I've some 37K documents stored in Mongo that looks similar to these:
{
"_id" : GUID,
"Country" : "Germany",
"TypeIds" : [47]
}
{
"_id" : GUID,
"Country" : "France",
"TypeIds" : [54, 47]
}
Using the MongoDB C# driver, and based on the two example records, how can I query for the following information:
All documents that have TypeIds containing 47 or 54 - should result in 2 records
All documents that have TypeIds containing 47 AND 54 - should result in 1 records
All documents that have TypeIds containing 54 AND a Country of 'Germany' - should result in 0 records
Thanks,
Kieron
You have class like this(i just instead of guid use GuidId.ToString()):
public class Test
{
public Test()
{
TypeIds = new List<int>();
}
[BsonId]
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Country { get; set; }
public List<int> TypeIds { get; set; }
}
i've inserted rows into db according above documents
var collection = db.Database.GetCollection("items");
var id1 = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
var id2 = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
var test = new Test() { Id = id1, Country = "Germany" };
test.TypeIds.Add(47);
var test2 = new Test() { Id = id2, Country = "France" };
test2.TypeIds.Add(54);
test2.TypeIds.Add(47);
collection.Insert(test);
collection.Insert(test2);
Queries:
//All documents that have TypeIds containing 47 or 54 - should result in 2 records
var array = new List<int>() { 47, 54 };
var condition1 = collection.FindAs<Test>(Query.In("TypeIds", BsonArray.Create(array))).ToList();
//All documents that have TypeIds containing 54 AND a Country of 'Germany' - should result in 0 records
var condition3 = collection.FindAs<Test>(Query.And(Query.EQ("TypeIds", 47), Query.EQ("Country", "Germany"))).ToList();
Update:
I found way to do second condition:
//All documents that have TypeIds containing 47 AND 54 - should result in 1 records
var array2 = new List<int>() { 47, 54 };
var query = Query.All("TypeIds",BsonArray.Create(array2));
var condition2 = collection.FindAs<Test>(query).ToList();
Related
I have the following code:
public class WorkOrderByUserId : AbstractMultiMapIndexCreationTask<WorkOrderByUserId.Result>
{
public WorkOrderByUserId()
{
this.AddMap<WorkOrder>(items
=> from item in items
select new Result
{
OwnerId = item.OwnerId,
WorkOrder = new WorkOrderLookupDto
{
Id = item.Id,
Name = item.EventName
},
WorkOrders = null
});
this.AddMap<Invoice>(items
=> from item in items
select new Result
{
OwnerId = item.WorkOrder.OwnerId,
WorkOrder = new WorkOrderLookupDto
{
Id = item.WorkOrder.Id,
Name = item.WorkOrder.EventName
},
WorkOrders = null
});
this.Reduce = results => from result in results
group result by result.OwnerId
into g
select new Result
{
OwnerId = g.Key,
WorkOrders = g.Select(x => x.WorkOrder),
WorkOrder = null
};
this.Indexes.Add(x => x.OwnerId, FieldIndexing.Default);
}
public class Result
{
public string OwnerId { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<WorkOrderLookupDto> WorkOrders { get; set; }
public WorkOrderLookupDto WorkOrder { get; set; }
}
}
It gets me very close to where I want to be, however I seem to be missing something and I'm losing information and I'm not sure why.
Using the Map/Reduce Visualizer I notice the MAP is displaying the Results (i.e. WorkOrders is populated, and WorkOrder is null)
As this point I was expecting to have a bunch of items with NULL WorkOrders and a valid WorkOrder, which I expected to reduce down into the WorkOrders collection.
When I look at the final reduce in the visualizer, I notice my WorkOrder is NULL and my WorkOrders are missing entirely.
And when I look at the FINAL result of the Index I see what I'm looking for, just without the actual data I'm looking for.
What do I need to change to get my final WorkOrders to NOT be NULL?
