I'm attempting to outer join a table with an inline table valued function in my LINQ query, but I get a query compilation error at runtime:
"The query attempted to call 'OuterApply' over a nested query, but 'OuterApply' did not have the appropriate keys."
My linq statement looks like this:
var testQuery = (from accountBase in ViewContext.AccountBases
join advisorConcatRaw in ViewContext.UFN_AccountAdvisorsConcatenated_Get()
on accountBase.AccountId equals advisorConcatRaw.AccountId into advisorConcatOuter
from advisorConcat in advisorConcatOuter.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new
{
accountBase.AccountId,
advisorConcat.Advisors
}).ToList();
The function definition is as follows:
CREATE FUNCTION dbo.UFN_AccountAdvisorsConcatenated_Get()
RETURNS TABLE
AS
RETURN
SELECT AP.AccountId,
LEFT(AP.Advisors, LEN(AP.Advisors) - 1) AS Advisors
FROM ( SELECT DISTINCT
AP.AccountId,
( SELECT AP2.PropertyValue + ', '
FROM dbo.AccountProperty AP2 WITH (NOLOCK)
WHERE AP2.AccountId = AP.AccountId
AND AP2.AccountPropertyTypeId = 1 -- Advisor
FOR XML PATH('')) AS Advisors
FROM dbo.AccountProperty AP WITH (NOLOCK)) AP;
I can successfully perform the join directly in sql as follows:
SELECT ab.accountid,
advisorConcat.Advisors
FROM accountbase ab
LEFT OUTER JOIN dbo.Ufn_accountadvisorsconcatenated_get() advisorConcat
ON ab.accountid = advisorConcat.accountid
Does anyone have a working example of left outer joining an inline TVF to a table in LINQ to entities - or is this a known defect, etc? Many thanks.
Entity Framework needs to know what the primary key columns of the TVF results are to do a left join. Basically you need to create a fake table which has same schema as your TVF results and update TVF in model browser to return the new created table type instead of default complex type. You could refer to this answer to get more details.
Related
I am currently using EFCore 1.1 (preview release) with SQL Server.
I am doing what I thought was a simple OUTER JOIN between an Order and OrderItem table.
var orders = from order in ctx.Order
join orderItem in ctx.OrderItem
on order.OrderId equals orderItem.OrderId into tmp
from oi in tmp.DefaultIfEmpty()
select new
{
order.OrderDt,
Sku = (oi == null) ? null : oi.Sku,
Qty = (oi == null) ? (int?) null : oi.Qty
};
The actual data returned is correct (I know earlier versions had issues with OUTER JOINS not working at all). However the SQL is horrible and includes every column in Order and OrderItem which is problematic considering one of them is a large XML Blob.
SELECT [order].[OrderId], [order].[OrderStatusTypeId],
[order].[OrderSummary], [order].[OrderTotal], [order].[OrderTypeId],
[order].[ParentFSPId], [order].[ParentOrderId],
[order].[PayPalECToken], [order].[PaymentFailureTypeId] ....
...[orderItem].[OrderId], [orderItem].[OrderItemType], [orderItem].[Qty],
[orderItem].[SKU] FROM [Order] AS [order] LEFT JOIN [OrderItem] AS
[orderItem] ON [order].[OrderId] = [orderItem].[OrderId] ORDER BY
[order].[OrderId]
(There are many more columns not shown here.)
On the other hand - if I make it an INNER JOIN then the SQL is as expected with only the columns in my select clause:
SELECT [order].[OrderDt], [orderItem].[SKU], [orderItem].[Qty] FROM
[Order] AS [order] INNER JOIN [OrderItem] AS [orderItem] ON
[order].[OrderId] = [orderItem].[OrderId]
I tried reverting to EFCore 1.01, but got some horrible nuget package errors and gave up with that.
Not clear whether this is an actual regression issue or an incomplete feature in EFCore. But couldn't find any further information about this elsewhere.
Edit: EFCore 2.1 has addressed a lot of issues with grouping and also N+1 type issues where a separate query is made for every child entity. Very impressed with the performance in fact.
3/14/18 - 2.1 Preview 1 of EFCore isn't recommended because the GROUP BY SQL has some issues when using OrderBy() but it's fixed in nightly builds and Preview 2.
The following applies to EF Core 1.1.0 (release).
Although shouldn't be doing such things, tried several alternative syntax queries (using navigation property instead of manual join, joining subqueries containing anonymous type projection, using let / intermediate Select, using Concat / Union to emulate left join, alternative left join syntax etc.) The result - either the same as in the post, and/or executing more than one query, and/or invalid SQL queries, and/or strange runtime exceptions like IndexOutOfRange, InvalidArgument etc.
What I can say based on tests is that most likely the problem is related to bug(s) (regression, incomplete implementation - does it really matter) in GroupJoin translation. For instance, #7003: Wrong SQL generated for query with group join on a subquery that is not present in the final projection or #6647 - Left Join (GroupJoin) always materializes elements resulting in unnecessary data pulling etc.
