Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Returning IEnumerable<T> vs. IQueryable<T>

What is the difference between returning IQueryable<T> vs. IEnumerable<T>, when should one be preferred over the other?

IQueryable<Customer> custs = from c in db.Customers where c.City == "<City>" select c;  IEnumerable<Customer> custs = from c in db.Customers where c.City == "<City>" select c; 

Will both be deferred execution and when should one be preferred over the other?

like image 448
stackoverflowuser Avatar asked May 20 '10 18:05

stackoverflowuser


People also ask

Which one is better IEnumerable or IQueryable?

So if you working with only in-memory data collection IEnumerable is a good choice but if you want to query data collection which is connected with database `IQueryable is a better choice as it reduces network traffic and uses the power of SQL language.

Which is faster IEnumerable or IQueryable?

IQueryable is faster than IEnumerable. In addition to Munesh Sharma's answer:IEnumerable loads data in-memory and then apply filters to it one by one but IQueryable apply filters all at once and return the result.

In which scenarios would it be beneficial to use IQueryable instead of IEnumerable?

IEnumerable is useful when we want to iterate the collection of objects which deals with in-process memory. IQueryable is useful when we want to iterate a collection of objects which deals with ad-hoc queries against the data source or remote database, like SQL Server.

Why we use IQueryable in LINQ?

IQueryable is suitable for querying data from out-memory (like remote database, service) collections. While querying data from a database, IQueryable executes a "select query" on server-side with all filters. IQueryable is beneficial for LINQ to SQL queries.


2 Answers

Yes, both will give you deferred execution.

The difference is that IQueryable<T> is the interface that allows LINQ-to-SQL (LINQ.-to-anything really) to work. So if you further refine your query on an IQueryable<T>, that query will be executed in the database, if possible.

For the IEnumerable<T> case, it will be LINQ-to-object, meaning that all objects matching the original query will have to be loaded into memory from the database.

In code:

IQueryable<Customer> custs = ...; // Later on... var goldCustomers = custs.Where(c => c.IsGold); 

That code will execute SQL to only select gold customers. The following code, on the other hand, will execute the original query in the database, then filtering out the non-gold customers in the memory:

IEnumerable<Customer> custs = ...; // Later on... var goldCustomers = custs.Where(c => c.IsGold); 

This is quite an important difference, and working on IQueryable<T> can in many cases save you from returning too many rows from the database. Another prime example is doing paging: If you use Take and Skip on IQueryable, you will only get the number of rows requested; doing that on an IEnumerable<T> will cause all of your rows to be loaded in memory.

like image 123
driis Avatar answered Oct 09 '22 13:10

driis


The top answer is good but it doesn't mention expression trees which explain "how" the two interfaces differ. Basically, there are two identical sets of LINQ extensions. Where(), Sum(), Count(), FirstOrDefault(), etc all have two versions: one that accepts functions and one that accepts expressions.

  • The IEnumerable version signature is: Where(Func<Customer, bool> predicate)

  • The IQueryable version signature is: Where(Expression<Func<Customer, bool>> predicate)

You've probably been using both of those without realizing it because both are called using identical syntax:

e.g. Where(x => x.City == "<City>") works on both IEnumerable and IQueryable

  • When using Where() on an IEnumerable collection, the compiler passes a compiled function to Where()

  • When using Where() on an IQueryable collection, the compiler passes an expression tree to Where(). An expression tree is like the reflection system but for code. The compiler converts your code into a data structure that describes what your code does in a format that's easily digestible.

Why bother with this expression tree thing? I just want Where() to filter my data. The main reason is that both the EF and Linq2SQL ORMs can convert expression trees directly into SQL where your code will execute much faster.

Oh, that sounds like a free performance boost, should I use AsQueryable() all over the place in that case? No, IQueryable is only useful if the underlying data provider can do something with it. Converting something like a regular List to IQueryable will not give you any benefit.

like image 28
Jacob Avatar answered Oct 09 '22 13:10

Jacob