views:

94

answers:

5
+1  A: 

Figure out how you would do this in standard SQL and then pick up a copy of Linqer (http://www.sqltolinq.com/). This product will convert almost any SQL statement into a LINQ query. It's not free, but not expensive either, and comes with a 30 day trial period. I have found it to be extremely useful.

Randy Minder
A: 

Sounds like you are trying to do a WHERE NOT IN, like maybe:

'var companiesWithoutSubcontracts =

        from noSub in Companies
        where !(from withSub in Companies
                select withSub.company_id)
               .Contains(noSub.company_id)
        select noSub;

`

Jonathan Bates
A: 

I have not tested it and it may well be that LINQ to SQL fails to translate the query, but in theory this should work.

var result = context
   .Subcontracts
   .Select(subcontract => new
      {
         Subcontract = subcontract,
         NotAssignedCompanies = context
            .Companies
            .Where(company => !company.Subcontracts.Contains(subcontract))
      });

This will return all not assigned companies for all subcontracts. If you only need the information for one specific subcontract, the following query will be sufficient.

var notAssignedCompanies = context
   .Companies
   .Where(company => !company.Subcontracts.Contains(specificSubcontract));
Daniel Brückner
+1  A: 

This should work:

var noContracts =
    from c in db.Companies
    join sc in db.Subcontracts.Where(sc => sc.active_status == 1) on c.company_id equals sc.company_id into compGroup
    from cg in compGroup.DefaultIfEmpty() 
    where cg.company_id == null
    select c;  

This does a LEFT OUTER JOIN. All subcontracts without a corresponding company_id will be assigned a NULL value for company_id, which it then selects.

Nick
Thanks. I can get it where it's selecting companies with active_status == 1 that are not in subcontracts.company_id. But, I can't seem to get it to work where it only matches subcontracts with active_status == 1. Where do I put the where in the join?
RememberME
@RememberME Edited to do what I think you want. This will also return companies with subcontracts that are inactive
Nick
You don't really need the join. LINQ to SQL is perfectly capable of handling a sub-select in the where clause.
Jacob Proffitt
@Jacob Proffitt At worst a join performs equally to a subquery, at best it is much more efficient than a subquery, especially when EXISTS is involved.
Nick
Oh yeah. I'm not judging the join *bad*. It's just not required.
Jacob Proffitt
+1  A: 

The sub-select is pretty much the same in LINQ.

var noSubs = from company in context.Companies
             where company.active_status == 1 &&
                 !(from subcontract in context.Subcontracts
                  where subcontract.active_status == 1
                  select subcontract.company_id).Contains(company.company_id)
             select company;

Linq to SQL will translate this as a "not exists" on the subcontract table.

Jacob Proffitt