I have the following EF code
Func<CxForumArticle, bool> whereClause = a => a.CreatedBy == authorId;
IEnumerable<CxForumArticle> articlesCol = ctx.Articles
.Where(whereClause)
.Where(a => a.PublishingStatus == EnPublishStatus.PUBLISHED)
.OrderByDescending(a => a.ModifiedOn).Skip(offset).Take(pageSize);
It produces the following SQL
SELECT
[Extent1].[ArticleId] AS [ArticleId],
[Extent1].[Alias] AS [Alias],
[Extent1].[MigratedId] AS [MigratedId],
[Extent1].[Title] AS [Title],
[Extent1].[Teaser] AS [Teaser],
[Extent1].[ClobId] AS [ClobId],
[Extent1].[UnifiedContentId] AS [UnifiedContentId],
[Extent1].[EditorComments] AS [EditorComments],
[Extent1].[CreatedOn] AS [CreatedOn],
[Extent1].[CreatedBy] AS [CreatedBy],
[Extent1].[ModifiedOn] AS [ModifiedOn],
[Extent1].[ModifiedBy] AS [ModifiedBy],
[Extent1].[PublishingStatus] AS [PublishingStatus]
FROM [dbo].[ForumArticle] AS [Extent1]
As you see, there is no ordering and paging in this SQL. So EF orders and pages data in memory.
This doesn't seem to be a good thing to do.
I read an article, claiming that I have to use expression in OrderBy clause. I did that
Func<CxForumArticle, bool> whereClause = a => a.CreatedBy == authorId;
Expression<Func<CxForumArticle, DateTime>> orderByFunc = a => a.ModifiedOn;
IEnumerable<CxForumArticle> articlesCol = ctx.Articles
.Where(whereClause)
.Where(a => a.PublishingStatus == EnPublishStatus.PUBLISHED)
.OrderByDescending(orderByFunc.Compile()).Skip(offset).Take(pageSize)
;
But I got the same result. Any ideas how can I force EF to sort and page the data in DB?
I know this is pretty old, but you actually need to have the whereClause use an expression as well. Entity Framework only knows how to convert expressions to SQL. If you use a delegate instead of an expression, it is going to query the entire table and then then filter using LINQ to Objects.
Related
Select *,
(Select DefaultStartDay from Scheduler.ProgramSettings ps where ps.DefaultStartDay = s.Id ) [DefaultStartDay]
from Scheduler.Schedules s
where ScheduleType = 2;
I want to write above SQL query in EF Core, Specially I need subquery in select list to get data from another table with specific condition.
please refer image.Sample Data with SQL Query
I have tried below EF Core but getting wrong result.
var model = _context.Schedules
.Where(s => s.ScheduleType == 2)
.Select(rv => new ProgramSetting
{
Id = rv.Id,
ProgramTemplateId = rv.ProgramTemplateId,
IsActive = rv.IsActive,
DefaultStartDay = rv.Id
}).ToArray();
The SQL query is wrong and this is a misuse of EF Core.
First, that SQL will fail if there's more than 1 result from the subquery. Even in SQL you'd need a different query. An INNER JOIN would return the same results without failing if there are multiple matches.
Select s.*,ps.DefaultStartDay
from Scheduler.Schedules s
inner join Scheduler.ProgramSettings ps on ps.DefaultStartDay = s.Id
where ScheduleType = 2;
Second, using LINQ to emulate SQL is a misuse of both EF Core and LINQ. EF isn't a replacement for SQL, it's an ORM. Its job is to give the impression of working with in-memory objects instead of tables, not allow you to write SQL queries in C#
It's the ORM's job to generate JOINs as needed from the relations between entities (not tables). In this case, if Schedule has a ProgramSettins property, EF would generate the necessary joins automatically. Loading an entire schedule object could be as simple as :
var schedules=_context.Schedules
.Incule(sch=>sch.ProgramSettings)
.Where(s => s.ScheduleType == 2)
.ToArray();
Include is used to eagerly load the settings, not to force a JOIN.