I was able to get my desired result using the following code:
public class WorkOrderByUserId : AbstractMultiMapIndexCreationTask<WorkOrderByUserId.Result>
{
public WorkOrderByUserId()
{
this.AddMap<WorkOrder>(items
=> from item in items
select new Result
{
OwnerId = item.OwnerId,
WorkOrders = new[]
{
new WorkOrderLookupDto
{
Id = item.Id,
Name = item.EventName
}
}
});
this.AddMap<Invoice>(items
=> from item in items
select new Result
{
OwnerId = item.WorkOrder.OwnerId,
WorkOrders = new[]
{
new WorkOrderLookupDto
{
Id = item.WorkOrder.Id,
Name = item.WorkOrder.EventName
}
}
});
this.Reduce = results => from result in results
group result by result.OwnerId
into g
select new Result
{
OwnerId = g.Key,
WorkOrders = g.SelectMany(x => x.WorkOrders)
};
this.Indexes.Add(x => x.OwnerId, FieldIndexing.Default);
}
public class Result
{
public string OwnerId { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<WorkOrderLookupDto> WorkOrders { get; set; }
}
}
ID Name from to
001-1 ABC 2015/05/01 2015/05/31
001-1 ABC 2015/06/01 2015/07/15
003-2 DEF 2015/05/01 2015/05/11
002-1 LMN 2015/05/01 2015/06/15
002-1 LMN 2015/06/16 2015/07/31
003-2 DEF 2015/06/01 2015/07/15
004-5 GHI 2015/05/11 2015/05/15
I want to have merge the records into one which matching the period from 2015/05/15 to 2015/07/15 like the following result in datable.
ID Name from to
001-1 ABC 2015/05/01 2015/07/15
002-1 LMN 2015/05/01 2015/07/31
003-2 and 004-5 are not in new datatable as they are not in the require range.
How can I get this? I only know very basic knowledge about LINQ and it's very fresh to me. thx.
With this class / data as a mockup:
class Item
{
public string ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public DateTime From { get; set; }
public DateTime To { get; set; }
}
List<Item> items = new List<Item> {
new Item { ID = "001-1", Name = "ABC",
From = DateTime.Parse("2015/05/01"),
To = DateTime.Parse("2015/05/31") },
new Item { ID = "001-1", Name = "ABC",
From = DateTime.Parse("2015/06/01"),
To = DateTime.Parse("2015/07/15") },
new Item { ID = "003-2", Name = "DEF",
From = DateTime.Parse("2015/05/01"),
To = DateTime.Parse("2015/05/11") },
new Item { ID = "002-1", Name = "LMN",
From = DateTime.Parse("2015/05/01"),
To = DateTime.Parse("2015/06/15") },
new Item { ID = "002-1", Name = "LMN",
From = DateTime.Parse("2015/06/16"),
To = DateTime.Parse("2015/07/31") },
new Item { ID = "003-2", Name = "DEF",
From = DateTime.Parse("2015/06/01"),
To = DateTime.Parse("2015/07/15") },
new Item { ID = "004-5", Name = "GHI",
From = DateTime.Parse("2015/05/11"),
To = DateTime.Parse("2015/05/15") }
};
you can use the following linq query to get the desired result set:
var result = from i in items
orderby i.From
group i by new { i.ID, i.Name } into iGroup
where iGroup.First().From <= DateTime.Parse("2015/05/15") &&
iGroup.Last().To >= DateTime.Parse("2015/07/1") &&
(iGroup.Last().To - iGroup.First().From).Days + 1 ==
iGroup.Sum(g => (g.To - g.From).Days + 1)
select new Item
{
ID = iGroup.Key.ID,
Name = iGroup.Key.Name,
From = iGroup.First().From,
To = iGroup.Last().To
};
You can adjust datetime comparisons to fit your actual requirement. In the above linq query I am comparing the smallest From date and the largest To date of each group to the matching period dates.
This comparison:
(iGroup.Last().To - iGroup.First().From).Days + 1 ==
iGroup.Sum(g => (g.To - g.From).Days + 1)
checks for groups that have no gaps in their date ranges.
