Can someone please have a look at my code, I think there must be a way to optimize the foreach piece of code?
I have a database with Artists, each artist has multiple songTitles (called Titles), and each Title can have multiple Meanings.
Artist [1..*] Title [1..*] Meaning [0..*]
I want to find the count of Meanings, per Title, for an Artist, and return it as a new ViewModel List.
public class TitleVM
{
public int TitleID { get; set; }
public int MeaningCount { get; set; }
}
public List<TitleVM> GetTitlesByArtistID(int artistID)
{
//find the artist by ID
var titles = context.Titles.Where(x => x.ArtistID == artistID);
//create new VMList to be returned
var titleVMList = new List<TitleVM>();
//loop through each title,
foreach (var item in titles)
{
//find the number of meanings,
var count = 0;
if (item.Meanings != null && item.Meanings.Count > 0)
{
count = item.Meanings.Count();
}
// and map it to VM, add to list
titleVMList.Add(new TitleVM
{
TitleID = TitleID,
MeaningCount = count
});
}
return titleVMList;
}
I thought mapping it would be easiest, but have no idea how to map a viewmodel with lists in this way.
In my project I use Omu.ValueInjecter for mapping basic models, because Automapper needs full trust to run, and my host doesn't allow it.
Let me know if more information is needed.
Ok I read that its better to do an .AddRange then adding the the item with .Add each time.
I got my code down to the below:
public int CountMeanings(IEnumerable<Meaning> meanings)
{
if (meanings != null && meanings.Count() > 0)
return meanings.Count();
return 0;
}
public List<TitleVM> GetTitlesByArtistID(int artistID)
{
var titleVMList = new List<TitleVM>();
var titles = context.Titles.Where(x => x.ArtistID == artistID).AsEnumerable();
titleVMList.AddRange(titles.Select(item => new TitleVM {
TitleID = item.TitleID,
MeaningCount = CountMeanings(item.Meanings)
}));
return titleVMList;
}
Related
I have made a small class, which inherits from DataGrid and takes in classes that derive from a specific interface:
public class RecordDataGrid<T> : DataGrid where T : IRecord
{
public RecordDataGrid()
{
this.AutoGenerateColumns = false;
this.CanUserAddRows = false;
this.CanUserDeleteRows = false;
this.CanUserResizeRows = false;
this.IsReadOnly = true;
this.SelectionMode = DataGridSelectionMode.Single;
this.Margin = new System.Windows.Thickness(0, 10, 0, 0);
var propertyInfos = typeof(T).GetProperties();
var list = new Dictionary<PropertyInfo, DataGridColumnAttribute>();
foreach (var propertyInfo in propertyInfos)
{
var customAttributes = propertyInfo.GetCustomAttributes(true);
foreach (var customAttr in customAttributes)
{
if (customAttr != null && customAttr is DataGridColumnAttribute)
{
list.Add(propertyInfo, (DataGridColumnAttribute)customAttr);
}
}
}
var ordered = (from entry in list orderby entry.Value.OrderIndex ascending select entry).ToDictionary(e => e.Key, e => e.Value);
foreach (var kvp in ordered)
{
var propertyInfo = kvp.Key;
var dgcAttr = kvp.Value;
var column = new DataGridTextColumn();
column.Header = dgcAttr.DisplayName;
column.Binding = new Binding(propertyInfo.Name);
column.Binding.StringFormat = dgcAttr.StringFormat ?? null;
column.Width = dgcAttr.ColumnWidthType == DataGridColumnAttribute.ColumnWidthTypes.Auto ? new DataGridLength(10, DataGridLengthUnitType.Auto) : new DataGridLength(10, DataGridLengthUnitType.Star);
this.Columns.Add(column);
}
}
}
It is very rough at the moment, just testing a few things out. The goal is to make my life easier by letting the DataGrid fill the Columns by itself, based on a custom Attribute:
public class DataGridColumnAttribute : Attribute
{
public string DisplayName { get; private set; }
public string StringFormat { get; private set; }
public ColumnWidthTypes ColumnWidthType { get; private set; }
public int OrderIndex { get; private set; }
public DataGridColumnAttribute(string displayName, int orderIndex, string stringFormat = null, ColumnWidthTypes columnWidthType = ColumnWidthTypes.Auto)
{
DisplayName = displayName;
StringFormat = stringFormat;
OrderIndex = OrderIndex;
ColumnWidthType = columnWidthType;
}
public enum ColumnWidthTypes
{
Auto,
Fill
}
}
Later on, as far as I am concerned, I should be able to use it in xaml like this:
Namespaces:
xmlns:model="clr-namespace:NickX.KswErp.Model.Classes;assembly=NickX.KswErp.Model"
xmlns:ctrl="clr-namespace:NickX.KswErp.ClientApplication.UI.Controls"
Control:
<ctrl:RecordDataGrid x:Name="_gridTransactions" x:TypeArguments="model:TransactionRecord" />
But I get following compilation error:
Only a master tag can specify the "x: TypeArguments" attribute.
