From the docs:
You can also chain multiple where() methods to create more specific queries (logical AND).
How can I perform an OR query?
Example:
Give me all documents where the field status is open OR upcoming
Give me all documents where the field status == open OR createdAt <= <somedatetime>
OR isn't supported as it's hard for the server to scale it (requires keeping state to dedup). The work around is to issue 2 queries, one for each condition, and dedup on the client.
Edit (Nov 2019):
Cloud Firestore now supports IN queries which are a limited type of OR query.
For the example above you could do:
// Get all documents in 'foo' where status is open or upcmoming
db.collection('foo').where('status','in',['open','upcoming']).get()
However it's still not possible to do a general OR condition involving multiple fields.
With the recent addition of IN queries, Firestore supports "up to 10 equality clauses on the same field with a logical OR"
A possible solution to (1) would be:
documents.where('status', 'in', ['open', 'upcoming']);
See Firebase Guides: Query Operators | in and array-contains-any
suggest to give value for status as well.
ex.
{ name: "a", statusValue = 10, status = 'open' }
{ name: "b", statusValue = 20, status = 'upcoming'}
{ name: "c", statusValue = 30, status = 'close'}
you can query by ref.where('statusValue', '<=', 20) then both 'a' and 'b' will found.
this can save your query cost and performance.
btw, it is not fix all case.
I would have no "status" field, but status related fields, updating them to true or false based on request, like
{ name: "a", status_open: true, status_upcoming: false, status_closed: false}
However, check Firebase Cloud Functions. You could have a function listening status changes, updating status related properties like
{ name: "a", status: "open", status_open: true, status_upcoming: false, status_closed: false}
one or the other, your query could be just
...where('status_open','==',true)...
Hope it helps.
This doesn't solve all cases, but for "enum" fields, you can emulate an "OR" query by making a separate boolean field for each enum-value, then adding a where("enum_<value>", "==", false) for every value that isn't part of the "OR" clause you want.
For example, consider your first desired query:
Give me all documents where the field status is open OR upcoming
You can accomplish this by splitting the status: string field into multiple boolean fields, one for each enum-value:
status_open: bool
status_upcoming: bool
status_suspended: bool
status_closed: bool
To perform your "where status is open or upcoming" query, you then do this:
where("status_suspended", "==", false).where("status_closed", "==", false)
How does this work? Well, because it's an enum, you know one of the values must have true assigned. So if you can determine that all of the other values don't match for a given entry, then by deduction it must match one of the values you originally were looking for.
See also
in/not-in/array-contains-in: https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/query-data/queries#in_and_array-contains-any
!=: https://firebase.googleblog.com/2020/09/cloud-firestore-not-equal-queries.html
I don't like everyone saying it's not possible.
it is if you create another "hacky" field in the model to build a composite...
for instance, create an array for each document that has all logical or elements
then query for .where("field", arrayContains: [...]
you can bind two Observables using the rxjs merge operator.
Here you have an example.
import { Observable } from 'rxjs/Observable';
import 'rxjs/add/observable/merge';
...
getCombinatedStatus(): Observable<any> {
return Observable.merge(this.db.collection('foo', ref => ref.where('status','==','open')).valueChanges(),
this.db.collection('foo', ref => ref.where('status','==','upcoming')).valueChanges());
}
Then you can subscribe to the new Observable updates using the above method:
getCombinatedStatus.subscribe(results => console.log(results);
I hope this can help you, greetings from Chile!!
We have the same problem just now, luckily the only possible values for ours are A,B,C,D (4) so we have to query for things like A||B, A||C, A||B||C, D, etc
As of like a few months ago firebase supports a new query array-contains so what we do is make an array and we pre-process the OR values to the array
if (a) {
array addObject:#"a"
}
if (b) {
array addObject:#"b"
}
if (a||b) {
array addObject:#"a||b"
}
etc
And we do this for all 4! values or however many combos there are.
THEN we can simply check the query [document arrayContains:#"a||c"] or whatever type of condition we need.