EDIT:
If the source data is stored in a DataTable such as:
DataTable items = new DataTable();
items.Columns.Add("ID", typeof(string));
items.Columns.Add("Name", typeof(string));
items.Columns.Add("From", typeof(DateTime));
items.Columns.Add("To", typeof(DateTime));
then the linq query becomes a bit more complicated:
var q = from i in items.AsEnumerable()
orderby i.Field<DateTime>("From")
group i by new { ID = i.Field<string>("ID"), Name = i.Field<string>("Name") } into iGroup
where iGroup.First().Field<DateTime>("From") <= DateTime.Parse("2015/05/15") &&
iGroup.Last().Field<DateTime>("To") >= DateTime.Parse("2015/07/1") &&
(iGroup.Last().Field<DateTime>("To") - iGroup.First().Field<DateTime>("From")).Days + 1 ==
iGroup.Sum(g => (g.Field<DateTime>("To") - g.Field<DateTime>("From")).Days + 1)
select new
{
ID = iGroup.Key.ID,
Name = iGroup.Key.Name,
From = iGroup.First().Field<DateTime>("From"),
To = iGroup.Last().Field<DateTime>("To")
};
The above query returns an IEnumerable of anonymous type. It can be converted back to a DataTable using Reflection (see this post for example).
I have a problem to implement a boolean logic with Hibernate Search Filter.
There are persons that can be part of groups. Every group has a status from status catalog.
I need to filter all the users that are in group 1 and have status 2. For that I'm using a boolean query with Occur.MUST for both clauses, but in the filtered result are included persons that has list of grops and one of them is 1 and one of the statuses of the group is 2, for example:
person | group | status
105 (1) 3
105 2 3
105 3 (2)
188 (1) 3
188 7 (2)
197 (1) 4
197 8 5
197 9 (2)
The users 105, 188 and 197 has not to be included in the filtered result. What is the correct way to accomplsh that?
Filter:
BooleanQuery bq = new BooleanQuery();
TermQuery tqGroup = new TermQuery(new Term("groupPersons.id.groupId", "1"));
TermQuery tqStatus = new TermQuery(new Term("groupPersons.status.id", "2"));
bq.add(tqGroup, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
bq.add(tqStatus, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
filter = new QueryWrapperFilter(bq);
Person entity:
...
private List<GroupPerson> groupPersons = new ArrayList<GroupPerson>(0);
#IndexedEmbedded
#OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "person")
public List<GroupPerson> getGroupPersons() {
return this.groupPersons;
}
GroupPerson entity:
...
#EmbeddedId
#AttributeOverrides({
#AttributeOverride(name = "groupId", column = #Column(name = "group_id", nullable = false)),
#AttributeOverride(name = "personId", column = #Column(name = "person_id", nullable = false)) })
#NotNull
#DocumentId
#FieldBridge(impl = GroupPersonIdBridge.class)
public GroupPersonId getId() {
return this.id;
}
...
#ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY)
#JoinColumn(name = "status_id",nullable = false)
#IndexedEmbedded
#NotNull
public Status getStatus() {
return this.Status;
}
OrganizationPersonIdBridge:
public Object get(String name, Document document) {
GroupPersonId id = new GroupPersonId();
Field field = document.getField( name + ".groupId" );
id.setGroupId(Long.parseLong(field.stringValue()));
field = document.getField( name + ".personId" );
id.setPersonId(Long.parseLong(field.stringValue()));
return id;
}
public String objectToString(Object object) {
GroupPersonId id = (GroupPersonId) object;
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.append( id.getGroupId() )
.append(" ")
.append(id.getPersonId());
return sb.toString();
}
public void set(String name,Object value,Document document,LuceneOptions luceneOptions) {
GroupPersonId id = (GroupPersonId)value;
Store store = luceneOptions.getStore();
Index index = luceneOptions.getIndex();
TermVector termVector = luceneOptions.getTermVector();
Float boost = luceneOptions.getBoost();
//store each property in a unique field
Field field = new Field(name + ".groupId", id.getGroupId() + "", store, index, termVector);
field.setBoost( boost );
document.add( field );
field = new Field(name + ".personId", id.getPersonId() + "", store, index, termVector);
field.setBoost( boost );
document.add( field );
//store the unique string representation in the named field
field = new Field( name,
objectToString( id ),
store, index, termVector );
field.setBoost( boost );
document.add( field );
}
The version of Hibernate search is 4.5.1.Final
The problem is that a Lucene Document does not have associations. When you are using #IndexedEmbedded you are effectively flattening all associations into a single Lucene Document (which is what's get added to a Lucene index and retrieved at search time). A Document can have the a field with the same name added multiple times. Taking your example, the Document for the Person with the id 105 will contain the following field name to field value pairs:
+-------------------------+-------------+
| field name | field value |
+-------------------------+-------------+
| groupPersons.id.groupId | 1 |
| groupPersons.id.groupId | 2 |
| groupPersons.id.groupId | 3 |
| groupPersons.status.id | 3 |
| groupPersons.status.id | 3 |
| groupPersons.status.id | 2 |
+-------------------------+-------------+
If you now look at your query, you understand why person 105 is a match. Both boolean queries match.
