Subsonic 3 Simple Query inner join sql syntax - subsonic

I want to perform a simple join on two tables (BusinessUnit and UserBusinessUnit), so I can get a list of all BusinessUnits allocated to a given user.
The first attempt works, but there's no override of Select which allows me to restrict the columns returned (I get all columns from both tables):
var db = new KensDB();
SqlQuery query = db.Select
.From<BusinessUnit>()
.InnerJoin<UserBusinessUnit>( BusinessUnitTable.IdColumn, UserBusinessUnitTable.BusinessUnitIdColumn )
.Where( BusinessUnitTable.RecordStatusColumn ).IsEqualTo( 1 )
.And( UserBusinessUnitTable.UserIdColumn ).IsEqualTo( userId );
The second attept allows the column name restriction, but the generated sql contains pluralised table names (?)
SqlQuery query = new Select( new string[] { BusinessUnitTable.IdColumn, BusinessUnitTable.NameColumn } )
.From<BusinessUnit>()
.InnerJoin<UserBusinessUnit>( BusinessUnitTable.IdColumn, UserBusinessUnitTable.BusinessUnitIdColumn )
.Where( BusinessUnitTable.RecordStatusColumn ).IsEqualTo( 1 )
.And( UserBusinessUnitTable.UserIdColumn ).IsEqualTo( userId );
Produces...
SELECT [BusinessUnits].[Id], [BusinessUnits].[Name]
FROM [BusinessUnits]
INNER JOIN [UserBusinessUnits]
ON [BusinessUnits].[Id] = [UserBusinessUnits].[BusinessUnitId]
WHERE [BusinessUnits].[RecordStatus] = #0
AND [UserBusinessUnits].[UserId] = #1
So, two questions:
- How do I restrict the columns returned in method 1?
- Why does method 2 pluralise the column names in the generated SQL (and can I get round this?)
I'm using 3.0.0.3...

So far my experience with 3.0.0.3 suggests that this is not possible yet with the query tool, although it is with version 2.
I think the preferred method (so far) with version 3 is to use a linq query with something like:
var busUnits = from b in BusinessUnit.All()
join u in UserBusinessUnit.All() on b.Id equals u.BusinessUnitId
select b;

I ran into the pluralized table names myself, but it was because I'd only re-run one template after making schema changes.
Once I re-ran all the templates, the plural table names went away.
Try re-running all 4 templates and see if that solves it for you.

Related

How to get a SELECT DISTINCT on a SelectMulti query in ServiceStack OrmLite?

I'm trying to get a distinct result set of tuples, but the Distinct never gets added to query.
Example
List<Tuple<Alpha, Beta>> results;
var q = dbConn.From<Alpha>()
.Join<Alpha, Beta>((a, b) => a.Id == b.AlphaId)
...
... more joins and Wheres
...
.SelectDistinct();
results = dbConn.SelectMulti<Alpha, Beta>(q);
Adding the SelectDistinct, or not, make no difference to the outputted SQL and hence results.
How do I get SelectMulti to work with Distinct?
Thanks.
I've just added support for this in this commit where if .SelectDistinct() is used in the SqlExpression<T> then it will execute the SQL query using SELECT DISTINCT, e.g:
var results = dbConn.SelectMulti<Alpha, Beta>(q.SelectDistinct());
This change is available from v5.4.1 that's now available on MyGet.

Is it possible to chain subsequent queries's where clauses in Dapper based on the results of a previous query in the same connection?

Is it possible to use .QueryMultiple (or some other method) in Dapper, and use the results of each former query to be used in the where clause of the next query, without having to do each query individually, get the id, and then .Query again, get the id and so on.
For example,
string sqlString = #"select tableA_id from tableA where tableA_lastname = #lastname;
select tableB_id from tableB WHERE tableB_id = tableA_id";
db.QueryMultiple.(sqlString, new {lastname = "smith"});
Is something like this possible with Dapper or do I need a view or stored procedure to accomplish this? I can use multiple joins for one SQL statement, but in my real query there are 7 joins, and I didn't think I should return 7 objects.
Right now I'm just using object.
You can store every previous query in table parameter and then first perform select from the parameter and query for next, for example:
DECLARE #TableA AS Table(
tableA_id INT
-- ... all other columns you need..
)
INSERT #TableA
SELECT tableA_id
FROM tableA
WHERE tableA_lastname = #lastname
SELECT *
FROM #TableA
SELECT tableB_id
FROM tableB
JOIN tableA ON tableB_id = tableA_id

