Prevent the EF from making two queries - sql

Is it possible to prevent the EF from making two queries in the following query?
var regitriesNames =
from registryView in registryViewRepository.GetAll()
where (
from registryReport in registryReportRepository.GetAll()
where registryReport.ReportId == reportId
select registryReport.RegistryViewId
).Contains(registryView.Id)
select registryView.Name;
The query works just fine. The only thing that I would like to avoid is the double use of the GetAll().
So, is it possible to imrove the query somehow?
I have two entities: RegistryView and Report and I have an entity which represents the many to many relationship between them RegistryReport.

Please check this one.
Code
var lstdata = registryViewRepository.GetAll();
var regitriesNames = from registryView in lstdata
where (
from registryReport in lstdata
where registryReport.ReportId == reportId
select registryReport.RegistryViewId
).Contains(registryView.Id)
select registryView.Name;

Related

Entity Framework problem with reducing projection

I've been working on improving performance for our .NET core API with EF 5.0.11 by reducing the projection of our queries, but I'm currently stuck with the following scenario:
I improved the projection of the queries like this:
var employeeEmailQuery = context.Employee
.Where(e => e.Active == true)
.Select(e => new EmployeeEmailView
{
Name = e.FullName,
Email = e.Email
});
This reduces the select query to just the two columns I need instead of a SELECT * on 80+ columns in the database.
In my database, I also have columns with translated descriptions. It looks like this:
What I would like to do is select the relevant translated description, based on the current culture, so I added the following code:
var culture = CultureInfo.DefaultThreadCurrentUICulture;
var employeeEmailQuery = context.Employee
.Where(e => e.Active == true)
.Select(e => new EmployeeEmailView
{
Name = e.FullName,
Email = e.Email,
this.SetDescription(e, culture);
});
The SetDescription method checks the culture and picks the correct column to set a Description property in the EmployeeEmailView. However, by adding this code, the query is now once again doing a SELECT *, which I don't want.
Does anybody have an idea on how to dynamically include a select column using EF without rewriting everything into raw SQL?
Thanks in advance.
I think the only way is to use an Interceptor to modify the query, or dynamically generate the EF IQueryable with Expressions.

How can I convert the following SQL query to run in entity framework?

I am new to entity framework and learning making queries. Can anyone please help me how can I convert the following SQL query to run in entity framework?
select max(isnull(TInvoice.InvoiceNr, 0)) + 1
from TInvoice inner join TOrders
on TInvoice.OrderId = TOrders.OrderId
where TOrders.ClientFirmId = 1
As comments have said, without the data model it is hard to be exact.
Would really need to see how you have defined your relations in your data model.
I guess from first read my first impression is something along the lines of:
int max = context.TInvoice.Where(x => x.TOrders.ClientFirmId == 1).Max(x => x.InvoiceNr);

How to simplify this LINQ to Entities Query to make a less horrible SQL statement from it? (contains Distinct,GroupBy and Count)