How can you solve the problem? You need to make sure to have something unique to search on. One way of doing this, is to index group and status into a single field - using a custom bridge. Then you can write a query which just targets that field.
For someone who haves the same uses case, here is the solution using classBridge:
public class CustomClassBridge implements FieldBridge, Serializable {
public final static String SEPARATOR = "-";
#Override
public void set(String name, Object value, Document document, LuceneOptions luceneOptions) {
GroupPerson gp = (GroupPerson)value;
String fieldValue = gp.getId().getGroupId() + SEPARATOR + gp.getStatus().getId();
Field field = new Field(name, fieldValue, luceneOptions.getStore(), luceneOptions.getIndex(), luceneOptions.getTermVector());
field.setBoost(luceneOptions.getBoost());
document.add(field);
}
}
Add annotation to GroupPerson entity on class level:
#ClassBridge(name="groupStatus",index=Index.YES, analyze=Analyze.NO, store=Store.YES, impl = CustomClassBridge.class)
And finally in the filter:
TermQuery tq = new TermQuery(new Term("groupPersons.groupStatus", 1 + CustomClassBridge.SEPARATOR + 2));
I'm trying to work with grouped data coming back from SQL.
The method I'm writing is to provide the data for a "Case Status Overview" screen.
It must produce a nested XML document.
Now, I could do it the easy way, but I'm trying to learn whether it's possible to use the linq "group by" statement and then to project the data already nested. (the easy way would be just to pull back the data in a tabular fashion from the database and then for-loop through it forming the Xml document for output)
Here is the data hierarchy:
Every Case has a DebtType and every DebtType has a Client.
Here is the SQL that retrieves the data:
SELECT ClientNames.ClientID ,
ClientNames.ClientCode ,
ClientNames.ClientName ,
DebtTypes.DebtTypeID ,
DebtTypes.DebtTypeShortDesc ,
DebtTypes.DebtTypeLongDesc ,
Cases.CurrentStateCode ,
SUM(1 - CAST(Cases.CaseClosed AS INT)) AS OpenCaseCount ,
SUM(CAST(Cases.CaseClosed AS INT)) AS ClosedCaseCount ,
SUM(CAST(Cases.CaseOnHold AS INT)) AS OnHoldCaseCount ,
SUM(CAST(Cases.CaseReferred AS INT)) AS ReferredCaseCount ,
COUNT(Cases.CaseID) AS TotalCaseCount ,
SUM(Cases.CaseTotalPaid) AS TotalAmountPaid ,
SUM(Cases.CaseCurrentOutstandingAmount) AS TotalAmountOutstanding,
SUM(Cases.CaseTotalDebtWrittenOff) AS TotalAmountWrittenOff ,
SUM(Cases.CaseTotalDebtCancelled) AS TotalAmountCancelled
FROM ClientNames
INNER JOIN ClientDebtTypes
ON ClientNames.ClientID = ClientDebtTypes.ClientID
INNER JOIN DebtTypes
ON ClientDebtTypes.DebtTypeID = DebtTypes.DebtTypeID
INNER JOIN Cases
ON ClientDebtTypes.ClientDebtTypeID = Cases.CaseClientDebtTypeID
GROUP BY ClientNames.ClientID ,
ClientNames.ClientCode ,
ClientNames.ClientName ,
DebtTypes.DebtTypeID ,
DebtTypes.DebtTypeShortDesc,
DebtTypes.DebtTypeLongDesc ,
Cases.CurrentStateCode
ORDER BY ClientNames.ClientID,
DebtTypes.DebtTypeID,
CurrentStateCode
Using Linqer it converts it to:
from clientnames in db.ClientNames
join clientdebttypes in db.ClientDebtTypes on clientnames.ClientID equals clientdebttypes.ClientID
join debttypes in db.DebtTypes on clientdebttypes.DebtTypeID equals debttypes.DebtTypeID
join cases in db.Cases on new { ClientDebtTypeID = clientdebttypes.ClientDebtTypeID } equals new { ClientDebtTypeID = cases.CaseClientDebtTypeID }
group new {clientnames, debttypes, cases} by new {
clientnames.ClientID,
clientnames.ClientCode,
clientnames.ClientName1,
debttypes.DebtTypeID,
debttypes.DebtTypeShortDesc,
debttypes.DebtTypeLongDesc,
cases.CurrentStateCode
} into g
orderby
g.Key.ClientID,
