We have followed the approach below to get the data from multiple results using LINQ To SQL
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.GetPostByID
(
#PostID int
)
AS
SELECT *
FROM Posts AS p
WHERE p.PostID = #PostID
SELECT c.*
FROM Categories AS c
JOIN PostCategories AS pc
ON (pc.CategoryID = c.CategoryID)
WHERE pc.PostID = #PostID
The calling method in the class the inherits from DataContext should look like:
[Database(Name = "Blog")]
public class BlogContext : DataContext
{
...
[Function(Name = "dbo.GetPostByID")]
[ResultType(typeof(Post))]
[ResultType(typeof(Category))]
public IMultipleResults GetPostByID(int postID)
{
IExecuteResult result =
this.ExecuteMethodCall(this,
((MethodInfo)(MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod())),
postID);
return (IMultipleResults)(result.ReturnValue);
}
}
Notice that the method is decorated not only with the Function attribute that maps to the stored procedure name, but also with the ReturnType attributes with the types of the result sets that the stored procedure returns. Additionally, the method returns an untyped interface of IMultipleResults:
public interface IMultipleResults : IFunctionResult, IDisposable
{
IEnumerable<TElement> GetResult<TElement>();
}
so the program can use this interface in order to retrieve the results:
BlogContext ctx = new BlogContext(...);
IMultipleResults results = ctx.GetPostByID(...);
IEnumerable<Post> posts = results.GetResult<Post>();
IEnumerable<Category> categories = results.GetResult<Category>();
In the above stored procedures we had two select queries
1. Select query without join
2. Select query with Join
But in the above second select query the data which is displayed is from one of the table i.e. from Categories table. But we have used join and want to display the data table with the results from both the tables i.e. from Categories as well as PostCategories.
Please if anybody can let me know how to achieve this using LINQ to SQL
What is the performance trade-off if we use the above approach vis-à-vis implement the above approach with simple SQL
Scott Guthrie (the guy who runs the .Net dev teams at MS) covered how to do this on his blog some months ago much better than I ever could, link here. On that page there is a section titled "Handling Multiple Result Shapes from SPROCs". That explains how to handle multiple results from stored procs of different shapes (or the same shape).
I highly recommend subscribing to his RSS feed. He is pretty much THE authoritative source on all things .Net.
Heya dude - does this work?
IEnumerable<Post> posts;
IEnumerable<Category> categories;
using (BlogContext ctx = new BlogContext(...))
{
ctx.DeferredLoadingEnabled = false; // THIS IS IMPORTANT.
IMultipleResults results = ctx.GetPostByID(...);
posts = results.GetResult<Post>().ToList();
categories = results.GetResult<Category>().ToList();
}
// Now we need to associate each category to the post.
// ASSUMPTION: Each post has only one category (1-1 mapping).
if (posts != null)
{
foreach(var post in posts)
{
int postId = post.PostId;
post.Category = categories
.Where(p => p.PostId == postId)
.SingleOrDefault();
}
}
Ok. lets break this down.
First up, a nice connection inside a using block (so it's disposed of nicely).
Next, we make sure DEFERRED LOADING is off. Otherwise, when u try and do the set (eg. post.Category == blah) it will see that it's null, lazy-load the data (eg. do a rountrip the database) set the data and THEN override the what was just dragged down from the db, with the result of there Where(..) method. phew! Summary: make sure deferred loading is off for the scope of the query.
Last, for each post, iterate and set the category from the second list.
does that help?
EDIT
Fixed it so that it doesn't throw an enumeration error by calling the ToList() methods.
Just curious, if a Post have have one or many Categories, is it possible to instead of using the for loop, to load the Post.PostCategories with the list of Categories (one to many), all in one shot, using a JOIN?
var rslt = from p in results.GetResult<Post>()
join c in results.GetResult<Category>() on p.PostId = c.PostID
...
p.Categories.Add(c)
Related
Let me preface by saying I'm very new to SQL (and back end design) in general. So for those annoyed with noob questions, please be gentle.
BACKGROUND:
I'm trying to build a product test database (storing test data for all our products) where I want a user to be able to refine a search to find test data they actually want. For example, they may start by searching for all products of a certain brand name, and then refine it with a product type, and/or refine it with a date range of when the test was done.
PROBLEM:
I'm having a hard time finding information on how to implement multi-parameter searches with mysql and node.js. I know you can do nested queries and joins and such within pure SQL syntax, but it's not abundantly clear to me how I would do this from node.js, especially when certain search criteria aren't guaranteed to be used.
Ex:
CREATE PROCEDURE `procedureName`(
IN brandname VARCHAR(20),
producttype VARCHAR(30))
BEGIN
SELECT * FROM products
WHERE brand = brandname
AND product_type = producttype;
END
I know how to pass data from node.js to this procedure, but what if the user didn't specify a product type? Is there a way to nullify this part of the query? Something like:
AND product_type = ALL;
WHAT I'VE TRIED:
I've also looked into nesting multiple SQL procedures, but passing in dynamic data to the "FROM" clause doesn't seem to be possible. Ex: if I had a brandname procedure, and a product type procedure, I don't know how/if I can pass the results from one procedure to the "FROM" clause of the other to actually refine the search.