(Roughly translated by google translation)
Maybe my approach is completely wrong tho. Should I do it completle in code behind. Or are there better approaches? Please let me know!
Conveniently I just found a thread in a german forum, which answeres my exact question. So people questioning the same in the future:
It is not possible. Easiest thing to do at this point is making a specific class for each model, which again derives from your generic class.
In my case:
public class TransactionDataGrid : RecordDataGrid<TransactionRecord>
{
}
Doesen't seem like a nice solution to me, and probably isn't the best way to do it. But it works.
My application has a requirement that is should be able to filter/search for Pairs by the Number of the related Contact.
A Pair always has a reference to a Contact stored, but the number of the contact is not, and will not, be stored in the reference. So I tried to create a custom index for this, because the Pair and Contact are stored in different collections.
A simplified example of the index looks like this.
public class Pairs_Search : AbstractMultiMapIndexCreationTask<Pairs_Search.Result>
{
public class Result
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Workspace { get; set; }
public ContactResult Contact { get; set; }
public bool HasContactDetails { get; set; }
}
public class ContactResult
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int Number { get; set; }
}
public Pairs_Search()
{
AddMap<Pair>(pairs => pairs
.Select(p => new
{
p.Id,
p.Workspace,
Contact = new
{
p.Contact.Id,
p.Contact.Name,
Number = 0
},
// Mark this items as WITHOUT contact details.
HasContactDetails = false,
}
)
);
AddMap<Contact>(contacts => contacts
.Select(c => new
{
Id = (string) null,
Workspace = (string) null,
Contact = new
{
c.Id,
Name = c.DisplayName,
c.Number
},
// Mark this items as WITH contact details.
HasContactDetails = true,
}
)
);
Reduce = results => results
// First group by the contact ID. This will
// create a group with 2 or more items. One with the contact
// details, and one or more with pair details.
// They are all marked by a boolean flag 'HasContactDetails'.
.GroupBy(x => x.Contact.Id)
// We are going to enrich each item in the current group, that is
// marked as 'HasContactDetails = false', with the contact number.
// We need that so that we can filter on it later.
.Select(group =>
group
.Select(i => new
{
i.Id,
i.Workspace,
Contact = new
{
i.Contact.Id,
i.Contact.Name,
// Does the current item have the contact details?
Number = i.HasContactDetails
// Yes, in this case we use the previously set contact number.
? i.Contact.Number
// No, find the item with the contact details and grab the number.
: group.Single(x => x.HasContactDetails).Contact.Number
},
// Pass on the flag that indicates wheter or not
// this item has the contact details. We are going
// to need it later.
i.HasContactDetails
}
)
// We don't need the items with the contact details
// anymore, so filter them out.
.Where(x => !x.HasContactDetails)
)
// Flatten all the small lists to one big list.
.SelectMany(x => x);
// Mark the following fields of the result as searchable.
Index(x => x.Contact.Number, FieldIndexing.Search);
}
}
I've setup a full example that reproduces the issues I am having. You can find the example here.
Creating the index works fine. Querying the index works fine also as it properly matched the pair and contact and enriched the index result with the number of the contact. But when I try to use a .Where() or .Search() on the nested Number property it fails to properly filter the result dataset from the index.