g.Key.DebtTypeID,
g.Key.CurrentStateCode
select new {
ClientID = (System.Int32?)g.Key.ClientID,
g.Key.ClientCode,
g.Key.ClientName1,
DebtTypeID = (System.Int32?)g.Key.DebtTypeID,
g.Key.DebtTypeShortDesc,
g.Key.DebtTypeLongDesc,
g.Key.CurrentStateCode,
OpenCaseCount = (System.Int64?)g.Sum(p => 1 - Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseClosed)),
ClosedCaseCount = (Int32?)g.Sum(p => Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseClosed)),
OnHoldCaseCount = (Int32?)g.Sum(p => Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseOnHold)),
ReferredCaseCount = (Int32?)g.Sum(p => Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseReferred)),
TotalCaseCount = (Int64?)g.Count(p => p.cases.CaseID != null),
TotalAmountPaid = (System.Decimal?)g.Sum(p => p.cases.CaseTotalPaid),
TotalAmountOutstanding = (System.Decimal?)g.Sum(p => p.cases.CaseCurrentOutstandingAmount),
TotalAmountWrittenOff = (System.Decimal?)g.Sum(p => p.cases.CaseTotalDebtWrittenOff),
TotalAmountCancelled = (System.Decimal?)g.Sum(p => p.cases.CaseTotalDebtCancelled)
}
Now as I mentioned, I could stop there and right a for loop to create the Xml data.
But I'm trying to create a nested group (IGrouping<ClientName,IGrouping<DebtType,SummaryClass>>)
and then project the data in a nested format.
Now we're using LinqToXsd to create strong type wrappers for out Xml documents, but essentially all this means is that out output type is:
private class ClientSummary
{
public string ClientName { get; set; }
public IList<DebtTypeSummary> DebtTypes { get; set; }
}
private class DebtTypeSummary
{
public string DebtType { get; set; }
public IList<StateCodeSummary> StateCodes { get; set; }
}
private class StateCodeSummary
{
public string StateCode { get; set; }
public int TotalCount { get; set; }
public decimal TotalAmountPaid { get; set; }
//etc
//etc
//etc
}
Now I got as far as writing the following Linq:
var grouping = from cases in db.Cases
join clientdebttypes in db.ClientDebtTypes on cases.CaseClientDebtTypeID equals clientdebttypes.ClientID
join debttypes in db.DebtTypes on clientdebttypes.DebtTypeID equals debttypes.DebtTypeID
group cases by new ClientDebtTypePair() { ClientDebtType = clientdebttypes, DebtType = debttypes } into casesByClientDebtTypes
join clientnames in db.ClientNames on casesByClientDebtTypes.Key.ClientDebtType.ClientName equals clientnames
group casesByClientDebtTypes by clientnames;
var projected = from casesByClientDebtTypes in grouping
let client = casesByClientDebtTypes.Key
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType()
{
Client = new Client()
{
ClientID = client.ClientID,
DisplayName = client.ClientName1,
},
DebtTypes = from cases in casesByClientDebtTypes
let debttype = cases.Key.DebtType
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType.DebtTypesLocalType()
{
DebtType = new DebtType()
{
DebtTypeID = debttype.DebtTypeID,
Description = debttype.DebtTypeLongDesc,
DisplayName = debttype.DebtTypeShortDesc,
},
StatesCodes = from cases2 in cases
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType.DebtTypesLocalType.StatesCodesLocalType()
{
ClosedCasesCount = cases2.Sum(p => Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseClosed))
which joins and groups the database tables and then tries to project the result a ClientSummary (the class names are different but that's because the above is a simplified view of the output classes). I fail completely when I've drilled all the way down to the Cases table and I find that I don't really understand how to do agregate functions. They appear to only be available on IGrouping<K, T>s and it seems I've just got confused.