Cannot link MS Access query with subquery

I have created a query with a subquery in Access, and cannot link it in Excel 2003: when I use the menu Data -> Import External Data -> Import Data... and select the mdb file, the query is not present in the list. If I use the menu Data -> Import External Data -> New Database Query..., I can see my query in the list, but at the end of the import wizard I get this error:
Too few parameters. Expected 2.
My guess is that the query syntax is causing the problem, in fact the query contains a subquery. So, I'll try to describe the query goal and the resulting syntax.
Table Positions
ID (Autonumber, Primary Key)
position (double)
currency_id (long) (references Currency.ID)
portfolio (long)
Table Currency
ID (Autonumber, Primary Key)
code (text)
Query Goal
Join the 2 tables
Filter by portfolio = 1
Filter by currency.code in ("A", "B")
Group by currency and calculate the sum of the positions for each currency group an call the result: sumOfPositions
Calculate abs(sumOfPositions) on each currency group
Calculate the sum of the previous results as a single result
Query
The query without the final sum can be created using the Design View. The resulting SQL is:
SELECT Currency.code, Sum(Positions.position) AS SumOfposition
FROM [Currency] INNER JOIN Positions ON Currency.ID = Positions.currency_id
WHERE (((Positions.portfolio)=1))
GROUP BY Currency.code
HAVING (((Currency.code) In ("A","B")));
in order to calculate the final SUM I did the following (in the SQL View):
SELECT Sum(Abs([temp].[SumOfposition])) AS sumAbs
FROM [SELECT Currency.code, Sum(Positions.position) AS SumOfposition
FROM [Currency] INNER JOIN Positions ON Currency.ID = Positions.currency_id
WHERE (((Positions.portfolio)=1))
GROUP BY Currency.code
HAVING (((Currency.code) In ("A","B")))]. AS temp;
So, the question is: is there a better way for structuring the query in order to make the export work?
I can't see too much wrong with it, but I would take out some of the junk Access puts in and scale down the query to this, hopefully this should run ok:
SELECT Sum(Abs(A.SumOfPosition)) As SumAbs
FROM (SELECT C.code, Sum(P.position) AS SumOfposition
FROM Currency As C INNER JOIN Positions As P ON C.ID = P.currency_id
WHERE P.portfolio=1
GROUP BY C.code
HAVING C.code In ("A","B")) As A
It might be worth trying to declare your parameters in the MS Access query definition and define their datatypes. This is especially important when you are trying to use the query outside of MS Access itself, since it can't auto-detect the parameter types. This approach is sometimes hit or miss, but worth a shot.
PARAMETERS [[Positions].[portfolio]] Long, [[Currency].[code]] Text ( 255 );
SELECT Sum(Abs([temp].[SumOfposition])) AS sumAbs
FROM [SELECT Currency.code, Sum(Positions.position) AS SumOfposition
FROM [Currency] INNER JOIN Positions ON Currency.ID = Positions.currency_id
WHERE (((Positions.portfolio)=1))
GROUP BY Currency.code
HAVING (((Currency.code) In ("A","B")))]. AS temp;
I have solved my problems thanks to the fact that the outer query is doing a trivial sum. When choosing New Database Query... in Excel, at the end of the process, after pressing Finish, an Import Data form pops up, asking
Where do you want to put the data?
you can click on Create a PivotTable report... . If you define the PivotTable properly, Excel will display only the outer sum.

Error in Linq: The text data type cannot be selected as DISTINCT because it is not comparable

I've a problem with LINQ. Basically a third party database that I need to connect to is using the now depreciated text field (I can't change this) and I need to execute a distinct clause in my linq on results that contain this field.
I don't want to do a ToList() before executing the Distinct() as that will result in thousands of records coming back from the database that I don't require and will annoy the client as they get charged for bandwidth usage. I only need the first 15 distinct records.
Anyway query is below:
var query = (from s in db.tSearches
join sc in db.tSearchIndexes on s.GUID equals sc.CPSGUID
join a in db.tAttributes on sc.AttributeGUID equals a.GUID
where s.Notes != null && a.Attribute == "Featured"
select new FeaturedVacancy
{
Id = s.GUID,
DateOpened = s.DateOpened,
Notes = s.Notes
});
return query.Distinct().OrderByDescending(x => x.DateOpened);
I know I can do a subquery to do the same thing as above (tSearches contains unique records) but I'd rather a more straightfoward solution if available as I need to change a number of similar queries throughout the code to get this working.
No answers on how to do this so I went with my first suggestion and retrieved the unique records first from tSearch then constructed a subquery with the non unique records and filtered the search results by this subquery. Answer below:
var query = (from s in db.tSearches
where s.DateClosed == null && s.ConfidentialNotes != null
orderby s.DateOpened descending
select new FeaturedVacancy
{
Id = s.GUID,
Notes = s.ConfidentialNotes
});
/* Now filter by our 'Featured' attribute */
var subQuery = from sc in db.tSearchIndexes
join a in db.tAttributes on sc.AttributeGUID equals a.GUID
where a.Attribute == "Featured"
select sc.CPSGUID;
query = query.Where(x => subQuery.Contains(x.Id));
return query;

SubSonic.SqlQuery incorrectly generated when using Where()

I am using version 2.1 of SubSonic. I am trying to build to build a relatively simple query where I get a list of Roles for a User using UserId as a parameter. (UserId is a string...)
SubSonic.SqlQuery sel = new SubSonic.Select().From(Data.Tables.Role).InnerJoin(Data.Tables.UserRole, Data.UserRole.Columns.RoleId, Data.Tables.Role, Data.Role.Columns.Id).InnerJoin(Data.Tables.User, Data.User.Columns.Id, Data.Tables.UserRole, Data.UserRole.Columns.UserId).Where("[dbo].[User].[Id]").IsEqualTo(userId);
this generates the query
SELECT [dbo].[Role].[Id], [dbo].[Role].[PID], [dbo].[Role].[Name]
FROM [dbo].[Role]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[UserRole] ON [dbo].[Role].[Id] = [dbo].[UserRole].[RoleId]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[User] ON [dbo].[UserRole].[UserId] = [dbo].[User].[Id]
WHERE [dbo].[User].[Id] = #[dbo].[User].[Id]0
which fails. If I replace the Where with .Where(Data.User.Columns.Id) this generates the query
SELECT [dbo].[Role].[Id], [dbo].[Role].[PID], [dbo].[Role].[Name]
FROM [dbo].[Role]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[UserRole] ON [dbo].[Role].[Id] = [dbo].[UserRole].[RoleId]
INNER JOIN [dbo].[User] ON [dbo].[UserRole].[UserId] = [dbo].[User].[Id]
WHERE [dbo].[Role].[Id] = #Id0
which uses the Role table in the Where clause instead of the User table.
Is this a bug, or am I doing something incorrectly? What would be the correct way to do this? Thanks.
This is fixed in version 2.2 - I would suggest upgrading.

Resources