If Not m_Batchs Is Nothing Then
For Each Batch In m_Batchs
newListItem = lstWsJobs.Items.Add(Batch.Id.ToString)
With newListItem
.Name = Batch.Id.ToString()
.SubItems.Add(Batch.JobId.ToString)
.SubItems.Add(Batch.Complete.ToString)
.SubItems.Add(Batch.User)
.SubItems.Add(Batch.Time.ToString)
End With
Next
End If
I have this list view (which is working fine) and i want to find an efficient way of populating it in a specific order, ie by date, by identity etc.
I know i can use linq but as i understand this is inefficient. If m_batchs is a large list of objects then i will looping through this list many, many time (as linq behind the scenes loops through the object collection).
Any ideas?
LINQ is not inefficient in general but almost always it's easier to read and faster to implement, change and extend. Also, does it really matter if one approach is 1 millisecond faster on 1000 iterations?
So i assume that Batch is a custom type and m_Batchs is a List<Batch>:
// order by date
var query = m_Batchs.OrderBy(b => b.Time);
// order by identity
query = m_Batchs.OrderBy(b => b.ID);
// ...
Measure the difference between this simple LINQ query and your custom implementation.
Edit: Sorry, that was C#
Dim batchByTime = m_Batchs.OrderBy(Function(b) b.Time);
Dim batchByID = m_Batchs.OrderBy(Function(b) b.ID);
Related
I would like to know how I can convert elements of a column of a DataTable to a list of type string, grouping the elements to avoid repetition.
For example my DataTable would look like this
DataTable
and I want to make a list containing the elements of only "User" without repeating itself using LINQ.
The code I was trying to use is
InvoiceList = InvoiceDT.AsEnumerable().GroupBy(Function(r) r("User").ToString).ToList(Function(g) g.ToList())
But it doesn't work for me since I am new to LINQ and still have problems forming the structures.
I'd use this:
InvoiceList = InvoiceDT.AsEnumerable().Select(Function(r) r("User").ToString()).Distinct().ToList()
If you wanted a GroupBy solution it's
InvoiceList = InvoiceDT.AsEnumerable().GroupBy(Function(r) r("User").ToString()).Select(Function(g) g.Key).ToList()
Where your code went wrong was in trying to pass a delegate to ToList; it doesn't take one (and you wouldn't ToList the g either, as it's a list of data rows with all varying properties).
To reshape our IGrouping (something like a list of objects that all share the same Key, which is a property of the list that the IGrouping represents) produced by the groupby into a sequence of string Keys we Select the Key, and then ToList that
There is a lot of back and forthing between developers over things like ToList vs ToArray - some people universally use ToList because, for collections of an unknown number of elements, both list and array will grow and resize repeatedly in the same way but using ToArray requires one additional resizing step at the end to trim off any unused slots. Mostly that's trivial in terms of an overall performance consideration and should be weighed against the benefit of releasing the memory with the trim. Getting into finer details is way beyond the scope of this answer but you can read some huge blog posts about it.
I personally think it's more important to generate sensible code by calling the method that results in the relevant type depending on what you plan to do with it; I ToList if I need List functionality (add/insert/remove).. I prefer ToArray if an array suits the follow-on purposes (read/write/random access, no insert or delete), and if I'll only ever enumerate it I don't To... anything at all - I just ForEach the result of the query, which can give a bigger performance boost than anything else because it means I may not have to enumerate the entire set (if I stop early) or allocate memory all at once for doing so (if I'm writing to a socket or file)
On the use of ToString; it's worth avoiding if you think you'll fall into a pattern where you do it on every column just to get a string. If the column is already a string it's an acceptable way to get the object that DataRow.Item gives you, into a string. If the column is another type it's better to cast it:
DirectCast(r("Age"), Integer)
r.Field(Of Integer)("Age")
Thing is, it's verbose, and ugly, and intellisense doesn't help you out with writing Age or knowing it's an Int. LINQ in VB is bad enough for verbosity without pouring gas on that fire. If you're working with datatables of a known structure, it's a lot nicer if you make strongly typed ones:
Add a new file of type DataSet to your project
Open it so the design surface appears. In the properties grid call it something reasonable, such as AccountsDataSet
Right click, Add Table, call it Invoices
Right click the emppty table, Add Column, call it User
Then use it like:
Dim dt as new AccountsDataSet.InvoicesDataTable
Populate it like:
dt.AddInvoicesRow("John Smith", ... other properties here)
Query it like:
dt.Select(Function(r) r.User).Distinct()
Much nicer than accessing column names by string, and having them be objects that need casting..