So if something only qualified for conditional A of our 4 conditionals (A,B,C,D) then its array would contain the following literal strings: #["A", "A||B", "A||C", "A||D", "A||B||C", "A||B||D", "A||C||D", "A||B||C||D"]
Then for any of those OR combinations we can just search array-contains on whatever we may want (e.g. "A||C")
Note: This is only a reasonable approach if you have a few number of possible values to compare OR with.
More info on Array-contains here, since it's newish to firebase docs
If you have a limited number of fields, definitely create new fields with true and false like in the example above. However, if you don't know what the fields are until runtime, you have to just combine queries.
Here is a tags OR example...
// the ids of students in class
const students = [studentID1, studentID2,...];
// get all docs where student.studentID1 = true
const results = this.afs.collection('classes',
ref => ref.where(`students.${students[0]}`, '==', true)
).valueChanges({ idField: 'id' }).pipe(
switchMap((r: any) => {
// get all docs where student.studentID2...studentIDX = true
const docs = students.slice(1).map(
(student: any) => this.afs.collection('classes',
ref => ref.where(`students.${student}`, '==', true)
).valueChanges({ idField: 'id' })
);
return combineLatest(docs).pipe(
// combine results by reducing array
map((a: any[]) => {
const g: [] = a.reduce(
(acc: any[], cur: any) => acc.concat(cur)
).concat(r);
// filter out duplicates by 'id' field
return g.filter(
(b: any, n: number, a: any[]) => a.findIndex(
(v: any) => v.id === b.id) === n
);
}),
);
})
);
Unfortunately there is no other way to combine more than 10 items (use array-contains-any if < 10 items).
There is also no other way to avoid duplicate reads, as you don't know the ID fields that will be matched by the search. Luckily, Firebase has good caching.
For those of you that like promises...
const p = await results.pipe(take(1)).toPromise();
For more info on this, see this article I wrote.
J
OR isn't supported
But if you need that you can do It in your code
Ex : if i want query products where (Size Equal Xl OR XXL : AND Gender is Male)
productsCollectionRef
//1* first get query where can firestore handle it
.whereEqualTo("gender", "Male")
.addSnapshotListener((queryDocumentSnapshots, e) -> {
if (queryDocumentSnapshots == null)
return;
List<Product> productList = new ArrayList<>();
for (DocumentSnapshot snapshot : queryDocumentSnapshots.getDocuments()) {
Product product = snapshot.toObject(Product.class);
//2* then check your query OR Condition because firestore just support AND Condition
if (product.getSize().equals("XL") || product.getSize().equals("XXL"))
productList.add(product);
}
liveData.setValue(productList);
});
For Flutter dart language use this:
db.collection("projects").where("status", whereIn: ["public", "unlisted", "secret"]);
actually I found #Dan McGrath answer working here is a rewriting of his answer:
private void query() {
FirebaseFirestore db = FirebaseFirestore.getInstance();
db.collection("STATUS")
.whereIn("status", Arrays.asList("open", "upcoming")) // you can add up to 10 different values like : Arrays.asList("open", "upcoming", "Pending", "In Progress", ...)
.addSnapshotListener(new EventListener<QuerySnapshot>() {
#Override
public void onEvent(#Nullable QuerySnapshot queryDocumentSnapshots, #Nullable FirebaseFirestoreException e) {
for (DocumentSnapshot documentSnapshot : queryDocumentSnapshots) {
// I assume you have a model class called MyStatus
MyStatus status= documentSnapshot.toObject(MyStatus.class);
if (status!= null) {
//do somthing...!
