Multiple table select & brain spasm

Question

Selecting specific columns from multiple tables is easy. But what I want is the whole row from Table A along with a couple columns from Table B and I'm doing something wrong. What I've got is this:

 

Code Snippet

var issues = (from p in dc.DTC_Trading

join jp in dc.Depositories on p.DepositoryID equals jp.DepositoryID

where p.CloseOut == false

&& p.Settle1.Value.Date > DateTime.Now.Date

&& !(from o in dc.BloombergUploads

select o.dtcTradingID).Contains(p.ID)

select new

{

p,

jp.DName,

jp.DCity,

jp.DState,

jp.Restrictions

}).ToList();

 

 this.dataGridView1.DataSource = issues;

 

 

 

This looks right to my brain but it doesn't work the way I thought it would. Rather than give me the fields of p,

it just gives me a "p" column that displays the row type.

 

I realize I could just type out p.field1 ... p.fieldX in the select but 1) there are a lot of columns in that table and 2) I'm lazy and I'm sure there's something in LINQ that supports my laziness.

Answer 1

I suspect that trying to bind the object 'p' to a column in the GridView is resulting in the behavior you are observing.

 

Can you confirm that the query itself is returning the entire DTC_Trading object?

 

Thanks.

--Samir

 

 

Answer 2

Hi Samir,

 

Sorry, I should have mentioned that. Yes; after executing the query I can enumerate the 'p' and the contents of the row are there, as in:

 

foreach ( var v in issues )

{

v.p.<ColumnName>...

}

 

So I guess what I'm wondering is, is there a way to phrase the original query so that I can essentially say "Give me all of the row from Table A and these specific fields from Table B", in such a way that the selections from both tables end up in the "top level" of the returned item?

 

Spelled out I guess it would be something like

 

select row of A

AND

select new

{

B.field1

B.field2

}

 

foreach( var v in issues )

{

v.<column from A>...

v.<column from B>...

}

 

I tried applying Union() but it got angry with me.

 

I know it would be easy enough to run through the query results and manually stuff the fields into a new, single-level list of items that could be databound but it seems like there would be a way to do this.