Reputation: 115
I have 2 SQL statements that basically do the same thing, that is, retrieve the last record from a table based on a datetime field for a group of records. I am using the data-first Entity Framework model. How would I write either of these SQL statements using LINQ Lambda functions?
ie,
var u = db.AccessCodeUsage.Where(...).GroupBy(...)
rather than
var u = from a in db.AccessCodeUsage
where ...
group by ...
SQL Statements:
SELECT *
FROM AccessCodeUsage a
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
FROM AccessCodeUsage
WHERE LocationId = a.LocationId
AND Timestamp > a.Timestamp)
SELECT a.*
FROM AccessCodeUsage a
WHERE a.Timestamp =
(SELECT MAX(Timestamp)
FROM AccessCodeUsage
WHERE a.LocationId = LocationId
AND a.AccessCode = AccessCode
GROUP By LocationId, AccessCode)
Upvotes: 2
Views: 3234
Reputation: 115
I ended up using the following which corresponds to the first SQL statement.
// Retrieve only the latest (greatest value in timestamp field) record for each Access Code
var last = AccessCodeUsages.Where(u1 => !AccessCodeUsages
.Any(u2 => u2.LocationId == u1.LocationId &&
u2.AccessCode == u1.AccessCode &&
u2.Timestamp > u1.Timestamp));
Upvotes: 0
Reputation: 113382
If you need to have the method-call form, but are finding it tricky to work out, then use the other syntax first:
from a in db.AccessCodeUsage
orderby a.TimeStamp descending
group a by a.LocationId into grp
from g in grp select g.First();
Then convert to method calls by taking each clause one at a time:
db.AccessCodeUsage
.OrderByDescending(a => a.TimeStamp)
.GroupBy(a => a.LocationId)
.Select(g => g.First());
From which I can workout the second without bothering to write out the linq-syntax form first:
db.AccessCodeUsage
.OrderByDescending(a => a.TimeStamp)
.GroupBy(a => new {a.LocationId, a.AccessCode})
.Select(g => g.First());
(Except it doesn't include what may be a bug, in that if timestamps aren't guaranteed unique, the SQL given in the question could include some extra inappropriate results).
I can't check on the SQL produced right now, but it should hopefully be equivalent in results (if not necessarily matching). There's cases where grouping doesn't translate to SQL well, but I certainly don't think this would be one.
Upvotes: 3