I have the following SQL, which I am trying to translate to LINQ:
SELECT f.value
FROM period as p
LEFT OUTER JOIN facts AS f ON p.id = f.periodid AND f.otherid = 17
WHERE p.companyid = 100
I have seen the typical implementation of the left outer join (ie. into x from y in x.DefaultIfEmpty()
etc.) but am unsure how to introduce the other join condition (AND f.otherid = 17
)
EDIT
Why is the AND f.otherid = 17
condition part of the JOIN instead of in the WHERE clause?
Because f
may not exist for some rows and I still want these rows to be included. If the condition is applied in the WHERE clause, after the JOIN - then I don't get the behaviour I want.
Unfortunately this:
from p in context.Periods
join f in context.Facts on p.id equals f.periodid into fg
from fgi in fg.DefaultIfEmpty()
where p.companyid == 100 && fgi.otherid == 17
select f.value
seems to be equivalent to this:
SELECT f.value
FROM period as p
LEFT OUTER JOIN facts AS f ON p.id = f.periodid
WHERE p.companyid = 100 AND f.otherid = 17
which is not quite what I'm after.
This question is related to
c#
sql
linq
linq-to-sql
outer-join
Another valid option is to spread the joins across multiple LINQ clauses, as follows:
public static IEnumerable<Announcementboard> GetSiteContent(string pageName, DateTime date)
{
IEnumerable<Announcementboard> content = null;
IEnumerable<Announcementboard> addMoreContent = null;
try
{
content = from c in DB.Announcementboards
// Can be displayed beginning on this date
where c.Displayondate > date.AddDays(-1)
// Doesn't Expire or Expires at future date
&& (c.Displaythrudate == null || c.Displaythrudate > date)
// Content is NOT draft, and IS published
&& c.Isdraft == "N" && c.Publishedon != null
orderby c.Sortorder ascending, c.Heading ascending
select c;
// Get the content specific to page names
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(pageName))
{
addMoreContent = from c in content
join p in DB.Announceonpages on c.Announcementid equals p.Announcementid
join s in DB.Apppagenames on p.Apppagenameid equals s.Apppagenameid
where s.Apppageref.ToLower() == pageName.ToLower()
select c;
}
// Add the specified content using UNION
content = content.Union(addMoreContent);
// Exclude the duplicates using DISTINCT
content = content.Distinct();
return content;
}
catch (MyLovelyException ex)
{
// Add your exception handling here
throw ex;
}
}
Can be written using composite join key. Also if there is need to select properties from both left and right sides the LINQ can be written as
var result = context.Periods
.Where(p => p.companyid == 100)
.GroupJoin(
context.Facts,
p => new {p.id, otherid = 17},
f => new {id = f.periodid, f.otherid},
(p, f) => new {p, f})
.SelectMany(
pf => pf.f.DefaultIfEmpty(),
(pf, f) => new MyJoinEntity
{
Id = pf.p.id,
Value = f.value,
// and so on...
});
this works too, ...if you have multiple column joins
from p in context.Periods
join f in context.Facts
on new {
id = p.periodid,
p.otherid
} equals new {
f.id,
f.otherid
} into fg
from fgi in fg.DefaultIfEmpty()
where p.companyid == 100
select f.value
I know it's "a bit late" but just in case if anybody needs to do this in LINQ Method syntax (which is why I found this post initially), this would be how to do that:
var results = context.Periods
.GroupJoin(
context.Facts,
period => period.id,
fk => fk.periodid,
(period, fact) => fact.Where(f => f.otherid == 17)
.Select(fact.Value)
.DefaultIfEmpty()
)
.Where(period.companyid==100)
.SelectMany(fact=>fact).ToList();
It seems to me there is value in considering some rewrites to your SQL code before attempting to translate it.
Personally, I'd write such a query as a union (although I'd avoid nulls entirely!):
SELECT f.value
FROM period as p JOIN facts AS f ON p.id = f.periodid
WHERE p.companyid = 100
AND f.otherid = 17
UNION
SELECT NULL AS value
FROM period as p
WHERE p.companyid = 100
AND NOT EXISTS (
SELECT *
FROM facts AS f
WHERE p.id = f.periodid
AND f.otherid = 17
);
So I guess I agree with the spirit of @MAbraham1's answer (though their code seems to be unrelated to the question).
However, it seems the query is expressly designed to produce a single column result comprising duplicate rows -- indeed duplicate nulls! It's hard not to come to the conclusion that this approach is flawed.
Source: Stackoverflow.com