I have the following LINQ to Entities query...
var results = from c in context.Contacts
select c;
which works fine in returning a collection of contacts. But I have seen sample code that does this instead...
ObjectResult<Contact> results = (from c in context.Contacts
select c).Execute();
What is the difference? The ObjectResult also has a collection of returned contacts. Is it just syntactic or is there a real fundamental difference?
ObjectResult<> is simply the type returned by EF when you start enumerating the IQueryable<> (i.e. context.Contacts).
So if you immediately enumerate either of your two queries, semantically it is the same.
The only difference is that in the first example if compose more query operations they will get appended to the query sent to the database when you enumerate, whereas in the second example they will get applied in memory by LINQ to Objects.
Also Execute(..) provides somewhat easier access to MergeOptions (like, should the database copy overwrite copies already in memory or visa versa). You can do this using the MergeOptions property on the ObjectQuery<> too, but that is a little more cumbersome.
Hope this helps
Alex
Related
This is a very weird problem
In short
var q = (some query).Count();
Gives my a number and
var q = (some query).ToList().Count();
Gives me entirely different number...
with mentioning that (some query) has two includes (joins)
is there a sane explanation for that???
EDIT: here is my query
var q = db.membership_renewals.Include(i => i.member).Include(i => i.sport).Where(w => w.isDeleted == false).Count();
this gives me a wrong number
and this:
var q = db.membership_renewals.Include(i => i.member).Include(i => i.sport).Where(w => w.isDeleted == false).ToList().Count();
Gives me accurate number..
EDIT 2
Wher I wrote my query as linq query it worked perfectly...
var q1 = (from d in db.membership_renewals where d.isDeleted == false join m in db.members on d.mr_memberId equals m.m_id join s in db.sports on d.mr_sportId equals s.s_id select d.mr_id).Count();
I think the problem that entity framework doesn't execute the joins in the original query but forced to execute them in (ToList())...
I Finally figured out what's going on...
The database tables are not linked together in the database (there are no relationship or constraints defined in the database itself) so the code doesn't execute the (inner join) part.
However my classes on the other hand are well written so when I perform (ToList()) it automatically ignores the unbound rows...
And when I wrote the linq query defining the relation ship keys (primary and foreign) it worked alright because now the database understands my relation between tables...
Thanks everyone you've been great....
My guess is IQueryable gives a smaller number cause not all the objects are loaded, kind of like a stream in Java, but IQueryable.toList().count() forces the Iqueryable to load all the data and it is traversed by the list constructor and stored in the list so IQueryable.toList().Count() is the accurate answer. This is based on 5 minutes of search on MSDN.
The idea is the underlying datastore of the IQueryable is a database iterator so it executes differently every time because it executes the query again on the database, so if you call it twice against the same table, and the data has changed you get different results. This is called delayed execution. But when you say IQueryable.ToList() you force the iterator to do the whole iteration once and dump the results in a list which is constant
Is there some scala relational database framework (anorm, squeryl, etc...) using postgres-like aggregators to produce lists after a group-by, or at least simulating its use?
I would expect two levels of implementation:
a "standard" one, where at least any SQL grouping with array_agg is translated to a List of the type which is being aggregated,
and a "scala ORM powered" one where some type of join is allowed so that if the aggregation is a foreign key to other table, a List of elements of the other table is produced. Of course this last thing is beyond the reach of SQL, but if I am using a more powerful language, I do not mind some steroids.
I find specially intriguing that the documentation of slick, which is based precisely in allowing scala group-by notation, seems to negate explicitly the output of lists as a result of the group-by.
EDIT: use case
You have the typical many-to-many table of, say, products and suppliers, pairs (p_id, s_id). You want to produce a list of suppliers for each product. So the postgresql query should be
SELECT p_id, array_agg(s_id) from t1 group by p_id
One could expect some idiomatic way to to this in slick, but I do not see how. Furthermore, if we go to some ORM, then we could also consider the join with the tables products and suppliers, on p_id and s_id respectively, and get as answer a zip (product, (supplier1, supplier2, supplierN)) containing the objects and not only the ids
I am also not sure if I understand you question correct, could you elaborate?
In slick you currently can not use postgres "array_agg" or "string_agg" as a method on type Query. If you want to use this specific function then you need to use custom sql. But: I added an issue some time ago (https://github.com/slick/slick/issues/923, you should follow this discussion) and we have a prototype from cvogt ready for this.
I needed to use "string_agg" in the past and added a patch for it (see https://github.com/mobiworx/slick/commit/486c39a7ed90c9ccac356dfdb0e5dc5c24e32d63), so maybe this is helpful to you. Look at "AggregateTest" to learn more about it.
Another possibility is to encapsulate the usage of "array_agg" in a database view and just use this view with slick. This way you do not need "array_agg" directly in slick.
You can use slick-pg.
It supports array_agg and other aggregate functions.
Your question is intriguing, care to elaborate a little on how it might ideally look? When you group by you often have an additional column, such as count(*) over and above the standard columns from your case class, so what would the type of your List be?
Most of my (anorm) methods either return a singleton (perhaps Option) or a List of that class's type. For each case class, I have an sqlFields variable (e.g. m.id, m.name, m.forManufacturer) and a single parser variable that I reference as either .as(modelParser.singleOpt) or .as(modelParser *). For foreign keys, a lazy val at the case class level (or def if it needs to be) is pretty useful. E.g. if I had Model and Manufacturer entities, with a foreign key forManufacturer on Model, then I might define a lazy val manufacturer : Manufacturer = ... in the case class of the model, so that at any time I can refer to model.manufacturer. I can define joins as their own methods, either in this way, or as methods in the companion object.