One idea was to create tables with the results in each of these procedures, and pass those new table names to subsequent procedures, but that strikes me as an inefficient way to do this (Am I wrong? Is this a completely legit way to do this?).
I'm also looking into building a query string on the node side that would intelligently decide what search criteria have been specified by the front end, and figure out where to put SQL AND's and JOIN's and what-nots. The example below actually works, but this seems like it could get ugly quick as I add more search criteria, along with JOINS to other tables.
// Build a SQL query based on the parameters in a request URL
// Example request URL: http://localhost:3000/search?brand=brandName&type=productType
function qParams(req) {
let q = "SELECT * FROM products WHERE ";
let insert = [];
if(req.query.brand) {
brandname = req.query.brand; // get brandname from url request
q = q + `brand = ?`, // Build brandname part of WHERE clause
insert.push(brandname); // Add brandname to insert array to be used with query.
};
if(req.query.type) {
productType = req.query.type; // get product type from url request
insert.length > 0 ? q = q + ' AND ' : q = q; // Decide if this is the first search criteria, add AND if not.
q = q + 'product_type = ?'; // Add product_type to WHERE clause
insert.push(productType); // Add product_type variable to insert array.
}
// Return query string and variable insert array
return {
q: q,
insert: insert
};
};
// Send Query
async function qSend(req, res) {
const results = await qParams(req); // Call above function, wait for results
// Send query string and variables to MySQL, send response to browser.
con.query(results.q, results.insert, (err, rows) => {
if(err) throw err;
res.send(rows);
res.end;
})
};
// Handle GET request
router.use('/search', qSend);
CONCISE QUESTIONS:
Can I build 1 SQL procedure with all my search criteria as variables, and nullify those variables from node.js if certain criteria aren't used?
Is there way to nest multiple MySQL procedures so I can pick the procedures applicable to the search criteria?
Is creating tables of results in a procedure, and passing those new table names to other procedures a reasonable way to do that?
Building the query from scratch in node is working, but it seems bloated. Is there a better way to do this?
Googling "multi-parameter search mysql nodejs" is not producing useful results for my question, i.e. I'm not asking the right question. What is the right question? What do I need to be researching?
One option is to use coalesce():
SELECT p.*
FROM products p
WHERE
p.brand = COALESCE(:brandname, p.brand)
AND p.product_type = COALESCE(:producttype, p.producttype);
It may be more efficient do explicit null checks on the parameters:
SELECT p.*
FROM products p
WHERE
(:brandname IS NULL OR p.brand = :brandname)
AND (:producttype IS NULL OR p.product_type = :producttype);
I've stumbled upon a very strange LINQ to SQL behaviour / bug, that I just can't understand.
Let's take the following tables as an example: Customers -> Orders -> Details.
Each table is a subtable of the previous table, with a regular Primary-Foreign key relationship (1 to many).
If I execute the follow query:
var q = from c in context.Customers
select (c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() ?? new Order()).Details.Count();
Then I get an exception: Could not format node 'Value' for execution as SQL.
But the following queries do not throw an exception:
var q = from c in context.Customers
select (c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() ?? new Order()).OrderDateTime;
var q = from c in context.Customers
select (new Order()).Details.Count();
If I change my primary query as follows, I don't get an exception:
var q = from r in context.Customers.ToList()
select (c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() ?? new Order()).Details.Count();
Now I could understand that the last query works, because of the following logic:
Since there is no mapping of "new Order()" to SQL (I'm guessing here), I need to work on a local list instead.
But what I can't understand is why do the other two queries work?!?
I could potentially accept working with the "local" version of context.Customers.ToList(), but how to speed up the query?
For instance in the last query example, I'm pretty sure that each select will cause a new SQL query to be executed to retrieve the Orders. Now I could avoid lazy loading by using DataLoadOptions, but then I would be retrieving thousands of Order rows for no reason what so ever (I only need the first row)...
If I could execute the entire query in one SQL statement as I would like (my first query example), then the SQL engine itself would be smart enough to only retrieve one Order row for each Customer...
Is there perhaps a way to rewrite my original query in such a way that it will work as intended and be executed in one swoop by the SQL server?
EDIT:
(longer answer for Arturo)
The queries I provided are purely for example purposes. I know they are pointless in their own right, I just wanted to show a simplistic example.
The reason your example works is because you have avoided using "new Order()" all together. If I slightly modify your query to still use it, then I still get an exception:
var results = from e in (from c in db.Customers
select new { c.CustomerID, FirstOrder = c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() })
select new { e.CustomerID, Count = (e.FirstOrder != null ? e.FirstOrder : new Order()).Details().Count() }
Although this time the exception is slightly different - Could not format node 'ClientQuery' for execution as SQL.
If I use the ?? syntax instead of (x ? y : z) in that query, I get the same exception as I originaly got.
In my real-life query I don't need Count(), I need to select a couple of properties from the last table (which in my previous examples would be Details). Essentially I need to merge values of all the rows in each table. Inorder to give a more hefty example I'll first have to restate my tabels:
Models -> ModelCategoryVariations <- CategoryVariations -> CategoryVariationItems -> ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmounts -> ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmountValueChanges
The -> sign represents a 1 -> many relationship. Do notice that there is one sign that is the other way round...