If a Select clause is used that requires a property from ProgramSettings, the JOIN will be generated automatically, eg :
var namesAndDays=_context.Schedules
.Where(s => s.ScheduleType == 2)
.Select(s=>new {
Name = s.Name,
StartDay = s.ProgramSettings.DefaultStartDay
})
.ToArray();
I have a table called Products and I need to find the products with unique title for a particular category. Earlier we used to do with this query in entity framework core 2.2 :
currentContext.Products
.GroupBy(x => x.Title)
.Select(x => x.FirstOrDefault()))
.Select(x => new ProductViewModel
{
Id = x.Id,
Title = x.Title,
CategoryId= x.CategoryId
}).ToList();
But after upgrading to Entity Framework Core 5.0, we get an error for Groupby Shaker exception:
The LINQ expression 'GroupByShaperExpression:KeySelector: t.title, ElementSelector:EntityShaperExpression: EntityType: Project ValueBufferExpression: ProjectionBindingExpression: EmptyProjectionMember IsNullable: False .FirstOrDefault()' could not be translated. Either rewrite the query in a form that can be translated, or switch to client evaluation explicitly by inserting a call to 'AsEnumerable', 'AsAsyncEnumerable', 'ToList', or 'ToListAsync'.
I know there are multiple way to client projection but I am searching for most efficient way to search.
Most likely that LINQ query couldn't be translated in EF Core 2.2 either, because of some limitations that the GroupBy operator has.
From the docs:
Since no database structure can represent an IGrouping, GroupBy operators have no translation in most cases. When an aggregate operator is applied to each group, which returns a scalar, it can be translated to SQL GROUP BY in relational databases. The SQL GROUP BY is restrictive too. It requires you to group only by scalar values. The projection can only contain grouping key columns or any aggregate applied over a column.
What happened in EF Core 2.x is that whenever it couldn't translate an expression, it would automatically switch to client evaluation and give just a warning.
This is listed as the breaking change with highest impact when migrating to EF Core >= 3.x :
Old behavior
Before 3.0, when EF Core couldn't convert an expression that was part of a query to either SQL or a parameter, it automatically evaluated the expression on the client. By default, client evaluation of potentially expensive expressions only triggered a warning.
New behavior
Starting with 3.0, EF Core only allows expressions in the top-level projection (the last Select() call in the query) to be evaluated on the client. When expressions in any other part of the query can't be converted to either SQL or a parameter, an exception is thrown.
So if the performance of that expression was good enough when using EF Core 2.x, it will be as good as before if you decide to explicitly switch to client evaluation when using EF Core 5.x. That's because both are client evaluated, before and now, with the only difference being that you have to be explicit about it now. So the easy way out, if the performance was acceptable previously, would be to just client evaluate the last part of the query using .AsEnumerable() or .ToList().
If client evaluation performance is not acceptable (which will imply that it wasn't before the migration either) then you have to rewrite the query. There are a couple of answers by Ivan Stoev that might get you inspired.
I am a little confused by the description of what you want to achieve: I need to find the products with unique title for a particular category and the code you posted, since I believe it's not doing what you explained. In any case, I will provide possible solutions for both interpretations.
This is my attempt of writing a query to find the products with unique title for a particular category.
var uniqueProductTitlesForCategoryQueryable = currentContext.Products
.Where(x => x.CategoryId == categoryId)
.GroupBy(x => x.Title)
.Where(x => x.Count() == 1)
.Select(x => x.Key); // Key being the title
var productsWithUniqueTitleForCategory = currentContext.Products
.Where(x => x.CategoryId == categoryId)
.Where(x => uniqueProductTitlesForCategoryQueryable .Contains(x.Title))
.Select(x => new ProductViewModel
{
Id = x.Id,
Title = x.Title,
CategoryId= x.CategoryId
}).ToList();
And this is my attempt of rewriting the query you posted:
currentContext.Products
.Select(product => product.Title)
.Distinct()
.SelectMany(uniqueTitle => currentContext.Products.Where(product => product.Title == uniqueTitle ).Take(1))
.Select(product => new ProductViewModel
{
Id = product.Id,
Title = product.Title,
CategoryId= product.CategoryId
})
.ToList();
I am getting the distinct titles in the Product table and per each distinct title I get the first Product that matches it (that should be equivalent as GroupBy(x => x.Title)+ FirstOrDefault AFAIK). You could add some sorting before the Take(1) if needed.