Not 100% sure I am answering your question, but thought this was a bit long for a comment.
Edit: If your driver supported parsing of postgresql arrays, you could map them directly to a class like ProductSuppliers(id:Int, suppliers:List[Int]) (or even List[Supplier]?) In anorm that's about as idiomatic as one could get, I think? For databases that don't support it, it seems to me similar to an order by version, i.e. select p1, s1 from t1 order by p1, which you could groupBy p1 and similarly map to ProductSuppliers.
I'm getting errors when I try and do something like this:
from s in db.SomeDbSet where IsValid(s) select s
It errors telling me that it can't process IsValid.
Basically what I'm trying to do is filter based on another dbSet inside the Where that is linked and does an any, but it won't let me.
I've tried a million different ways of doing a Expression but I can't find the right way and building my own Extension method like Where doesn't seem to work either.
Thanks!
Can you paste your IsValid function?
In this case it's EF job to take LINQ syntax and turn it into SQL syntax.
EF can't turn your function into SQL. it only supports a set number of functions that have a clear SQL equivalent commend.
you have two options:
1) Rewrite the function as a series of supported commends. This will be turned into a SQL sub-query, Meaning a single trip to the database, For example:
// will only return records that have at least one related entity marked as full.
query.Where(m => m.ReletedEntities.Any(re => re.IsFull == true));
2) Get all the data from the database and then using Linq and your function work with the data. this will be done in memory using your actual function that will be called once for every item in the collection. You will also have to load the related entity collection. or it will still be an "entity framework translated to SQL query", And will fail if you use your function.
I'm using QueryDSL with JPA.
I want to query some properties of an entity, it's like this:
QPost post = QPost.post;
JPAQuery q = new JPAQuery(em);
List<Object[]> rows = q.from(post).where(...).list(post.id, post.name);
It works fine.
If i want to query a relation property, e.g. comments of a post:
List<Set<Comment>> rows = q.from(post).where(...).list(post.comments);
It's also fine.
But when I want to query relation and simple properties together, e.g.
List<Object[]> rows = q.from(post).where(...).list(post.id, post.name, post.comments);
Then something went wrong, generiting a bad SQL syntax.
Then I realized that it's not possible to query them together in one SQL statement.
Is it possible that QueryDSL would somehow deal with relations and generate additional queries (just like what hibernate does with lazy relations), and load the results in?
Or should I just query twice, and then merge both result lists?
P.S. what i actually want is each post with its comments' ids. So a function to concat each post's comment ids is better, is this kind of expressin possible?
q.list(post.id, post.name, post.comments.all().id.join())
and generate a subquery sql like (select group_concat(c.id) from comments as c inner join post where c.id = post.id)
Querydsl JPA is restricted to the expressivity of JPQL, so what you are asking for is not possible with Querydsl JPA. You can though try to express it with Querydsl SQL. It should be possible. Also as you don't project entities, but literals and collections it might work just fine.
Alternatively you can load the Posts with only the Comment ids loaded and then project the id, name and comment ids to something else. This should work when accessors are annotated.
The simplest thing would be to query for Posts and use fetchJoin for comments, but I'm assuming that's too slow for you use case.
I think you ought to simply project required properties of posts and comments and group the results by hand (if required). E.g.
QPost post=...;
QComment comment=..;
List<Tuple> rows = q.from(post)
// Or leftJoin if you want also posts without comments
.innerJoin(comment).on(comment.postId.eq(post.id))
.orderBy(post.id) // Could be used to optimize grouping
.list(new QTuple(post.id, post.name, comment.id));
Map<Long, PostWithComments> results=...;
for (Tuple row : rows) {
PostWithComments res = results.get(row.get(post.id));
if (res == null) {
res = new PostWithComments(row.get(post.id), row.get(post.name));
results.put(res.getPostId(), res);
}
res.addCommentId(row.get(comment.id));
}
NOTE: You cannot use limit nor offset with this kind of queries.
As an alternative, it might be possible to tune your mappings so that 1) Comments are always lazy proxies so that (with property access) Comment.getId() is possible without initializing the actual object and 2) using batch fetch* on Post.comments to optimize collection fetching. This way you could just query for Posts and then access id's of their comments with little performance hit. In most cases you shouldn't even need those lazy proxies unless your Comment is very fat. That kind of code would certainly look nicer without low level row handling and you could also use limit and offset in your queries. Just keep an eye on your query log to make sure everything works as intended.
*) Batch fetching isn't directly supported by JPA, but Hibernate supports it through mapping and Eclipselink through query hints.
Maybe some day Querydsl will support this kind of results grouping post processing out-of-box...
I need to change the value of a property when I query the database using EF4. I have a company code that gets returned and I need to translate it to another company code, if needed. So, there is a stored procedure that is used to do this currently. Here's the old select statement.
SELECT companyName, TranslateCompanyCode(companyCode) as newCompanyCode FROM companyTable where companyCode = 'AA';
TranslateCompanyCode is the stored proc that does the translation. I'd like to do this in my new code when needed. I think I might need to use a Model-Defined Function. Anyone know how I can do this?
For your scenario, I would use a JOIN. Model-defined functions are cool when you need to perform a quick function on a value (particularly without an additional query). From a performance standpoint, a JOIN will be faster and more efficient than trying to put the sub-query in a model-defined function - particularly if you are selecting more than 1 row at a time.
However, if you do still want to use Model defined functions, then this example should point you in the right direction as to how to run a query within the function. This implementation will also be more complex than just using a join but is an alternative.