}
}
}
});
}
I have a method of type IQueryable<T> and here is it's implementation:
public IQueryable<T> Get()
{
return db.Set<T>();
}
I must write LINQ query where I want to join two tables (left join). It is Identtiy table Users and my custom table PersonalInformation which extend User registration fields and now I want to call this method in my LINQ query and it is good. Here is my Linq:
IRepository<PersonalInformation> personRepository;
IRepository<ApplicationUser> usersRepository;
var query = personRepository.Get();
var test = usersRepository.Get()
.GroupJoin(query,
n => n.Id,
m => m.UserId,
(n, ms) => new { n, ms = ms.DefaultIfEmpty() })
.SelectMany(z => z.ms.Select(m => new PersonalInfoModel
{
Name = m.Name,
LastName = m.LastName,
Email = z.n.Email
}));
But I have an error in
var test = usersRepository.Get() - System.NotSupportedException. So method Get from personRepository called good but usersRepository method return null. Where I did the mistake?? Thanks
It looks likely that you are having an error combining queries from two different database contexts. Your custom PersonalInformation is probably in a custom DBContext while Users is in the IdentityDBContext. See this related question. You can either:
Move all of your tables into the same context.
Avoids future confusion between these tables
More efficient if you end up with lots of associations across contexts.
A more involved solution just to get this one example working.
Query your tables separately and combine in memory.
Less scalable if you have a huge number of users.
These operators will cause EF to return the results so you can process in memory.
var people = personRepository.Get().ToList();
var users = usersRepository.Get().ToList();
var infoModels = users.GroupJoin(people,
u => u.Id,
p => p.UserId,
(u, mp) => new { n, ms = ms.DefaultIfEmpty() })
.SelectMany(z => z.ms.Select(m => new PersonalInfoModel
{
Name = m.Name,
LastName = m.LastName,
Email = z.n.Email
}));
This query produces an error No value given for one or more required parameters:
using (var conn = new OleDbConnection("Provider=..."))
{
conn.Open();
var result = conn.Query(
"select code, name from mytable where id = ? order by name",
new { id = 1 });
}
If I change the query string to: ... where id = #id ..., I will get an error: Must declare the scalar variable "#id".
How do I construct the query string and how do I pass the parameter?
The following should work:
var result = conn.Query(
"select code, name from mytable where id = ?id? order by name",
new { id = 1 });
Important: see newer answer
In the current build, the answer to that would be "no", for two reasons:
the code attempts to filter unused parameters - and is currently removing all of them because it can't find anything like #id, :id or ?id in the sql
the code for adding values from types uses an arbitrary (well, ok: alphabetical) order for the parameters (because reflection does not make any guarantees about the order of members), making positional anonymous arguments unstable
The good news is that both of these are fixable
we can make the filtering behaviour conditional
we can detect the category of types that has a constructor that matches all the property names, and use the constructor argument positions to determine the synthetic order of the properties - anonymous types fall into this category
Making those changes to my local clone, the following now passes:
// see https://stackoverflow.com/q/18847510/23354
public void TestOleDbParameters()
{
using (var conn = new System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnection(
Program.OleDbConnectionString))
{
var row = conn.Query("select Id = ?, Age = ?", new DynamicParameters(
new { foo = 12, bar = 23 } // these names DO NOT MATTER!!!
) { RemoveUnused = false } ).Single();
int age = row.Age;
int id = row.Id;
age.IsEqualTo(23);
id.IsEqualTo(12);
}
}
Note that I'm currently using DynamicParameters here to avoid adding even more overloads to Query / Query<T> - because this would need to be added to a considerable number of methods. Adding it to DynamicParameters solves it in one place.
I'm open to feedback before I push this - does that look usable to you?
Edit: with the addition of a funky smellsLikeOleDb (no, not a joke), we can now do this even more directly:
// see https://stackoverflow.com/q/18847510/23354
public void TestOleDbParameters()
{
using (var conn = new System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnection(
Program.OleDbConnectionString))
{
var row = conn.Query("select Id = ?, Age = ?",
new { foo = 12, bar = 23 } // these names DO NOT MATTER!!!
).Single();
int age = row.Age;
int id = row.Id;
age.IsEqualTo(23);
id.IsEqualTo(12);
}
}
I've trialing use of Dapper within my software product which is using odbc connections (at the moment). However one day I intend to move away from odbc and use a different pattern for supporting different RDBMS products. However, my problem with solution implementation is 2 fold:
I want to write SQL code with parameters that conform to different back-ends, and so I want to be writing named parameters in my SQL now so that I don't have go back and re-do it later.