The index without any filtering works as you can see in below code example (also available in the full example).
private static async Task ThisOneWorks()
{
using (var session = Store.OpenAsyncSession())
{
var results = await session
.Query<Pairs_Search.Result, Pairs_Search>()
.ToListAsync();
LogResults("ThisOneWorks()", results);
}
// Output:
// ThisOneWorks(): Pair 'Harry Potter' with number '70'
// ThisOneWorks(): Pair 'Harry Potter' with number '70'
// ThisOneWorks(): Pair 'Hermione Granger' with number '71'
// ThisOneWorks(): Pair 'Albus Dumbledore' with number '72'
}
Filtering on a non-nested value also works (also available in the full example). As you can see it filters out the one with a different workspace.
private static async Task ThisOneWithWorkspaceFilterWorks()
{
using (var session = Store.OpenAsyncSession())
{
var results = await session
.Query<Pairs_Search.Result, Pairs_Search>()
.Where(x => x.Workspace == "hogwarts")
.ToListAsync();
LogResults("ThisOneWithWorkspaceFilterWorks()", results);
}
// Output:
// ThisOneWithWorkspaceFilterWorks(): Pair 'Harry Potter' with number '70'
// ThisOneWithWorkspaceFilterWorks(): Pair 'Harry Potter' with number '70'
// ThisOneWithWorkspaceFilterWorks(): Pair 'Hermione Granger' with number '71'
}
When I try to filter/search on the Workspace and Number properties I would expect two results that are related to the contact Harry Potter. But instead I just get an empty dataset back.
private static async Task ThisOneWithWorkspaceAndNumberFilterDoesntWork()
{
using (var session = Store.OpenAsyncSession())
{
var results = await session
.Query<Pairs_Search.Result, Pairs_Search>()
.Where(x => x.Workspace == "hogwarts")
.Where(x => x.Contact.Number == 70)
.ToListAsync();
LogResults("ThisOneWithWorkspaceAndNumberFilterDoesntWork()", results);
}
// Output:
// ThisOneWithWorkspaceAndNumberFilterDoesntWork(): EMPTY RESULTS!
}
Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here? Any help would be greatly appreciated!
The way to go about it is to store ContactResult in a different collection,
which is what is called a related document in this case,
and when you create the index then you 'Index the Related Document'
Learn from the demo example in:
https://demo.ravendb.net/demos/csharp/related-documents/index-related-documents
The example is for a basic map index but the principle is the same for Multi-Map.
Remove the public class ContactResult from the index class
and define the index with something like:
select new Result
{
....
Number = LoadDocument<Contact>(Pair.Contact).Number
....
}
I modified the "Read" operation on my Windows Azure Mobile Services Preview table (named "Item") as follows:
Javascript:
function read(query, user, request)
{
var howRead;
if(howRead == "unique")
{
var sqlUnique = "SELECT DISTINCT ? FROM Item WHERE qProjectCode = ?";
mssql.query(sqlUnique)
request.execute();
}
else if (howRead == "column")
{
var sqlColumn = "SELECT ? FROM Item WHERE qProjectCode = ?";
mssql.query(sqlColumn)
request.execute();
}
else if (howRead == "all")
{
var sqlAll = "SELECT * FROM Item WHERE qProjectCode = ?";
mssql.query(sqlAll)
request.execute();
}
}
This simply species when I want a unique list of a single column's values returned, all items in a single column, or all columns, respectively, all while limiting the read to those records with a given project code.
Right now, this works in C#, but scans the entire table (with other project codes) and always returns all columns. This is inherently inefficient.
c#
var client = new MobileServiceClient("[https path", "[key]");
var table = client.GetTable<Item>();
var query1 = table.Where(w => w.QProjectCode == qgv.projCode && w.QRecord == (int)lbRecord.Items[uStartRecordIndex]);
var query1Enum = await query1.ToEnumerableAsync();
foreach (var i in query1Enum)
{
// process data
}
How do I alter the c# code to deal with the Javascript code? Feel free to critique the overall approach, since I am not a great programmer and can always use advice!
Thanks
A few things:
In your server code, the mssql calls are not doing anything (useful). If you want to get their results, you need to pass a callback (the call is asynchronous) to it.
Most of your scenarios can be accomplished at the client side. The only for which you'll need server code is the one with the DISTINCT modifier.
For that scenario, you'll need to pass a custom parameter to the server script. You can use the WithParameters method in the MobileServiceTableQuery<T> object to define parameters to pass to the service.
Assuming this data class:
public class Item
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public string Other { get; set; }
public string ProjectCode { get; set; }
}
The code below can be used to accomplish the scenarios 2 and 3 at the client side only (no script needed at the server side). The other one will need some script, which I'll cover later.