Until it get fixed (when?), as a (far from perfect) workaround I could suggest using the alternative left outer join syntax (from a in A from b in B.Where(b = b.Key == a.Key).DefaultIfEmpty()):
var orders = from o in ctx.Order
from oi in ctx.OrderItem.Where(oi => oi.OrderId == o.OrderId).DefaultIfEmpty()
select new
{
OrderDt = o.OrderDt,
Sku = oi.Sku,
Qty = (int?)oi.Qty
};
which produces the following SQL:
SELECT [o].[OrderDt], [t1].[Sku], [t1].[Qty]
FROM [Order] AS [o]
CROSS APPLY (
SELECT [t0].*
FROM (
SELECT NULL AS [empty]
) AS [empty0]
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT [oi0].*
FROM [OrderItem] AS [oi0]
WHERE [oi0].[OrderId] = [o].[OrderId]
) AS [t0] ON 1 = 1
) AS [t1]
As you can see, the projection is ok, but instead of LEFT JOIN it uses strange CROSS APPLY which might introduce another performance issue.
Also note that you have to use casts for value types and nothing for strings when accessing the right joined table as shown above. If you use null checks as in the original query, you'll get ArgumentNullException at runtime (yet another bug).
Using "into" will create a temporary identifier to store the results.
Reference : MDSN: into (C# Reference)
So removing the "into tmp from oi in tmp.DefaultIfEmpty()" will result in the clean sql with the three columns.
var orders = from order in ctx.Order
join orderItem in ctx.OrderItem
on order.OrderId equals orderItem.OrderId
select new
{
order.OrderDt,
Sku = (oi == null) ? null : oi.Sku,
Qty = (oi == null) ? (int?) null : oi.Qty
};
I'm trying create a SELECT with GROUP BY in Firebird but I can't have any success. How could I do this ?
Exception
Can't format message 13:896 -- message file C:\firebird.msg not found.
Dynamic SQL Error.
SQL error code = -104.
Invalid expression in the select list (not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause).
(49,765 sec)
trying
SELECT FA_DATA, FA_CODALUNO, FA_MATERIA, FA_TURMA, FA_QTDFALTA,
ALU_CODIGO, ALU_NOME,
M_CODIGO, M_DESCRICAO,
FT_CODIGO, FT_ANOLETIVO, FT_TURMA
FROM FALTAS Falta
INNER JOIN ALUNOS Aluno ON (Falta.FA_CODALUNO = Aluno.ALU_CODIGO)
INNER JOIN MATERIAS Materia ON (Falta.FA_MATERIA = Materia.M_CODIGO)
INNER JOIN FORMACAOTURMAS Turma ON (Falta.FA_TURMA = Turma.FT_CODIGO)
WHERE (Falta.FA_CODALUNO = 238) AND (Turma.FT_ANOLETIVO = 2015)
GROUP BY Materia.M_CODIGO
Simple use of group by in firebird,group by all columns
select * from T1 t
where t.id in
(SELECT t.id FROM T1 t
INNER JOIN T2 j ON j.id = t.jid
WHERE t.id = 1
GROUP BY t.id)
Using GROUP BY doesn't make sense in your example code. It is only useful when using aggregate functions (+ some other minor uses). In any case, Firebird requires you to specify all columns from the SELECT column list except those with aggregate functions in the GROUP BY clause.
Note that this is more restrictive than the SQL standard, which allows you to leave out functionally dependent columns (ie if you specify a primary key or unique key, you don't need to specify the other columns of that table).
You don't specify why you want to group (because it doesn't make much sense to do it with this query). Maybe instead you want to ORDER BY, or you want the first row for each M_CODIGO.
Is it possible with JPA to query a database to get an entity filled with an additional field belonging to another table/entity?
I have a reservations table holding a foreign key to a record(an entity) in another table pois which has to columns of interest: poiId and poiType.
Instead of having a field ReservationEntity.poi (to finally obtain poi.poiType) I want to have a ReservationEntity.poiId and ReservationEntity.poiType and I wonder if it's possible to achieve this through a NamedQuery:
#NamedQuery(name="ReservationEntity.findByRfId", query="SELECT r, p.poiType FROM ReservationEntity r LEFT JOIN PoiEntity p ON r.poiId = p.poiId WHERE r.rfId = :rfId")
...since you read my question you can imagine that this DOESN'T work. ;-)
Is it possible to do it in such a kind?
Here's the exception:
Internal Exception: com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLSyntaxErrorException: Unknown column 'POITYPE' in 'field list'
Error Code: 1054
Call: SELECT reservationId, endTime, notification, poiId, POITYPE, startTime, status, timeZone, tstamp, type FROM reservations WHERE (reservationId = ?)
bind => [1 parameter bound]
Query: ReadObjectQuery(name="ReservationEntity.findById" referenceClass=ReservationEntity sql="SELECT t1.reservationId, t1.authInfo, t1.endTime, t1.evsp, t1.notification, t1.poiId, t1.POITYPE, t1.startTime, t1.status, t1.timeZone, t1.tstamp, t1.type FROM reservations t1 LEFT OUTER JOIN pois t0 ON (t1.poiId = t0.poiId) WHERE (t1.reservationId = ?)")
at org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException.sqlException(DatabaseException.java:340)
By now I made it work using a database view instead of a table for the #Entity(...) annotation.