I have this SQL expression:
SELECT Musclegroups.Name, COUNT(DISTINCT Workouts.WorkoutID) AS Expr1
FROM Workouts INNER JOIN
Series ON Workouts.WorkoutID = Series.WorkoutID INNER JOIN
Exercises ON Series.ExerciseID = Exercises.ExerciseID INNER JOIN
Musclegroups ON Musclegroups.MusclegroupID = Exercises.MusclegroupID
GROUP BY Musclegroups.Name
Since Im working on a project which uses EF in a WCF Ria LinqToEntitiesDomainService, I have to query this with LINQ (If this isn't a must then pls inform me).
I made this expression:
var WorkoutCountPerMusclegroup = (from s in ObjectContext.Series1
join w in ObjectContext.Workouts on s.WorkoutID equals w.WorkoutID
where w.UserID.Equals(userid) && w.Type.Equals("WeightLifting")
group s by s.Exercise.Musclegroup into g
select new StringKeyIntValuePair
{
TestID = g.Select(n => n.Exercise.MusclegroupID).FirstOrDefault(),
Key = g.Select(n => n.Exercise.Musclegroup.Name).FirstOrDefault(),
Value = g.Select(n => n.WorkoutID).Distinct().Count()
});
The StringKeyIntValuePair is just a custom Entity type I made so I can send down the info to the Silverlight client. Also this is why I need to set an "TestID" for it, as it is an entity and it needs one.
And the problem is, that this linq query produces this horrible SQL statement:
http://pastebay.com/144532
I suppose there is a better way to query this information, a better linq expression maybe. Or is it possible to just query with plain SQL somehow?
EDIT:
I realized that the TestID is unnecessary because the other property named "Key" (the one on which Im grouping) becomes the key of the group, so it will be a key also. And after this, my query looks like this:
var WorkoutCountPerMusclegroup = (from s in ObjectContext.Series1
join w in ObjectContext.Workouts on s.WorkoutID equals w.WorkoutID
where w.UserID.Equals(userid) && w.Type.Equals("WeightLifting")
group w.WorkoutID by s.Exercise.Musclegroup.Name into g
select new StringKeyIntValuePair
{
Key = g.Key,
Value = g.Select(n => n).Distinct().Count()
});
This produces the following SQL: http://pastebay.com/144545
This seems far better then the previous sql statement of the half-baked linq query.
But is this good enough? Or this is the boundary of LinqToEntities capabilities, and if I want even more clear sql, I should make another DomainService which operates with LinqToSQL or something else?
Or the best way would be using a stored procedure, that returns Rowsets? If so, is there a best practice to do this asynchronously, like a simple WCF Ria DomainService query?
I would like to know best practices as well.
Compiling of lambda expression linq can take a lot of time (3–30s), especially using group by and then FirstOrDefault (for left inner joins meaning only taking values from the first row in the group).
The generated sql excecution might not be that bad but the compilation using DbContext which cannot be precompiled with .NET 4.0.
As an example 1 something like:
var q = from a in DbContext.A
join b ... into bb from b in bb.DefaultIfEmtpy()
group new { a, b } by new { ... } into g
select new
{
g.Key.Name1
g.Sum(p => p.b.Salary)
g.FirstOrDefault().b.SomeDate
};
Each FirstOrDefault we added in one case caused +2s compile time which added up 3 times = 6s only to compile not load data (which takes less than 500ms). This basically destroys your application's usability. The user will be waiting many times for no reason.
The only way we found so far to speed up the compilation is to mix lambda expression with object expression (might not be the correct notation).
Example 2: refactoring of previous example 1.
var q = (from a in DbContext.A
join b ... into bb from b in bb.DefaultIfEmtpy()
select new { a, b })
.GroupBy(p => new { ... })
.Select(g => new
{
g.Key.Name1
g.Sum(p => p.b.Salary)
g.FirstOrDefault().b.SomeDate
});
The above example did compile a lot faster than example 1 in our case but still not fast enough so the only solution for us in response-critical areas is to revert to native SQL (to Entities) or using views or stored procedures (in our case Oracle PL/SQL).
Once we have time we are going to test if precompilation works in .NET 4.5 and/or .NET 5.0 for DbContext.
Hope this helps and we can get other solutions.

How can I recreate this complex SQL Query using NHibernate QueryOver?