I don't want to rely on getting the order of my properties in line with my ?. This is bad. So my suggestion is to please add support for Named Parameters for odbc.
In the mean time I have hacked together a solution that allows me to do this with Dapper. Essentially I have a routine that replaces the named parameters with ? and also rebuilds the parameter object making sure the parameters are in the correct order.
However looking at the Dapper code, I can see that I've repeated some of what dapper is doing anyway, effectively it each parameter value is now visited once more than what would be necessary. This becomes more of an issue for bulk updates/inserts.
But at least it seems to work for me o.k...
I borrowed a bit of code from here to form part of my solution...
The ? for parameters was part of the solution for me, but it only works with integers, like ID. It still fails for strings because the parameter length isn't specifed.
OdbcException: ERROR [HY104] [Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver]Invalid precision value
System.Data.Odbc. OdbcParameter.Bind(OdbcStatementHandle hstmt,
OdbcCommand command, short ordinal, CNativeBuffer parameterBuffer, bool allowReentrance)
System.Data.Odbc.OdbcParameterCollection.Bind(OdbcCommand command, CMDWrapper cmdWrapper, CNativeBuffer parameterBuffer)
System.Data.Odbc.OdbcCommand.ExecuteReaderObject(CommandBehavior behavior, string method, bool needReader, object[] methodArguments, SQL_API odbcApiMethod)
System.Data.Odbc.OdbcCommand.ExecuteReaderObject(CommandBehavior behavior, string method, bool needReader)
System.Data.Common.DbCommand.ExecuteDbDataReaderAsync(CommandBehavior behavior, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
Dapper.SqlMapper.QueryAsync(IDbConnection cnn, Type effectiveType, CommandDefinition command) in SqlMapper.Async.cs
WebAPI.DataAccess.CustomerRepository.GetByState(string state) in Repository.cs
var result = await conn.QueryAsync(sQuery, new { State = state });
WebAPI.Controllers.CustomerController.GetByState(string state) in CustomerController .cs
return await _customerRepo.GetByState(state);
For Dapper to pass string parameters to ODBC I had to specify the length.
var result = await conn.QueryAsync<Customer>(sQuery, new { State = new DbString { Value = state, IsFixedLength = true, Length = 4} });
Few days back I put a question regarding mapping two classes Message and MessageStatusHistory using EF. The mapping is going fine but I am facing some problems with the navigation property StatusHistory in class Message that relates it to MessageStatusHistory objects. I am loading the messages for one user only and want to the statuses pertaining to that user only. Like I would want to show if the user has marked message as read/not-read and when. If I use default loading mechanism like following it loads all the history related to the message irrespective of the user:
IDbSet<Message> dbs = _repo.DbSet;
dbs.Include("StatusHistory").Where(x=>x.MessageIdentifier == msgIdentifier);
To filter history for one user only I tried following trick:
IDbSet<Message> dbs = _repo.DbSet;
var q = from m in dbs.Include("StatusHistory")
where m.MessageIdentifier == msgIdentifier
select new Message
{
MessageIdentifier = m.MessageIdentifier,
/*OTHER PROPERTIES*/
StatusHistory = m.StatusHistory
.Where(x => x.UserId == userId).ToList()
};
return q.ToList();//THROWING ERROR ON THIS LINE
I am getting the error:
The entity or complex type 'MyLib.Biz.Message' cannot be constructed in a LINQ
to Entities query.
I have tried by commenting StatusHistory = m.StatusHistory.Where(x => x.UserId == userId).ToList() also but it has not helped.
Please help me in getting Messages with filtered StatusHistory.
EDIT:- above is resolved with this code:
var q = from m in _repository.DBSet.Include("Histories")
where m.MessageIdentifier == id
select new {
m.Id,/*OTHER PROPERTIES*/
Histories = m.Histories.Where(x =>
x.SenderId == userId).ToList()
};
var lst = q.ToList();
return lst.Select(m => new Message{
Id = m.Id, MessageIdentifier = m.MessageIdentifier,
MessageText = m.MessageText, Replies = m.Replies,
ReplyTo = m.ReplyTo, Histories = m.Histories, SenderId =
m.SenderId, SenderName = m.SenderName, CreatedOn = m.CreatedOn
}).ToList();
But if I try to include replies to the message with:
from m in _repository.DBSet.Include("Replies").Include("Histories")
I am getting error on converting query to List with q.ToList() for Histories = m.Histories.Where(x=> x.SenderId == userId).ToList().
