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.
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!):
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.
Another valid option is to spread the joins across multiple LINQ clauses, as follows:
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:
You need to introduce your join condition before calling
DefaultIfEmpty()
. I would just use extension method syntax:Or you could use a subquery:
this works too, ...if you have multiple column joins