by-line upsert. But It looks ugly (code-wise), and probably slow too.
I think better solution would be to insert new data (using temp table?) and then run MERGE statement.
Is it good idea? I know temp tables are "better-to-avoid". Should I create a permanent "temp" table just for this operation?
Or should I just read entire current set (100 rows at most), do merge and put it back from within application?
Any pointers/suggestions are always appreciated.
An ORM is the wrong tool for performing batch operations, and Linq-to-SQL is no exception. In this case I think you have picked the right solution: Store all entries in a temporary table quickly, then do the UPSERT using merge.
The fastest way to store the data to the temporary table is to use SqlBulkCopy to store all data to a table of your choice.
If you're using Linq-to-SQL, upserts aren't that ugly..
foreach (var line in linesFromService) {
var kill = db.Kills.FirstOrDefault(t=>t.ToonId==line.ToonId && t.BossId==line.BossId);
if (kill == null) {
kill = new Kills() { ToonId = line.ToonId, BossId = line.BossId };
db.Kills.InsertOnSubmit(kill);
}
kill.LastKillTime = line.LastKillTime;
}
db.SubmitChanges();
Not a work of art, but nicer than in SQL. Also, with only 100 rows, I wouldn't be too concerned about performance.
Looks like a straight-forward insert.
private ToonModel _db = new ToonModel();
Toon t = new Toon();
t.ToonId = 1;
t.BossId = 2;
t.LastKillTime = DateTime.Now();
_db.Toons.InsertOnSubmit(t);
_db.SubmitChanges();
To update without querying the records first, you can do the following. It will still hit the db once to check if record exists but will not pull the record:
var blob = new Blob { Id = "some id", Value = "some value" }; // Id is primary key (PK)
if (dbContext.Blobs.Contains(blob)) // if blob exists by PK then update
{
// This will update all columns that are not set in 'original' object. For
// this to work, Blob has to have UpdateCheck=Never for all properties except
// for primary keys. This will update the record without querying it first.
dbContext.Blobs.Attach(blob, original: new Blob { Id = blob.Id });
}
else // insert
{
dbContext.Blobs.InsertOnSubmit(blob);
}
dbContext.Blobs.SubmitChanges();
See here for an extension method for this.
I am trying to get the records from the 'many' table of a one-to-many relationship and add them as a list to the relevant record from the 'one' table.
I am also trying to do this in a single database request.
Code derived from Linq to Sql - Populate JOIN result into a List almost achieves the intended result, but makes one database request per entry in the 'one' table which is unacceptable. That failing code is here:
var res = from variable in _dc.GetTable<VARIABLE>()
select new { x = variable, y = variable.VARIABLE_VALUEs };
However if I do a similar query but loop through all the results, then only a single database request is made. This code achieves all goals:
var res = from variable in _dc.GetTable<VARIABLE>()
select variable;
List<GDO.Variable> output = new List<GDO.Variable>();
foreach (var v2 in res)
{
List<GDO.VariableValue> values = new List<GDO.VariableValue>();
foreach (var vv in v2.VARIABLE_VALUEs)
{
values.Add(VariableValue.EntityToGDO(vv));
}
output.Add(EntityToGDO(v2));
output[output.Count - 1].VariableValues = values;
}
However the latter code is ugly as hell, and it really feels like something that should be do-able in a single linq query.
So, how can this be done in a single linq query that makes only a single database query?
In both cases the table is set to preload using the following code:
_dc = _db.CreateLinqDataContext();
var loadOptions = new DataLoadOptions();
loadOptions.LoadWith<VARIABLE>(v => v.VARIABLE_VALUEs);
_dc.LoadOptions = loadOptions;
I am using .NET 3.5, and the database back-end was generated using SqlMetal.
This link may help
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vcsharp/aa336746.aspx
Look under join operators. You'll probably have to change from using extension syntax other syntax too. Like this,
var = from obj in dc.Table
from obj2 in dc.Table2
where condition
select
In an C# ASP.Net MVC project, I'm trying to make a List<string> from a LINQ variable.
Now this might be a pretty basic thing, but I just cannot get that to work without using the actual column names for the data in that variable. The thing is that in the interests of trying to make the program as dynamic as possible, I'm leaving it up to a stored procedure to get the data out. There can be any amount of any which way named columns depending on where the data is fetched from. All I care about is taking all of their values into a List<string>, so that I can compare user-input values with them in program.
Pointing to the columns by their names in the code means I'd have to make dozens of overloaded methods that all just basically do the same thing. Below is false non-functioning code. But it should open up the idea of what I mean.
// call for stored procedure
var courses = db.spFetchCourseInformation().ToList();
// if the data fails a check on a single row, it will not pass the check
bool passed = true;
foreach (var i in courses)
{
// each row should be cast into a list of string, which can then be validated
// on a row-by-row basis
List courseRow = new List();
courseRow = courses[i]; // yes, obviously this is wrong syntax
int matches = 0;
foreach (string k in courseRow)
{
if (validator.checkMatch(courseRow[k].ToString()))
{
matches++;
}
}
if (matches == 0)
{
passed = false;
break;
}
}
Now below is an example of how I currently have to do it because I need to use the names for the columns
for (int i = 0; i < courses.Count; i++)
{
int matches = 0;
if (validator.checkMatch(courses[i].Name))
matches++;
if (validator.checkMatch(courses[i].RandomOtherColumn))
matches++;
if (validator.checkMatch(courses[i].RandomThirdColumn))
matches++;
if (validator.checkMatch(courses[i].RandomFourthColumn))
matches++;
/* etc...