Consider the dataset generator as a way to quickly, visually, create poco classes with named, typed properties
Try this
dim list as List(of string) = InvoiceDT.Rows.
Cast(of DataRow)().
Select(Function(r) r("User").ToString()).
Distinct().
ToList()
Here you cast Row collection as IEnumerable(of DataRow), rest is trivial
I'm just looking to be able to sort the results of a BatchedJoinBlock (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh194683.aspx) so that the different results of the different targets stay together. I will explain! Example in some pseudo-code:
Dim batchedJoin = New BatchedJoinBlock(Of String, object)(4)
batchedJoin.Target1.Post("String1Target1")
batchedJoin.Target2.Post(CType(BuildIt, StringBuilder1))
batchedJoin.Target1.Post("String1Target2")
batchedJoin.Target2.Post(CType(BuildIt, StringBuilder2))
Dim results = batchedJoin.Receive()
'This sorts one result...
Dim SortByResult = results.Item1.OrderBy(Function(item) item.ToString, New NaturalStringComparer)
Basically I've got a string and an object, the SortByResult variable above sorts the strings exactly as I'd like them to sort. I'm looking for a way to get the objects that used to be at the same index number in target2 into the same order. e.g. if "String1Target1" changes order I'd like to somehow reliably refer to/pair it together with "StringBuilder1". The actual end result just needs to be that the objects (target2) are sorted in the order that is dictated by the strings being sorted (target1). Something like:
Dim EndResult = results.Item2.OrderBy(strings in target1)
but I'll gladly take an intermediate solution! I've also tried using a dictionary (results.Item2.ToDictionary) with the string as a key (which would also be a fine solution) but it's a bit beyond my ken using lamba expressions in the proper context. I can realistically do this in several steps with a list or something, but I'm trying to get something more efficient/learn something, and it seems like there's a lot of default options with the results of the jointblock that I'm just not experienced enough to use. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!
To me, it looks like you don't actually want BatchedJoinBlock, because the two pieces of data always come together. A better option for that would be a BatchBlock of Tuple<string, object>. When you have that, you can then use LINQ directly to sort each batch:
results.OrderBy(Function(tuple) tuple.Item1)
I declared my Array:
Dim invoice_discountitems(100, 100) As String
Set Values into array:
For i As Int16 = 0 To data_set.Tables("discount_items").Rows.Count - 1
invoice_discountitems(i, 1) = data_set.Tables("discount_items").Rows(0).Item("item_code")
invoice_discountitems(i, 2) = data_set.Tables("discount_items").Rows(0).Item("discountitem_average")
Next
Now I try to find a single value:
Dim res As String
res = Array.IndexOf(invoice_discountitems, "FO1506")
MsgBox(res)
But, I get this error :(
"Only single dimension arrays are supported here"
This is a fundamentally wrong approach - for a number of reasons
You're treating ALL the data points as Strings
You're not taking advantage of DB optimisations like indices
You're loading data into memory that you're never going to use (at least int he example)
The Nicest way to do it would be with Linq-To-Entities:
Dim Record = MyDBContext.Discount_Items.Where(function(x) x.ItemCode = "FO1506").Single
Console.WriteLine(Record.discountitem_average);
If you're stuck with your current Data Access Layer, you need to modify the SQL being executed to only return the information you're interested in. Without more information, I can't provide decent example code but you want the SQL to end up looking like this...
SELECT itemcode,
discountitem_average,
[Other fields],
FROM MyDatabase.M
EDIT: To Clarify, there are a number of ways to access data in a database. The one I prefer is LINQ-To-Entities (Have a look through this tutorial).