I need to also ensure that the summaries are calculated server side, pulling back millions of cases would be bad.
Can anybody help me with this one? Is this even possible?
Regards,
James.
-------### UPDATE 1 ###-------
OK, been working on this again today.
I decided to use Linq2SQL to pull pack 2D data and then reformat it using Linq2Objects.
Here is what I started with:
var sql = from clientnames in db.ClientNames
join clientdebttypes in db.ClientDebtTypes on clientnames.ClientID equals clientdebttypes.ClientID
join debttypes in db.DebtTypes on clientdebttypes.DebtTypeID equals debttypes.DebtTypeID
join cases in db.Cases on new { ClientDebtTypeID = clientdebttypes.ClientDebtTypeID } equals new { ClientDebtTypeID = cases.CaseClientDebtTypeID }
group new { clientnames, debttypes, cases } by new
{
clientnames.ClientID,
clientnames.ClientCode,
clientnames.ClientName1,
debttypes.DebtTypeID,
debttypes.DebtTypeShortDesc,
debttypes.DebtTypeLongDesc,
cases.CurrentStateCode
} into g
orderby
g.Key.ClientID,
g.Key.DebtTypeID,
g.Key.CurrentStateCode
select new
{
Client = new Client{ ClientID = g.Key.ClientID, DisplayName = g.Key.ClientName1 },
DebtType = new DebtType{ DebtTypeID = g.Key.DebtTypeID, DisplayName = g.Key.DebtTypeShortDesc, Description = g.Key.DebtTypeLongDesc },
StateSummary = new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType.DebtTypesLocalType.StatesCodesLocalType()
{
StateCode = g.Key.CurrentStateCode,
OpenCasesCount = g.Sum(p => 1 - Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseClosed)),
ClosedCasesCount = g.Sum(p => Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseClosed)),
OnHoldCasesCount = g.Sum(p => Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseOnHold)),
ReferredCasesCount = g.Sum(p => Convert.ToInt32(p.cases.CaseReferred)),
TotalCasesCount = g.Count(p => p.cases.CaseID != null),
TotalAmountPaid = g.Sum(p => p.cases.CaseTotalPaid),
TotalAmountOutstanding = g.Sum(p => p.cases.CaseCurrentOutstandingAmount),
TotalAmountWrittenOff = g.Sum(p => p.cases.CaseTotalDebtWrittenOff),
TotalAmountCancelled = g.Sum(p => p.cases.CaseTotalDebtCancelled),
}
};
var res = sql.ToList();
output.Clients = (from results in res
group results by results.Client into resultsByClient
from resultsByDebtType in
(from results in resultsByClient
group results by results.DebtType)
group resultsByDebtType by resultsByClient.Key into resultsByDebtTypeByClient
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType()
{
Client = resultsByDebtTypeByClient.Key,
DebtTypes = (from resultsByDebtType in resultsByDebtTypeByClient
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType.DebtTypesLocalType()
{
DebtType = resultsByDebtType.Key,
StatesCodes = (from results in resultsByDebtType
let summary = results.StateSummary
select results.StateSummary).ToList()
}).ToList()
}).ToList();
That runs, but produces one Client/DebtType/Summary set for every result. So even though there is only one client in this case, I end up with 1300 clients, all identical.
I simplified it to the following:
output.Clients = (from results in res
group results by results.Client into resultsByClient
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType()
{
Client = resultsByClient.Key,
DebtTypes = null,
}).ToList();
That produces 1300 clients. Next I tried this:
output.Clients = (from results in res
group results by results.Client.ClientID into resultsByClient
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType()
{
Client = new Client { ClientID = resultsByClient.Key },
DebtTypes = null,
}).ToList();
And THAT produces ONE client (hurray!). Except I loose all the client information (boo!)