Imagine the following (simplified) database layout:
We have many "holiday" records that relate to going to a particular Accommodation on a certain date etc.
I would like to pull from the database the "best" holiday going to each accommodation (i.e. lowest price), given a set of search criteria (e.g. duration, departure airport etc).
There will be multiple records with the same price, so then we need to choose by offer saving (descending), then by departure date ascending.
I can write SQL to do this that looks like this (I'm not saying this is necessarily the most optimal way):
SELECT *
FROM Holiday h1 INNER JOIN (
SELECT h2.HolidayID,
h2.AccommodationID,
ROW_NUMBER() OVER (
PARTITION BY h2.AccommodationID
ORDER BY OfferSaving DESC
) AS RowNum
FROM Holiday h2 INNER JOIN (
SELECT AccommodationID,
MIN(price) as MinPrice
FROM Holiday
WHERE TradeNameID = 58001
/*** Other Criteria Here ***/
GROUP BY AccommodationID
) mp
ON mp.AccommodationID = h2.AccommodationID
AND mp.MinPrice = h2.price
WHERE TradeNameID = 58001
/*** Other Criteria Here ***/
) x on h1.HolidayID = x.HolidayID and x.RowNum = 1
As you can see, this uses a subquery within another subquery.
However, for several reasons my preference would be to achieve this same result in NHibernate.
Ideally, this would be done with QueryOver - the reason being that I build up the search criteria dynamically and this is much easier with QueryOver's fluent interface. (I had started out hoping to use NHibernate Linq, but unfortunately it's not mature enough).
After a lot of effort (being a relative newbie to NHibernate) I was able to re-create the very inner query that fetches all accommodations and their min price.
public IEnumerable<HolidaySearchDataDto> CriteriaFindAccommodationFromPricesForOffers(IEnumerable<IHolidayFilter<PackageHoliday>> filters, int skip, int take, out bool hasMore)
{
IQueryOver<PackageHoliday, PackageHoliday> queryable = NHibernateSession.CurrentFor(NHibernateSession.DefaultFactoryKey).QueryOver<PackageHoliday>();
queryable = queryable.Where(h => h.TradeNameId == website.TradeNameID);
var accommodation = Null<Accommodation>();
var accommodationUnit = Null<AccommodationUnit>();
var dto = Null<HolidaySearchDataDto>();
// Apply search criteria
foreach (var filter in filters)
queryable = filter.ApplyFilter(queryable, accommodationUnit, accommodation);
var query1 = queryable
.JoinQueryOver(h => h.AccommodationUnit, () => accommodationUnit)
.JoinQueryOver(h => h.Accommodation, () => accommodation)
.SelectList(hols => hols
.SelectGroup(() => accommodation.Id).WithAlias(() => dto.AccommodationId)
.SelectMin(h => h.Price).WithAlias(() => dto.Price)
);
var list = query1.OrderByAlias(() => dto.Price).Asc
.Skip(skip).Take(take+1)
.Cacheable().CacheMode(CacheMode.Normal).List<object[]>();
// Cacheing doesn't work this way...
/*.TransformUsing(Transformers.AliasToBean<HolidaySearchDataDto>())
.Cacheable().CacheMode(CacheMode.Normal).List<HolidaySearchDataDto>();*/
hasMore = list.Count() == take;
var dtos = list.Take(take).Select(h => new HolidaySearchDataDto
{
AccommodationId = (string)h[0],
Price = (decimal)h[1],
});
return dtos;
}
So my question is...
Any ideas on how to achieve what I want using QueryOver, or if necessary Criteria API?
I'd prefer not to use HQL but if it is necessary than I'm willing to see how it can be done with that too (it makes it harder (or more messy) to build up the search criteria though).
If this just isn't doable using NHibernate, then I could use a SQL query. In which case, my question is can the SQL be improved/optimised?
I have manage to achieve such dynamic search criterion by using Criteria API's. Problem I ran into was duplicates with inner and outer joins and especially related to sorting and pagination, and I had to resort to using 2 queries, 1st query for restriction and using the result of 1st query as 'in' clause in 2nd creteria.

Limit models to select

I have a database table called Event which in CakePHP has its relationships coded to like so:
var $belongsTo = array('Sport');
var $hasOne = array('Result', 'Point', 'Writeup', 'Timetable', 'Photo');
Now am doing a query and only want to pull out Sport, Point, and Timetable
Which would result in me retrieving Sports, Events, Points, and Timetable.
Reason for not pulling everything is due the results having 17000+ rows.
Is there a way to only select those tables using:
$this->Event->find('all');
I have had a look at the API but can't see how its done.
You should set recursive to -1 in your app_model and only pull the things you require. never use recursive of 2 and http://book.cakephp.org/view/1323/Containable is awesome.
just $this->Event->find('all', array('contain' => array()));
if you do the trick of recursive as -1 in app_model, this is not needed, if would just be find('all') like you have