131

I'm trying to implement a query in LINQ that uses a left outer join with multiple conditions in the ON clause.

I'll use the example of the following two tables Project (ProjectID, ProjectName) and Task (TaskID, ProjectID, TaskName, Completed). I want to see the full list of all projects with their respective tasks, but only those tasks that are completed.

I cannot use a filter for Completed == true because that will filter out any projects that do not have completed tasks. Instead I want to add Completed == true to the ON clause of the join so that the full list of projects will be shown, but only completed tasks will be shown. Projects with no completed tasks will show a single row with a null value for Task.

Here's the foundation of the query.

from t1 in Projects join t2 in Tasks on new { t1.ProjectID} equals new { t2.ProjectID } into j1 from j2 in j1.DefaultIfEmpty() select new { t1.ProjectName, t2.TaskName }

How do I add && t2.Completed == true to the on clause?

I can't seem to find any LINQ documentation on how to do this.

Improve this question
1
  • Related answer here using Lambda syntax Commented May 23, 2018 at 7:58

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
196

You just need to name the anonymous property the same on both sides

on new { t1.ProjectID, SecondProperty = true } equals new { t2.ProjectID, SecondProperty = t2.Completed } into j1

Based on the comments of @svick, here is another implementation that might make more sense:

from t1 in Projects from t2 in Tasks.Where(x => t1.ProjectID == x.ProjectID && x.Completed == true) .DefaultIfEmpty() select new { t1.ProjectName, t2.TaskName }
Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

9 Comments

That seems like a non obvious way to do that. I'm not sure I would understand what it's suppose to do.
@svick - Using anonymous types allow you to join on multiple criteria. You just need to make sure the property names match on both types. Not sure where the confusion is coming from?
The confusion is that it really makes more sense as two equalities joined by and, not one equality of some “weird” object. And to prove my point, your code is wrong. For it work, you would have to have true on the left side and t2.Complete on the right.
Thanks Aducci. I had to swap sides in the query to get the context right, but that worked. This problem is simplified, and in my real world problem it's not just SecondProperty is true or false, SecondProperty is an integer and I use AND SecondProperty IN (123, 456). I'll be moving on to that challenge and any help you could give would be greatly appreciated.
@Kuyenda - Look at my second solution: you can change x.Completed == true to listOfIntergers.Contains(x.Completed)
|
71

Here you go with: 

from b in _dbContext.Burden join bl in _dbContext.BurdenLookups on new { Organization_Type = b.Organization_Type_ID, Cost_Type = b.Cost_Type_ID } equals new { Organization_Type = bl.Organization_Type_ID, Cost_Type = bl.Cost_Type_ID }
Improve this answer

2 Comments

This looks more understandable.
This helped with Compiler Error CS1941. Matching the name the anonymous types
0

You can't do it like that. The join clause (and the Join() extension method) supports only equijoins. That's also the reason, why it uses equals and not ==. And even if you could do something like that, it wouldn't work, because join is an inner join, not outer join.

Improve this answer

1 Comment

Outer join was not requested, and (see other answers), obviously you can.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.