My real query would go something like this:
var q = from m in context.Models
from mcv in m.ModelCategoryVariations
... // select some more tables
select new
{
ModelId = m.Id,
ModelName = m.Name,
CategoryVariationName = mcv.CategoryVariation.Name,
..., // values from other tables
Categories = (from cvi in mcv.CategoryVariation.CategoryVariationItems
let mmcvia = cvi.ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmounts.SingleOrDefault(mmcvia2 => mmcvia2.ModelModuleId == m.ModelModuleId) ?? new ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmount()
select new
{
cvi.Id,
Amount = (mmcvia.ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmountValueChanges.FirstOrDefault() ?? new ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmountValueChange()).Amount
... // select some more properties
}
}
This query blows up at the line let mmcvia =.
If I recall correctly, by using let mmcvia = new ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmount(), the query would blow up at the next ?? operand, which is at Amount =.
If I start the query with from m in context.Models.ToList() then everything works...
Why are you looking into only the individual count without selecting anything related to the customer.
You can do the following.
var results = from e in
(from c in db.Customers
select new { c.CustomerID, FirstOrder = c.Orders.FirstOrDefault() })
select new { e.CustomerID, DetailCount = e.FirstOrder != null ? e.FirstOrder.Details.Count() : 0 };
EDIT:
OK, I think you are over complicating your query.
The problem is that you are using the new WhateverObject() in your query, T-SQL doesnt know anyting about that; T-SQL knows about records in your hard drive, your are throwing something that doesn't exist. Only C# knows about that. DON'T USE new IN YOUR QUERIES OTHER THAN IN THE OUTER MOST SELECT STATEMENT because that is what C# will receive, and C# knows about creating new instances of objects.
Of course is going to work if you use ToList() method, but performance is affected because now you have your application host and sql server working together to give you the results and it might take many calls to your database instead of one.
Try this instead:
Categories = (from cvi in mcv.CategoryVariation.CategoryVariationItems
let mmcvia =
cvi.ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmounts.SingleOrDefault(
mmcvia2 => mmcvia2.ModelModuleId == m.ModelModuleId)
select new
{
cvi.Id,
Amount = mmcvia != null ?
(mmcvia.ModelModuleCategoryVariationItemAmountValueChanges.Select(
x => x.Amount).FirstOrDefault() : 0
... // select some more properties
}
Using the Select() method allows you to get the first Amount or its default value. I used "0" as an example only, I dont know what is your default value for Amount.
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));
}
I am hoping you can help. I am developing a tiered website using Linq to Sql. I created a new class(or object) in DBML designer called memberState. This object is not an actual table in the database. I have this method in my middle layer:
public override IEnumerable(memberState) GetMembersByState(string #state)
{
using (BulletinWizardDataContext context = DataContext)
{
IEnumerable(memberState) mems = (from m in context.Members
join ma in context.MemberAddresses
on m.UserId equals ma.UserId
join s in context.States
on ma.StateId equals s.StateId
where s.StateName == #state
select new memberState
{
userId = m.UserID,
firstName = m.FirstName,
middleInitial = m.MiddleInitial,
lastName = m.LastName,
createDate = m.CreateDate,
modifyDate = m.ModifyDate
}).ToArray(memberState)();
return mems;
}
}
The tables in my joins (Members, States, and MemberAddresses are actual tables in my Database). I created the object memberStates so I could use it in the query above (notice the Select New memberState. When the data is updated on the web page how do I persist the changes back to the Member Table? My Member Table consists of the following columns: UserId, FirstName, MiddleInitial, LastName, CreateDate, ModifyDate. I am not sure how save the changes back to the database.
Thanks,
If I remember correctly, you can create a view from the different tables (Members, States, and MemberAddresses) and add that to the data context. Then any modifications to data in the view object can be saved, and linq to sql will handle the commit correctly as long as all the relationships are clearly setup/defined in both the database and in the data context.
If you have a Member table, the dbml will most likely contain a Member class. To update a member in the database, you will have to create a new Member object, and the Attach it to the BulletinWizardDataContext.Members collection. Something similar to the following code should the trick (I have not tested the code):
using (BulletinWizardDataContext context = DataContext)
{
Member m = new Member() { UserId = userId };
context.Members.Attach(m);
m.FirstName = firstName;
// Set other properties
context.SubmitChanges();
}
Attach must be called before setting the properties. Also, Linq2Sql has some issues with Attach in the case where the properties of your object are set to default values (i.e. 0 for numeric values, false for booleans, null for string etc.). In this case Attach will not generate the correct SQL.
var m = myContext.Members.Single(m=> m.UserID == myMemState.userID);
m.FirstName = myMemState.firstName;
m.MiddleInitial = myMemState.middleInitial;
...
That would be the quick way. It does an additional roundtrip to the db, but will work well. If that's an issue for you, then do Attach like Jakob suggested. For that you have to have to do some extra steps, like reviewing the configuration for optimistic updates and make sure you have the original fields when doing the attach.