Task<IEnumerable<string>> ReadingByColumn(IMobileServiceTable<Item> table, string projectCode)
{
return table
.Where(i => i.ProjectCode == projectCode)
.Select(i => i.Name)
.ToEnumerableAsync();
}
Task<IEnumerable<Item>> ReadingAll(IMobileServiceTable<Item> table, string projectCode)
{
return table.Where(i => i.ProjectCode == projectCode).ToEnumerableAsync();
}
Task<IEnumerable<string>> ReadingByColumnUnique(IMobileServiceTable<Item> table, string projectCode)
{
var dict = new Dictionary<string, string>
{
{ "howRead", "unique" },
{ "projectCode", projectCode },
{ "column", "Name" },
};
return table
.Select(i => i.Name)
.WithParameters(dict)
.ToEnumerableAsync();
}
Now, to support the last method (which takes the parameters, we'll need to do this on the server script:
function read(query, user, request)
{
var howRead = request.parameters.howRead;
if (howRead) {
if (howRead === 'unique') {
var column = request.parameters.column; // WARNING: CHECK FOR SQL INJECTION HERE!!! DO NOT USE THIS IN PRODUCTION!!!
var sqlUnique = 'SELECT DISTINCT ' + column + ' FROM Item WHERE ProjectCode = ?';
mssql.query(sqlUnique, [request.parameters.projectCode], {
success: function(distinctColumns) {
var results = distinctColumns.map(function(item) {
var result = [];
result[column] = item; // mapping to the object shape
return result;
});
request.respond(statusCodes.OK, results);
}
});
} else {
request.respond(statusCodes.BAD_REQUEST, {error: 'Script does not support option ' + howRead});
}
} else {
// no server-side action needed
request.execute();
}
}
I'm a new user in LINQ to SQL and I have some problems using it.
I've used LINQ to SQL Designer and I have created my classes, mapped on the DB tables.
In particular, I have one class, named voice:
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.TableAttribute(Name="dbo.voce")]
public partial class voce : INotifyPropertyChanging, INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private static PropertyChangingEventArgs emptyChangingEventArgs = new PropertyChangingEventArgs(String.Empty);
private int _id_voce;
... other private fields;
private int _category;
private EntityRef<category> _category1;
public voce()
{
this._riepilogo = new EntitySet<riepilogo>(new Action<riepilogo>(this.attach_riepilogo), new Action<riepilogo>(this.detach_riepilogo));
this._hera = default(EntityRef<hera>);
this._category1 = default(EntityRef<category>);
OnCreated();
}
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Storage="_id_voce", AutoSync=AutoSync.OnInsert, DbType="Int NOT NULL IDENTITY", IsPrimaryKey=true, IsDbGenerated=true)]
public int id_voce
{
get
{
return this._id_voce;
}
set
{
if ((this._id_voce != value))
{
this.Onid_voceChanging(value);
this.SendPropertyChanging();
this._id_voce = value;
this.SendPropertyChanged("id_voce");
this.Onid_voceChanged();
}
}
}
......
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Storage="_category", DbType="Int NOT NULL")]
public int category
{
get
{
return this._category;
}
set
{
if ((this._category != value))
{
if (this._category1.HasLoadedOrAssignedValue)
{
throw new System.Data.Linq.ForeignKeyReferenceAlreadyHasValueException();
}
this.OncategoryChanging(value);
this.SendPropertyChanging();
this._category = value;
this.SendPropertyChanged("category");
this.OncategoryChanged();
}
}
}
As you can see, voce class has a field named category that refers to a table named category.
When I add a new voce to my database, I create a new voce istance and, using the DataContext, i simply add it, using:
voce v = new voce(){...field, category1 = //create or retrieve category};
In particular, the category field is retrieved from the DB if already exists or, if not, it is inserted, before I insert the voice.
The problem is that when I add the voice in the database:
datacontext.InsertOnSubmit(v);
datacontext.SubmitChanges();
it inserts the category again, failing with the unique contraint.
How can I add a voice without adding every nested object?
Thank you and sorry for my bad English.
internal category GetCategoryFromDescription (string desc, Utility.VOICE_MODALITY mode)
{
bool type = mode == Utility.VOICE_MODALITY.ENTRATA ? true : false;
var query = from cat in dc.category
where cat.description == desc && cat.type == type
select cat;
if (query.Count() == 0)
{
category newC = new category() { description = desc };
dc.category.InsertOnSubmit(newC);
dc.SubmitChanges();
return newC;
}
else
return query.Single();
}
I'm having a Entity-Set Countries, reflecting a database table '<'char(2),char(3),nvarchar(50> in my database.
