StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

PO
primarykey
Id
9707726
data
AcceptedAnswerId
0
AnswerCount
0
ClosedDate
CommentCount
0
CommunityOwnedDate
CreationDate
2012-03-14T18:15:48.603
FavoriteCount
0
LastActivityDate
2012-03-14T18:15:48.603
LastEditDate
LastEditorUserId
0
OwnerUserId
119236
ParentId
9697711
PostTypeId
2
Score
0
ViewCount
0
LastEditorDisplayName
text
Body
Here's my attempt using mostly query syntax and using two separate queries: <pre><code>var stids = from st in this.Context.StockTakes orderby st.StockTakeId descending select st.StockTakeId; var topFacts = from stid in stids.Take(topCount) join stf in this.Context.StockTakeFacts on stid equals stf.StockTakeId where stf.FactKindId == (int)kind select stf; return topFacts.ToList<IStockTakeFact>(); </code></pre> As others suggested, what you were looking for is a join. Because the join extension has so many parameters they can be a bit confusing - so I prefer query syntax when doing joins - the compiler gives errors if you get the order wrong, for instance. Join is by far preferable to a filter not only because it spells out how the data is joined together, but also for performance reasons because it uses indexes when used in a database and hashes when used in linq to objects. You should note that I call <code>Take</code> in the second query to limit to the <code>topCount</code> stids used in the second query. Instead of having two queries, I could have used an <code>into</code> (i.e., query continuation) on the select line of the <code>stids</code> query to combine the two queries, but that would have created a mess for limiting it to <code>topCount</code> items. Another option would have been to put the <code>stids</code> query in parentheses and invoked <code>Take</code> on it. Instead, separating it out into two queries seemed the cleanest to me. I ordinarily avoid specifying generic types whenever I think the compiler can infer the type; however, <code>IStockTakeFact</code> is almost certainly an interface and whatever concrete type implements it is likely contained by <code>this.Context.StockTakeFacts;</code> which creates the need to specify the generic type on the <code>ToList</code> call. Ordinarily I omit the generic type parameter to my <code>ToList</code> calls - that seems to be an element of my personal tastes, yours may differ. If <code>this.Context.StockTakeFacts</code> is already a <code>List<IStockTakeFact></code> you could safely omit the generic type on the <code>ToList</code> call.
Tags
Title
singulars
PostAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostParentId
1. POHow to Linq-ify this query?
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTQuestion
PostTypePostTypeId
1. PTAnswer
UserLastEditorUserId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
UserOwnerUserId
1. USdevgeezer
plurals
PostLinksPostIdRelatedPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostLinksRelatedPostIdPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsParentIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
VotesPostIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
CommentsPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.

Querying!

Guidance

A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.