ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to do joins in LINQ on multiple fields in single join

I need to do a LINQ2DataSet query that does a join on more than one field (as

var result = from x in entity
join y in entity2 
       on x.field1 = y.field1 
and 
          x.field2 = y.field2

I have yet found a suitable solution (I can add the extra constraints to a where clause, but this is far from a suitable solution, or use this solution, but that assumes an equijoin).

Is it possible in LINQ to join on multiple fields in a single join?

EDIT

var result = from x in entity
             join y in entity2
             on new { x.field1, x.field2 } equals new { y.field1, y.field2 }

is the solution I referenced as assuming an equijoin above.

Further EDIT

To answer criticism that my original example was an equijoin, I do acknowledge that, My current requirement is for an equijoin and I have already employed the solution I referenced above.

I am, however, trying to understand what possibilities and best practices I have / should employ with LINQ. I am going to need to do a Date range query join with a table ID soon, and was just pre-empting that issue, It looks like I shall have to add the date range in the where clause.

Thanks, as always, for all suggestions and comments given

Just an FYI for anyone reading this, if you do a multi field join in annon classes, you MUST name the fields in both annon classes the same, otherwise you get compile errors.
Or rather, you must ensure they have matching names. i.e. you can just name the fields of one of the anon types to make them match the other one.
Pay attention to this answer stackoverflow.com/a/34176502/1704458
I used tuples for either side of the equals rather than objects and it seemed to work too.

N
Nathan W
var result = from x in entity
   join y in entity2 on new { x.field1, x.field2 } equals new { y.field1, y.field2 }

This is what i was looking for seeing as the 101 Linq Samples didn't have this, or atleast that I saw.
@PeterX indeed it can, see my answer here: stackoverflow.com/a/22176658/595157
The above code did not work. After adding on new { X1= x.field1, X2= x.field2 } equals new { X1=y.field1, X2= y.field2 } It worked
@Ravi Ram .. Thanks .. your comment helped
Also make sure data types are matching. Data type of X1 should be same in both sides. In my case data type of X1 in first table was Nullable Integer and in the joining table Non-nullable integer. Then I hade to convert Nullable to non-nullable Integer to make it work
R
RealNapster
var result = from x in entity1
             join y in entity2
             on new { X1= x.field1, X2= x.field2 } equals new { X1=y.field1, X2= y.field2 }

You need to do this, if the column names are different in two entities.


Thanks for mentioning the different column names. This fixed my bad expression.
This worked for me too. If the column names don't match, you will get this error, "The type of one of the expressions in the join clause is incorrect. Type inference failed in the call to 'GroupJoin'."
Thank you for aliasing the key variables.
I got the error that @humbads mentioned when I didn't name all of the properties of int the 'new { }'. So just fyi if you name one you must also name the rest.
In my case, I want to use OR instead of AND! what should I do? Will new {...} equals new {....} work?
J
Jon Skeet

The solution with the anonymous type should work fine. LINQ can only represent equijoins (with join clauses, anyway), and indeed that's what you've said you want to express anyway based on your original query.

If you don't like the version with the anonymous type for some specific reason, you should explain that reason.

If you want to do something other than what you originally asked for, please give an example of what you really want to do.

EDIT: Responding to the edit in the question: yes, to do a "date range" join, you need to use a where clause instead. They're semantically equivalent really, so it's just a matter of the optimisations available. Equijoins provide simple optimisation (in LINQ to Objects, which includes LINQ to DataSets) by creating a lookup based on the inner sequence - think of it as a hashtable from key to a sequence of entries matching that key.

Doing that with date ranges is somewhat harder. However, depending on exactly what you mean by a "date range join" you may be able to do something similar - if you're planning on creating "bands" of dates (e.g. one per year) such that two entries which occur in the same year (but not on the same date) should match, then you can do it just by using that band as the key. If it's more complicated, e.g. one side of the join provides a range, and the other side of the join provides a single date, matching if it falls within that range, that would be better handled with a where clause (after a second from clause) IMO. You could do some particularly funky magic by ordering one side or the other to find matches more efficiently, but that would be a lot of work - I'd only do that kind of thing after checking whether performance is an issue.