In short, you add a new Item to your project and point it at your database. This becomes your "Database Context" - it represents the database and that's how you run queries.
Project -> Add -> New Item...
Select ADO.Net Entity Data Model (Linq-To-Entities is almost Identical to Linq-To-Sql but more recent and better supported - use Entities until you know the difference)
Call it something like MyDBContext
When prompted, choose "Generate From Database" and point it at your database.
It's worth noting that the designer takes advantage of information in the database like Foreign Key Constraints - So the better your database is designed, the better the model it will create.
Then, you refer to it in code as shown in my first example.
First of all IndexOf return int as index!
To get the index of string
Try:
Dim i As int
Dim j As int
i = Array.IndexOf(invoice_discountitems.OfType(Of String)().ToArray(), "FO1506")
j = i MOD 100
i= i/100
MsgBox(i+" "+j)
(I use c# but I think it's not different)
Given a datatable containing two columns like this:
Private Function CreateDataTable() As DataTable
Dim customerTable As New DataTable("Customers")
customerTable.Columns.Add(New DataColumn("Id", GetType(System.Int32)))
customerTable.Columns.Add(New DataColumn("Name", GetType(System.String)))
Dim row1 = customerTable.NewRow()
row1.Item("Id") = 1
row1.Item("Name") = "Customer 1"
customerTable.Rows.Add(row1)
Dim row2 = customerTable.NewRow()
row2.Item("Id") = 2
row2.Item("Name") = "Customer 2"
customerTable.Rows.Add(row2)
Dim row3 = customerTable.NewRow()
row3.Item("Id") = 3
row3.Item("Name") = "Customer 3"
customerTable.Rows.Add(row3)
Return customerTable
End Function
Would you use this snippet to retrieve a List(Of Integer) containing all Id's:
Dim table = CreateDataTable()
Dim list1 As New List(Of Integer)
For i As Integer = 0 To table.Rows.Count - 1
list1.Add(CType(table.Rows(i)("Id"), Integer))
Next
Or rather this one:
Dim list2 = (From r In table.AsEnumerable _
Select r.Field(Of Integer)("Id")).ToList()
This is not a question about whether to type cast the Id column to Integer by using .Field(Of Integer), CType, CInt, DirectCast or whatever but generally about whether or not you choose Linq over forloops as the subject implies.
For those who are interested: I ran some iterations with both versions which resulted in the following performance graph:
graph http://dnlmpq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pOeqhqQ5neNRMs8YpLRlb_l8IS_sQYswJkg17q8i1K3SjTjgsE4O97Re_idshf2BxhpGdgHTD2aWNKjyVKWrQmB0J1FffQoWh/analysis.png?psid=1
The vertical axis shows the milliseconds it took the code to convert the rows' ids into a generic list with the number of rows shown on the horizontal axis. The blue line resulted from the imperative approach (forloop), the red line from the declarative code (linq).
Whatever way you generally choose: Why do you go that way and not the other?
Whenever possible I favor the declarative way of programming instead of imperative. When you use a declarative approach the CLR can optimize the code based on the characteristics of the machine. For example if it has multiple cores it could parallelize the execution while if you use an imperative for loop you are basically locking this possibility. Today maybe there's no big difference but I think that in the future more and more extensions like PLINQ will appear allowing better optimization.
I avoid linq unless it helps readability a lot, because it completely destroys edit-and-continue.
When they fix that, I will probably start using it more, because I do like the syntax a lot for some things.
For almost everything I've done I've come to the conclusion that LINQ is optimized enough. If I handcrafted a for loop it would have better performance, but in the grand scheme of things we are usually talking milliseconds. Since I rarely have a situation where those milliseconds will make any kind of impact, I find it's much more important to have readable code with clear intentions. I would much rather have a call that is 50ms slower than have someone come along and break it altogether!
Resharper has a cool feature that will flag and convert loops into Linq expressions. I will flip it to the Linq version and see if that hurts or helps readability. If the Linq expression more clearly communicates the intent of the code, I will go with that. If the Linq expression is unreadable, I will flip back to the foreach version.