* etc...
* you get the point
* and one of these for each and every possible variation from the stored procedure, NOT good practice
* */
Thanks for help!
I'm not 100% sure what problem you are trying to solve (matching user data to a particular record in the DB?), but I'm pretty sure you're going about this in slightly the wrong fashion by putting the data in a List. I
t should be possible to get your user input in an IDictionary with the key being used for the column name, and the object as the input data field.
Then when you get the data from the SP, you can get the data back in a DataReader (a la http://msmvps.com/blogs/deborahk/archive/2009/07/09/dal-access-a-datareader-using-a-stored-procedure.aspx).
DataReaders are indexed on column name, so if you run through the keys in the input data IDictionary, you can check the DataReader to see if it has matching data.
using (SqlDataReader reader = Dac.ExecuteDataReader("CustomerRetrieveAll", null))
{
while (reader.Read())
{
foreach(var key in userInputDictionary.AllKeys)
{
var data = reader[key];
if (data != userInputDictionary[key]) continue;
}
}
}
Still not sure about the problem you are solving but, I hope this helps!
A little creative reflection should do the trick.
var courses = db.spFetchCourseInformation()
var values = courses.SelectMany(c => c.GetType().GetProperties() // gets the properties for your object
.Select(property => property.GetValue(c, null))); // gets the value of each property
List<string> stringValues = new List<string>(
values.Select(v => v == null ? string.Empty : v.ToString()) // some of those values will likely be null
.Distinct()); // remove duplicates
I am new to linq to sql
I wrote this function:
public ICollection<ICustomer> GetAll()
{
DataClasses1DataContext context = new DataClasses1DataContext();
var customers = from customer in context.Customers select customer;
return customers.ToList().Cast<ICustomer>().ToList();
}
But it always return list of null values.
The database contain 3 records "filled with data" but this function return 3 nulls.
how to fix that?
It may not be able to cast the results properly, have you made your partial Customer object implement ICustomer? If not, that is the reason.
Also you don't have to bring it to a list twice, or even once for that matter since you aren't returning a list, it might be more appropriate to change your signature to List or IEnumerable depending on your usage.
You can test whether or not the cast is succeeding by doing a simple test.
DataClasses1DataContext context = new DataClasses1DataContext();
var customers = from customer in context.Customers select customer;
int numberOfCustomers = customers.Count();
var myCustomers = customers.Cast<ICustomer>(); //you could also do .OfType<ICustomer>();
int numberOfICustomers = myCustomers.Count();
If numberOfCustomers is 3 and numberOfICustomers is 0 then you know that was the issue.
Your problem is almost certainly at the .Cast() method (confirm this by stepping through your code & ensuring that customers is populated correctly).
Does the Customer object implement the ICustomer interface? It sounds like an obvious thing to check but that would be a likely problem.
So, I'm trying to return a collection of People whose ID is contained within a locally created collection of ids ( IQueryable)
When I specify "locally created collection", I mean that the Ids collection hasnt come from a LinqToSql query and has been programatically created (based upon user input).
My query looks like this:
var qry = from p in DBContext.People
where Ids.Contains(p.ID)
select p.ID;
This causes the following exception...
"queries with local collections are not supported"
How can I find all the People with an id that is contained within my locally created Ids collection?
Is it possible using LinqToSql?
If Ids is a List, array or similar, L2S will translate into a contains.
If Ids is a IQueryable, just turn it into a list before using it in the query. E.g.:
List<int> listOfIDs = IDs.ToList();
var query =
from st in dc.SomeTable
where listOfIDs.Contains(st.ID)
select .....
I was struggling with this problem also. Solved my problem with using Any() instead
people.Where(x => ids.Any(id => id == x.ID))
As the guys mentioned above, converting the ids, which is of type IQueryable to List or Array will solve the issue, this will be translated to "IN" operator in SQL.But be careful because if the count of ids >= 2100 this will cause another issue which is "The server supports a maximum of 2100 parameters" and that is the maximum number of parameters(values) you can pass to "IN" in SQL server.
Another alternative would be keeping ids as IQueryable and using LINQ "Any" operator instead of "Contains", this will be translated to "EXISTS" in SQL server.
I'm sorry but the answers here didn't work for me as I'm doing dynamic types further along.
What I did was to use "UNION" in a loop which works great. Here's how:
var firstID = cityList.First().id;
var cities = dc.zs_Cities.Where(c => c.id == firstID);
foreach(var c in cityList)
{
var tempCity = c;
cities = cities.Union(dc.zs_Cities.Where(cty => cty.id == tempCity.id));
}