Guessing that as it's comparing client by refernce instead of by content I wrote the following:
public partial class Client
{
public static bool operator ==(Client left, Client right)
{
return left.ClientID == right.ClientID;
}
public static bool operator !=(Client left, Client right)
{
return left.ClientID != right.ClientID;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return ClientID;
}
}
That did nothing. It repeatedly calls GetHashCode(), which I fudged to force it to return the same hash code for any matching ClientID, but it still created 1300 Client groups.
Regards,
James.
-------### UPDATE 2 ###-------
OK, I thought I would have a go at making the Linq2Sql output only simple values for grouping by:
g.Key.ClientID,
g.Key.ClientName1,
g.Key.DebtTypeID,
g.Key.DebtTypeShortDesc,
g.Key.DebtTypeLongDesc,
And then changed the test Linq2Objects to:
output.Clients = (from results in res
group results by new { ClientID = results.ClientID, DisplayName = results.ClientName1 } into resultsByClient
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType()
{
Client = new Client { ClientID = resultsByClient.Key.ClientID, DisplayName = resultsByClient.Key.DisplayName },
DebtTypes = null,
}).ToList();
That works. So anonymous types compare in the way I want them to, by content not reference (apparently)
This does not:
output.Clients = (from results in res
group results by new SiDemClient { ClientID = results.ClientID, DisplayName = results.ClientName1 } into resultsByClient
select new LoadCaseStatusOverviewScreenOutput.ClientsLocalType()
{
Client = resultsByClient.Key,//new Client { ClientID = resultsByClient.Key.ClientID, DisplayName = resultsByClient.Key.DisplayName },
DebtTypes = null,
}).ToList();
That still creates 1300 groups.
So, anonymous types compare in a magical way that I don't understand. How can I make my Client class compare like an anonymous type?
Regards,
James.
-------### SOLUTION FOUND ###-------
-------### MANY THANKS TO Enigmativity ###-------
I needed to override the Equals() method instead of implementing the == operator.
Now the grouping works and I have a wonderful Xml document to reutrn!
public partial class SiDemClient
{
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (obj is SiDemClient)
{
return this.ClientID.Equals(((SiDemClient)obj).ClientID);
}
return false;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return ClientID;
}
}
Many Thanks,
James.
When you override GetHashCode you must also override Equals. The == & != operators are irrelevant.
Try with this:
public partial class Client
{
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
if (obj is Client)
{
return this.ClientID.Equals(((Client)obj).ClientID);
}
return false;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.ClientID.GetHashCode();
}
}
See if that helps.
i have data in following format:
colA colB
2010 10
2010 20
2010 30
1999 99
I need to obtain output as follows using Linq/Lambda expression:
colA colB
2010 10
1999 99
colB could be any non-99 value but the top 2 should always list 99 and any 1 instance of non-99 value.
I am after the values in colA.
TIA
Are you going for something like this?
var value1 = data.FirstOrDefault(x => x.colB != 99).Select(x => x.colA);
var value2 = data.FirstOrDefault(x => x.colB == 99).Select(x => x.colA);
Which could be combined into an IEnumerable using a utility method such as the following extension:
public static void CreateEnumerable<TResult>(this TResult obj)
{
yield return obj;
}
In a manner like so:
var results = value1.CreateEnumerable().Concat(value2.CreateEnumerable());
You'll want to learn how to group using GroupBy(); go to 101 LINQ Samples: Grouping Operators.
public class Record
{
public int colA; { get; }
public int colB; { get; }
}
...
// this extension method will clean up our searching within the group clause
public static Record Select99OrFirst(this IEnumerable<Record> source)
{
var item = source.FirstOrDefault(r => r.colB == 99);
return (null != item) ? item : source.First();
}
...
IEnumerable<Record> data;
var query = data.GroupBy(r => r.colA)
.Select(g => new { Year = g.Key, Value = g.Select99OrFirst().colB })
.OrderByDescending(x => x.Year);
Console.WriteLine("colA/tcolB");
foreach (var item in query)
Console.WriteLine(item.Year + "/t" + item.Value);
This will give you anonymous objects with a Year property and a Value property for colA and colB respectively. Each will represent the first record within a year group if it couldn't find the 99 record in the group first.