Thanks, yes performance is my main worry with using the where clause. I am guessing a where clause after the join would perform a filter on a larger dataset that could have been reduced by introducing the second join parameter. I do like the idea of ordering to test if I can get efficiency gains
How many records will you have? Don't forget that ordering the results to start with will take a certain amount of time to begin with...
"They're semantically equivalent really" - do we need the word 'really' in there? Perhaps you meant, "They're really semantically equivalent" :)
@onedaywhen "They're semantically equivalent really" | "They're really semantically equivalent" The irony :p
n
niieani

Just to complete this with an equivalent method chain syntax:

entity.Join(entity2, x => new {x.Field1, x.Field2},
                     y => new {y.Field1, y.Field2}, (x, y) => x);

While the last argument (x, y) => x is what you select (in the above case we select x).


what does the resulting sql look like
A
Alexei - check Codidact

I think a more readable and flexible option is to use Where function:

var result = from x in entity1
             from y in entity2
                 .Where(y => y.field1 == x.field1 && y.field2 == x.field2)

This also allows to easily change from inner join to left join by appending .DefaultIfEmpty().


As a long time lambda user now (as opposed to when I asked the question), I would have to agree
Would this be slower?
I think it should have the same performance as new { ... } equals new { ... } syntax. LinqPad is a great tool to see how expressions are behaving (SQL script if LINQ2SQL is used, expression trees etc.)
As far as I noticed it's producing CROSS JOIN instead of INNER JOIN
@Mariusz Yes, it makes sense to generate CROSS JOIN + WHERE instead of INNER JOIN. For simple queries I expect the analyzer to generate a very similar though.
J
Jhanvi
var result = from x in entity
             join y in entity2
             on new { X1= x.field1, X2= x.field2 } equals new { X1=y.field1, X2= y.field2 }
             select new 
             {
               /// Columns
              };

P
Perpetualcoder

you could do something like (below)

var query = from p in context.T1

        join q in context.T2

        on

        new { p.Col1, p.Col2 }

        equals

         new { q.Col1, q.Col2 }

        select new {p...., q......};

As I mentioned in question, that requires an equijoin
t
tvanfosson

Using the join operator you can only perform equijoins. Other types of joins can be constructed using other operators. I'm not sure whether the exact join you are trying to do would be easier using these methods or by changing the where clause. Documentation on the join clause can be found here. MSDN has an article on join operations with multiple links to examples of other joins, as well.


M
Mahesh

If the field name are different in entities

var result = from x in entity
   join y in entity2 on 
          new {
                field1=   x.field1,
               field2 =  x.field2 
             } 
          equals
         new { 
                field1= y.field1,
                field2=  y.myfield
              }
select new {x,y});

Thank you. Name matching was the piece I was missing.
A
Adam Garner

As a full method chain that would look like this:

lista.SelectMany(a => listb.Where(xi => b.Id == a.Id && b.Total != a.Total),
                (a, b) => new ResultItem
                {
                    Id = a.Id,
                    ATotal = a.Total,
                    BTotal = b.Total
                }).ToList();

S
SyMo7amed

I used tuples to do that, this is an example for two columns :

 var list= list1.Join(list2,
                       e1 => (e1.val1,e1.val2),
                       e2 => (e2.val1,e2.val2),
                       (e1, e2) => e1).ToList();

u
user2745564
from d in db.CourseDispatches
                             join du in db.DispatchUsers on d.id equals du.dispatch_id
                             join u in db.Users on du.user_id equals u.id
                             join fr in db.Forumreports on (d.course_id + '_' + du.user_id)  equals  (fr.course_id + '_'+ fr.uid)

this works for me


This is for multiple join, he wants to make a join with multiple fields in a single join
C
ChrisF

Declare a Class(Type) to hold the elements you want to join. In the below example declare JoinElement

 public class **JoinElement**
{
    public int? Id { get; set; }
    public string Name { get; set; }

}

results = from course in courseQueryable.AsQueryable()
                  join agency in agencyQueryable.AsQueryable()
                   on new **JoinElement**() { Id = course.CourseAgencyId, Name = course.CourseDeveloper } 
                   equals new **JoinElement**() { Id = agency.CourseAgencyId, Name = "D" } into temp1

This has already been answered 9 years ago... what value does this answer bring?