You can use Join for this query as below :
currentContext.Products
.GroupBy(x => x.Title)
.Select(x => new ProductViewModel()
{
Title = x.Key,
Id = x.Min(b => b.Id)
})
.Join(currentContext.Products, a => a.Id, b => b.Id,
(a, b) => new ProductViewModel()
{
Id = a.Id,
Title = a.Title,
CategoryId = b.CategoryId
}).ToList();
If you watch or log translated SQL query, it would be as below:
SELECT [t].[Title], [t].[c] AS [Id], [p0].[CategoryId] AS [CategoryId]
FROM (
SELECT [p].[Title], MIN([p].[Id]) AS [c]
FROM [Product].[Products] AS [p]
GROUP BY [p].[Title]
) AS [t]
INNER JOIN [Product].[Products] AS [p0] ON [t].[c] = [p0].[Id]
As you can see, the entire query is translated into one SQL query and it is highly efficient because GroupBy operation is being performed in database and no additional record is fetched by the client.
As mentioned by Ivan Stoev, EFC 2.x just silently loads full table to the client side and then apply needed logic for extracting needed result. It is resource consuming way and thanks that EFC team uncovered such potential harmful queries.
Most effective way is already known - raw SQL and window functions. SO is full of answers like this.
SELECT
s.Id,
s.Title,
s.CategoryId
FROM
(SELECT
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY p.Title ORDER BY p.Id) AS RN,
p.*
FROM Products p) s
WHERE s.RN = 1
Not sure that EFC team will invent universal algorithm for generating such SQL in nearest future, but for special edge cases it is doable and maybe it is their plan to do that for EFC 6.0
Anyway if performance and LINQ is priority for such question, I suggest to try our adaptation of linq2db ORM for EF Core projects: linq2db.EntityFrameworkCore
And you can get desired result without leaving LINQ:
urrentContext.Products
.Select(x => new
{
Product = x,
RN = Sql.Ext.RowNumber().Over()
.PartitionBy(x.Title)
.OrderBy(x.Id)
.ToValue()
})
.Where(x => x.RN == 1)
.Select(x => x.Product)
.Select(x => new ProductViewModel
{
Id = x.Id,
Title = x.Title,
CategoryId = x.CategoryId
})
.ToLinqToDB()
.ToList();
Short answer is you deal with breaking changes in EF Core versions.
You should consider the total API and behavior changes for migration from 2.2 to 5.0 as I provided bellow:
Breaking changes included in EF Core 3.x
Breaking changes in EF Core 5.0
You may face other problems to write valid expressions using the newer version. In my opinion, upgrading to a newer version is not important itself. This is important to know how to work with a specific version.
You should use .GroupBy() AFTER materialization. Unfortunately, EF core doesn't support GROUP BY. In version 3 they introduced strict queries which means you can not execute IQeuriables that can't be converted to SQL unless you disable this configuration (which is not recommended). Also, I'm not sure what are you trying to get with GroupBy() and how it will influence your final result. Anyway, I suggest you upgrade your query like this:
currentContext.Products
.Select(x=> new {
x.Id,
x.Title,
x.Category
})
.ToList()
.GroupBy(x=> x.Title)
.Select(x => new Wrapper
{
ProductsTitle = x.Key,
Products = x.Select(p=> new ProductViewModel{
Id = p.Id,
Title = p.Title,
CategoryId= p.CategoryId
}).ToList()
}).ToList();
In the following example, we insert an entity called taskinstance to our context. we have a foreign key FK_Contract that we set at 2.
entity.FK_Contract = 2;
context.TaskInstances.AddObject(entity);
The query generated by entity framework is a simple insert. (everything is fine)
However, the following query works differently.
int contractId = context.Contracts.Where((T) => T.Name == contractName).Single().Id;
entity.FK_Contract = contractId;
context.TaskInstances.AddObject(entity);
In the trace created by entity framework we see without surprise the query selecting the Id according a contractName but we also see an extra request looking like:
select id,... from [TaskInstances] WHERE [Extent1].[FK_Task] = #contractId
This extra query leads to many problems, especially when we work with a foreign table with millions of record. The network goes down!
Therefore we 'd like to figure out the purpose of this extra query and the way to make it disappear.
It looks like the extra query is populating a collection of tasks on the returned Contract object. Try projecting just the column you want:
int contractId = context.Contracts
.Where(T => T.Name == contractName)
.Select(T => T.Id)
.Single();
I am working on a new project and we are using Entity Framework and the dev lead would like to use lambda queries whenever possible. One thing we are having a hard time figuring out is how to select two columns specifically. Also how to select distinct. We have a table that has multiple entries for a vendor but we want to just get a list of vendors and load to a dictionary object. It fails because as written it is trying to add a key value that has already been added. Take the following query.