About your EDIT part: You cannot use ToList() in a projection, just leave it an IEnumerable<T> and convert to a List<T> when you construct the Message. You also don't need to create two list objects, you can switch from the LINQ to Entities query to LINQ to Objects (the second Select) by using AsEnumerable():
var list = (from m in _repository.DBSet
where m.MessageIdentifier == id
select new {
// ...
Histories = m.Histories.Where(x => x.SenderId == userId)
})
.AsEnumerable() // database query is executed here
.Select(m => new Message {
// ...
Histories = m.Histories.ToList(),
// ...
}).ToList();
return list;
Be aware that Include has no effect when you use a projection with select. You need to make the properties that you want to include part of the projection - as you already did with select new { Histories.....
I'm trying to do something similar to this post where I don't pull back all columns from a particular entity, however my framework makes use of inheritence and I lose scope of the entity type after it's been cast to an anonymous type.
The structure of my Entity Framework has a base entity called Action. From here I've created two inherited entities called Event and Activity. I want to pull back the last X Actions and pass them to my strongly typed view which accepts an Action and from there determines if its an Activity or Event and renders the correct partial view.
if(Model.GetType() == typeof(Event))
{
//render Event view
}
else if(Model.GetType() == typeof(Activity))
{
//render Activity view
}
I can pull the last 10 as an anonymous type and then cast:
var result = from a in new DataContext().Actions
where a.UserId == someGuidValue
select new { a.CreatedOn, a.Summary };
List<Action> list = result.AsEnumerable()
.Select(o => new Action {
CreatedOn = o.CreatedOn,
Summary = o.Summary
}).ToList();
However, once I pass the new List of Actions to my strongly typed view it loses scope of whether it's an Activity or an Event since it's been cast as an Action. My question is, without exposing the discriminator column, is there any way to cast each item to the proper type or am I going about this the wrong way?
A bit kludgy, but will work:
var result = from a in new DataContext().Actions
where a.UserId == someGuidValue
let IsEvent = a as Event != null
select new { a.CreatedOn, IsEvent, a.Summary };
List<Action> list = result.AsEnumerable()
.Select(o => o.IsEvent ?
(Action) new Event {
CreatedOn = o.CreatedOn,
Summary = o.Summary
}
: (Action) new Activity {
CreatedOn = o.CreatedOn,
Summary = o.Summary
}
}).ToList();
Example with type-specific columns, presuming that e.EventSpecific is of a nullable type.
var result = from a in new DataContext().Actions
where a.UserId == someGuidValue
let ev = a as Event
let IsEvent = ev != null
select new { a.CreatedOn, IsEvent, a.Summary, ev.EventSpecific };
List<Action> list = result.AsEnumerable()
.Select(o => o.IsEvent ?
(Action) new Event {
CreatedOn = o.CreatedOn,
Summary = o.Summary,
EventSpecific = o.EventSpecific
}
: (Action) new Activity {
CreatedOn = o.CreatedOn,
Summary = o.Summary,
EventSpecific = o.EventSpecific // will be null, but using o.EventSpecific saves casting
}
}).ToList();
If o.EventSpecific is of a non-nullable type, then you must convert it to a nullable type in the L2E query.
You are probably on the wrong way. At first I would assume that Action should be an abstract class and you should not be able to create instances of it at all. If you then only fetch a subset of the properties and the subset does no longer allow to discriminate between events and activities, it is probably the wrong way to try making events and activities out of them.
So it actually seems not to be a technical problem - it should be quite easy to include some discrimination information in the anonymous type - but a design problem. I suggest to rethink if it is required to discriminate the query result and if so if it is really a good idea to discriminate the result in absence of an discriminator.