Im having a parser that returns a Country[] array of parsed countries, and is having issues with getting it updated in the right way. What i want is: Take the array of countries, for those countries not already in the database insert them, and those existing update if any fields is different. How can this be done?
void Method(object sender, DocumentLoadedEvent e)
{
var data = e.ParsedData as Country[];
using(var db = new DataContractEntities)
{
//Code missing
}
}
I was thinking something like
for(var c in data.Except(db.Countries)) but it wount work as it compares on wronge fields.
Hope anyone have had this issues before, and have a solution for me. If i cant use the Country object and insert/update an array of them easy, i dont see much benefict of using the framework, as from performers i think its faster to write a custom sql script that inserts them instead of ect checking if an country is already in the database before inserting?
Solution
See answer of post instead.
I added override equals to my country class:
public partial class Country
{
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (obj is Country)
{
var country = obj as Country;
return this.CountryTreeLetter.Equals(country.CountryTreeLetter);
}
return false;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
int hash = 13;
hash = hash * 7 + (int)CountryTreeLetter[0];
hash = hash * 7 + (int)CountryTreeLetter[1];
hash = hash * 7 + (int)CountryTreeLetter[2];
return hash;
}
}
and then did:
var data = e.ParsedData as Country[];
using (var db = new entities())
{
foreach (var item in data.Except(db.Countries))
{
db.AddToCountries(item);
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
I would do it straightforward:
void Method(object sender, DocumentLoadedEvent e)
{
var data = e.ParsedData as Country[];
using(var db = new DataContractEntities)
{
foreach(var country in data)
{
var countryInDb = db.Countries
.Where(c => c.Name == country.Name) // or whatever your key is
.SingleOrDefault();
if (countryInDb != null)
db.Countries.ApplyCurrentValues(country);
else
db.Countries.AddObject(country);
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
I don't know how often your application must run this or how many countries your world has. But I have the feeling that this is nothing where you must think about sophisticated performance optimizations.
Edit
Alternative approach which would issue only one query:
void Method(object sender, DocumentLoadedEvent e)
{
var data = e.ParsedData as Country[];
using(var db = new DataContractEntities)
{
var names = data.Select(c => c.Name);
var countriesInDb = db.Countries
.Where(c => names.Contains(c.Name))
.ToList(); // single DB query
foreach(var country in data)
{
var countryInDb = countriesInDb
.SingleOrDefault(c => c.Name == country.Name); // runs in memory
if (countryInDb != null)
db.Countries.ApplyCurrentValues(country);
else
db.Countries.AddObject(country);
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
The modern form, using later EF versions would be:
context.Entry(record).State = (AlreadyExists ? EntityState.Modified : EntityState.Added);
context.SaveChanges();
AlreadyExists can come from checking the key or by querying the database to see whether the item already exists there.
You can implement your own IEqualityComparer<Country> and pass that to the Except() method. Assuming your Country object has Id and Name properties, one example of that implementation could look like this:
public class CountryComparer : IEqualityComparer<Country>
{
public bool Equals(Country x, Country y)
{
return x.Name.Equals(y.Name) && (x.Id == y.Id);
}
public int GetHashCode(Country obj)
{
return string.Format("{0}{1}", obj.Id, obj.Name).GetHashCode();
}
}
and use it as
data.Countries.Except<Country>(db, new CountryComparer());
Although, in your case it looks like you just need to extract new objects, you can use var newCountries = data.Where(c => c.Id == Guid.Empty); if your Id is Guid.
The best way is to inspect the Country.EntityState property and take actions from there regarding on value (Detached, Modified, Added, etc.)
You need to provide more information on what your data collection contains i.e. are the Country objects retrieved from a database through the entityframework, in which case their context can be tracked, or are you generating them using some other way.
I am not sure this will be the best solution but I think you have to get all countries from DB then check it with your parsed data
void Method(object sender, DocumentLoadedEvent e)
{
var data = e.ParsedData as Country[];
using(var db = new DataContractEntities)
{
List<Country> mycountries = db.Countries.ToList();
foreach(var PC in data)
{
if(mycountries.Any( C => C.Name==PC.Name ))
{
var country = mycountries.Any( C => C.Name==PC.Name );
//Update it here
}
else
{
var newcountry = Country.CreateCountry(PC.Name);//you must provide all required parameters
newcountry.Name = PC.Name;
db.AddToCountries(newcountry)
}
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
}