Most of the performance issues don't really compare with readability for me.
Clarity trumps cleverness.
In the above example, I would go with the the Linq version since it clearly explains the intent and also locks out people accidently adding side effects in the loop.
I recently found myself wondering whether I've been totally spoiled by LINQ. Yes, I now use it all the time to pick all sort of things out from all sort of collections.
I started to, but found out in some cases, I saved time by using this approach:
for (var i = 0, len = list.Count; i < len; i++) { .. }
Not necessarily in all cases, but some. Most extension methods use the foreach approach of querying.
I try to follow these rules:
Whenever I'm just querying (filtering, projecting, ...) collections, use LINQ.
As soon as I'm actually 'doing' something with the result (i.e, introduce side effects), I'll use a for loop.
So in this example, I'll use LINQ.
Also, I always try to split up the 'query definition' from the 'query evaluation':
Dim query = From r In table.AsEnumerable()
Select r.Field(Of Integer)("Id")
Dim result = query.ToList()
This makes it clear when that (in this case in-memory) query will be evaluated.
I want to update a custom user field in QC using the Label of field instead of the name
At the moment we are doing it this way
Set currentRun = QCUtil.CurrentRun
currentRun.Field("RN_USER_03") = 1
currentRun.Post
But I would like to do it this way
Set currentRun = QCUtil.CurrentRun
currentRun.Field("Data Rows Passed") = 4
currentRun.Post
But I can't find the method to do it with.
Any Ideas?
Implying all labels are unique (which I doubt..):
You could create a function which accepts a label, searches in QC's tables that define customized fields for the correct field definition, and returns the field name. Then use the function's result value as the indexed property's index.
Suppose that function would be called "GetNameOfLabel", then the Caller's code would look like:
Set currentRun = QCUtil.CurrentRun
currentRun.Field(GetNameOfLabel ("Data Rows Passed")) = 1
currentRun.Post
Of course, the function would not really be trivial, but easy enough after some digging in the QC data model and finding an efficient way to fetch the name from the DB via SQL.
Or, the function could look up the name in an array, or a dictionary, then you would have to maintain that dictionary, but you would not have to go to the database for each lookup.
Disadventages:
Scripts with the wrong label might be harder to be debug
If labels are not unique, it might be real "fun" to debug
If looking up on the DB:
All scripts slow down if you don't cache, or pre-load, SQL query results for those lookups;
complexity, as you have to do the right SQL query, and you depend on QC's data model in a quite peculiar way (usually a horror when you're upgrading)
If looking up in an array, or dictionary:
You either must maintain its initialization (bet other admin guys adding a cust field will forget that easily), or must "load" it from QC's table (which is a bit like the SQL solution above, and has the same downsides).
I'd go with the array/dictionary-initialized-from-db-idea. Or, if you can live with the constant idea already presented, that one is a good bet. Considering that there is no session-independent scope in QCs customizing scripts, the SQL access idea might really kill performance because it would have to be executed for every new user session. Which is why I, too, +1'd the constant idea.
Look at this:
Dim gFieldLabelToNameDICT: Set gFieldLabelToNameDICT = CreateObject("Scripting.Dictionary")
gFieldLabelToNameDICT.CompareMode = vbTextCompare
Function GetNameOfLabel (strFieldLabel)
' If it doesn't exist yet in fieldLabelToName dict -> search it using TDC and add it to the list to improve performance
If Not gFieldLabelToNameDICT.Exists(strFieldLabel) Then
Dim testSetFields As List
Dim testSetFields: Set testSetFields = QCUtil.QCConnection.Customization.Fields.Fields("RUN")
For Each aField in testSetFields
If aField.UserLabel = strFieldLabel Then
gFieldLabelToNameDICT.Item(strFieldLabel) = aField.ColumnName
End If
Next aField
End If
GetNameOfLabel = gFieldLabelToNameDICT.Item(strFieldLabel)
End Function
Maybe you shall want to add some more error handling, such us considering the case that the label is not found.