Dictionary<int, string> dict = new Dictionary<int, string>();
dict = GetWamVendorInfo().AsEnumerable()
.Where(x => x.vendor_name != null && x.vendor_id != null)
//.Select(x => x.vendor_id).Distinct()
.Take(2)
.ToDictionary(o => int.Parse(o.vendor_id.ToString()), o => o.vendor_name);
What I would like to do is select just vendor_id and vendor_name so we can get just the distinct records.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Rhonda
Use an anonymous type:
// earlier bit of query
.Select(x => new { VendorId = x.vendor_id, VendorName = x.vendor_name } )
.Distinct()
.ToDictionary(o => o.VendorId, o => o.VendorName);
I've removed the call to Take(2) as it wasn't clear why you'd want it - and also removed the parsing of VendorId, which I would have expected to already be an integer type.
Note that you should almost certainly remove the AsEnumerable call from your query - currently you'll be fetching all the vendors and filtering with LINQ to Objects. There's also no point creating an empty dictionary and then ignoring it entirely. I suspect your complete query should be:
var vendors = GetWamVendorInfo()
.Select(x => new { VendorId = x.vendor_id,
VendorName = x.vendor_name } )
.Distinct()
.ToDictionary(o => o.VendorId,
o => o.VendorName);
As an aside, you should ask your dev lead why he wants to use lambda expressions (presumably as opposed to query expressions) everywhere. Different situations end up with more readable code using different syntax options - it's worth being flexible on this front.
Just use an anonymous object:
var vendors = GetWamVendorInfo().AsEnumerable()
.Where(x => x.vendor_name != null && x.vendor_id != null)
.Select(new {x.vendor_id, x.vendor_name})
.Take(2)
That's it. You can now work with vendors[0].vendor_id, vendors[0].vendor_name, and so on.
I had a LINQ query that loads a hierarchy of objects like the following.
Query #1
var result = db.Orders
.Include("Customer")
// many other .Include() here
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Customer.CustomerId == 1 &&
x.OrderId == orderId);
I was having MAJOR performance problem with it.
The CPU usage was near 100% and memory usage was very high.
And I tweaked it to the following and the performance problem was fixed.
Query #2
var result = db.Orders
.Include("Customer")
// many other .Include() here
.Where(x => x.Customer.CustomerId == 1 &&
x.OrderId == orderId)
.FirstOrDefault();
I just want to confirm my suspicion.
Query #1 is probably looping through all my records in memory looking for a matching record
vs
Query #2 filters the records on the Database and then getting the first record only.
Is that why the Query #1 has performance problems?
Just to be safe, do I need to use the .Select(x => x) before the .FirstOrDefault()?
Query #3
var result = db.Orders
.Include("Customer")
// many other .Include() here
.Where(x => x.Customer.CustomerId == 1 &&
x.OrderId == orderId)
.Select(x => x)
.FirstOrDefault();
No, they both should result in a same SQL query when being executed. You can prove it by looking into SQL Profiler and see what is the exact SQL being submitted from EF in both cases. Your performance optimization should have been caused by some other factors. Here is why:
Include method returns an ObjectQuery<T>:
public class ObjectQuery<T> : ObjectQuery, IOrderedQueryable<T>,
IQueryable<T>, IEnumerable<T>,
IOrderedQueryable, IQueryable,
IEnumerable, IListSource
Which means its FirstOrDefault method comes with 2 overloads:
// Defined by Enumerable:
FirstOrDefault(Func<T, Boolean>)
// Defined by Queryable:
FirstOrDefault(Expression<Func<T, Boolean>>)
When you code .FirstOrDefault(x => x.Customer.CustomerId == 1 compiler will go into a process called Overload Resolution to infer the type of the lambda expression x => x.Customer.CustomerId == 1 since it is convertible to the type of both overload's parameter types.
Compiler will use an algorithm (that I am still trying to find in C# Language Specification!), figure out that converting the lambda to the Expression<Func<T, Boolean> is a better conversion than to Func<T, Boolean> so pick the IQueryable overload.
Therefore, you'll see the predicate in the generated SQL when observing it in the SQL Profiler.
I found the culprit. It's the SQL query generated by Entity Framework.
I have a complicated Schema with a lot of many-to-many relationships.
Entity Framework was generating a 32,000 line long SQL string :'(
Now, I am changing my code to load the hierarchy manually for some part.
Please let me know if anyone knows some good articles to read about Eager Loading and Many-to-Many relationships.
I think best would be to use ...Where(condition).Take(1).FirstOrDefault() because Take(1) can be easily translated to SQL as a TOP clause. Anybody with me?