Yet I don't have the requirement to update the entity. However, it is possible to update a view as long as only one table' column are modified and an INNER JOIN is used: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/view-updatability.html
I have this problem and reproduced it with AdventureWorks2008R2 to make it more easy. Basically, I want to filter a parent table for a list of IN values and I thought it would generate this type of query
but it doesn't.
SELECT * FROM SalesOrderDetail where EXISTS( select * from SalesOrderHeader where d.id=h.id and rowguid IN ('asdf', 'fff', 'weee' )
Any ideas how to change the LINQ statement to query Header only once?
(ignore the fact I'm matching on Guids - it will actually be integers; I was just quickly looking for a 1-1 table in EF because that's when the problem occurs and I happened to find these)
var guidsToFind = new Guid[] { Guid.NewGuid(), Guid.NewGuid(), Guid.NewGuid()};
AdventureWorks2008R2Entities context = new AdventureWorks2008R2Entities();
var g = context.People.Where(p => guidsToFind.Contains(p.BusinessEntity.rowguid)).ToList();
That produces the following more expensive query:
SELECT [Extent1].[BusinessEntityID] AS [BusinessEntityID],
[Extent1].[PersonType] AS [PersonType],
[Extent1].[NameStyle] AS [NameStyle],
[Extent1].[Title] AS [Title],
[Extent1].[FirstName] AS [FirstName],
[Extent1].[MiddleName] AS [MiddleName],
[Extent1].[LastName] AS [LastName],
[Extent1].[Suffix] AS [Suffix],
[Extent1].[EmailPromotion] AS [EmailPromotion],
[Extent1].[AdditionalContactInfo] AS [AdditionalContactInfo],
[Extent1].[Demographics] AS [Demographics],
[Extent1].[rowguid] AS [rowguid],
[Extent1].[ModifiedDate] AS [ModifiedDate]
FROM [Person].[Person] AS [Extent1]
INNER JOIN [Person].[BusinessEntity] AS [Extent2] ON [Extent1].[BusinessEntityID] = [Extent2].[BusinessEntityID]
LEFT OUTER JOIN [Person].[BusinessEntity] AS [Extent3] ON [Extent1].[BusinessEntityID] = [Extent3].[BusinessEntityID]
WHERE [Extent2].[rowguid] = cast('b95b63f9-6304-4626-8e70-0bd2b73b6b0f' as uniqueidentifier) OR [Extent3].[rowguid] IN (cast('f917a037-b86b-4911-95f4-4afc17433086' as uniqueidentifier),cast('3188557d-5df9-40b3-90ae-f83deee2be05' as uniqueidentifier))
Really odd. Looks like a LINQ limitation.
I don't have a system to try this on right now but if you first get a list of BusinessEntityId values based on the provided guids and then get the persons like this
var g = context.People.Where(p => businessEntityIdList.Contains(p.BusinessEntityId)).ToList();
there should not be a reason for additional unnecessary joins anymore.
If that works, you can try to combine the to steps into one LINQ expression to see if the separation stays intact.
I am attempting to call data after joining all of my tables in a postgreSQL query.
I am getting the following error:
Error in postgresqlExecStatement(conn, statement, ...) :
RS-DBI driver: (could not Retrieve the result : ERROR: table name "place" specified more than once
)
Failed to execute SQL chunk
After referring to similar posts and online resources, I have attempted setting aliases (which only create new errors about not referring to the other tables in the FROM clause), reordering the table names (the cleanest, reordered chunk is posted below), and experimenting with UPDATE/FROM/JOIN as an alternative to SELECT/FROM/JOIN. However, I think I ultimately need to be using the SELECT clause.
SELECT *
FROM place
INNER JOIN place ON place.key = form.key
INNER JOIN form ON form.id = items.formid
INNER JOIN items ON items.recid = rec.id
INNER JOIN rec ON rec.id = sub.recid
INNER JOIN sub ON sub.id = type.subid
INNER JOIN type ON type.name = det.typeid;
You have "place" in your query twice, which is allowed but you would have to alias the second use of the table "place". Also you reference something called "det", but it's not a table or alias anywhere in your query. If you want only one place that's fine, just remove the INNER JOIN place and move your place.key = form.key to the form join or to a where clause.
If you want to place tables in their because you are trying to join the table to itself the alias the second one, but you will want to make sure that you then have a clause to join those two tables on (could be part of an on or a where)
The issue ended up being the order of table names. The code below joined everything just fine:
SELECT *
FROM place
INNER JOIN form ON place.key = form.key
INNER JOIN items ON form.id = items.formid
INNER JOIN rec ON items.recid = rec.id
INNER JOIN sub ON rec.id = sub.recid
INNER JOIN type ON sub.id = type.subid
INNER JOIN det ON type.name = det.typeid;