ado.netc++sql-server
I am trying to delete data from a table using a SQLDataAdapter, and to do so I need to give it a DeleteCommand.
The SQL I would use to delete a row is:
DELETE FROM table WHERE ID = x
The problem is thus: How do I specify to the DataAdapter what to replace x with? The SQL to generate the DataAdapter is slightly different (no joins) than the data table it's being told to update (an outer join).
How can I do this?
These are the versions of C# known about at the time of this writing:
Dispose on IEnumerators which implemented IDisposable. A few other small features.var), and query expressionsdynamic), delegate and interface generic variance, more COM support, named arguments, tuple data type and optional parametersawait in catch and finally, extension Add methods in collection initializers.out parameter declarations, local functions, binary literals, digit separators, and arbitrary async returns.unmanaged generic type constraints. ref reassignment. Unsafe improvements: stackalloc initialization, unpinned indexed fixed buffers, custom fixed statements. Improved overloading resolution. Expression variables in initializers and queries. == and != defined for tuples. Auto-properties' backing fields can now be targeted by attributes.new expressions, target typed ?? and ?), and covariant returns. Minor features: relax ordering of ref and partial modifiers, parameter null checking, lambda discard parameters, native ints, attributes on local functions, function pointers, static lambdas, extension GetEnumerator, module initializers, and extending partial.What are the correct version numbers for C#? What came out when? Why can't I find any answers about C# 3.5?
There is no such thing as C# 3.5 - the cause of confusion here is that the C# 3.0 is present in .NET 3.5. The language and framework are versioned independently, however - as is the CLR, which is at version 2.0 for .NET 2.0 through 3.5, .NET 4 introducing CLR 4.0, service packs notwithstanding. The CLR in .NET 4.5 has various improvements, but the versioning is unclear: in some places it may be referred to as CLR 4.5 (this MSDN page used to refer to it that way, for example), but the Environment.Version property still reports 4.0.xxx.
As of May 3, 2017, the C# Language Team created a history of C# versions and features on their GitHub repository: Features Added in C# Language Versions. There is also a page that tracks upcoming and recently implemented language features.
The source referenced by the OP has some credibility ...but what about Microsoft - what is the stance on struct usage? I sought some extra learning from Microsoft, and here is what I found:
Consider defining a structure instead of a class if instances of the type are small and commonly short-lived or are commonly embedded in other objects.
Do not define a structure unless the type has all of the following characteristics:
- It logically represents a single value, similar to primitive types (integer, double, and so on).
- It has an instance size smaller than 16 bytes.
- It is immutable.
- It will not have to be boxed frequently.
Okay, #2 and #3 anyway. Our beloved dictionary has 2 internal structs:
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] // default for structs
private struct Entry //<Tkey, TValue>
{
// View code at *Reference Source
}
[Serializable, StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)]
public struct Enumerator :
IEnumerator<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>>, IDisposable,
IDictionaryEnumerator, IEnumerator
{
// View code at *Reference Source
}
The 'JonnyCantCode.com' source got 3 out of 4 - quite forgivable since #4 probably wouldn't be an issue. If you find yourself boxing a struct, rethink your architecture.
Let's look at why Microsoft would use these structs:
Entry and Enumerator, represent single values.Entry is never passed as a parameter outside of the Dictionary class. Further investigation shows that in order to satisfy implementation of IEnumerable, Dictionary uses the Enumerator struct which it copies every time an enumerator is requested ...makes sense.Enumerator is public because Dictionary is enumerable and must have equal accessibility to the IEnumerator interface implementation - e.g. IEnumerator getter. Update - In addition, realize that when a struct implements an interface - as Enumerator does - and is cast to that implemented type, the struct becomes a reference type and is moved to the heap. Internal to the Dictionary class, Enumerator is still a value type. However, as soon as a method calls GetEnumerator(), a reference-type IEnumerator is returned.
What we don't see here is any attempt or proof of requirement to keep structs immutable or maintaining an instance size of only 16 bytes or less:
readonly - not immutableEntry has an undetermined lifetime (from Add(), to Remove(), Clear(), or garbage collection);And ... 4. Both structs store TKey and TValue, which we all know are quite capable of being reference types (added bonus info)
Hashed keys notwithstanding, dictionaries are fast in part because instancing a struct is quicker than a reference type. Here, I have a Dictionary<int, int> that stores 300,000 random integers with sequentially incremented keys.
Capacity: 312874
MemSize: 2660827 bytes
Completed Resize: 5ms
Total time to fill: 889ms
Capacity: number of elements available before the internal array must be resized.
MemSize: determined by serializing the dictionary into a MemoryStream and getting a byte length (accurate enough for our purposes).
Completed Resize: the time it takes to resize the internal array from 150862 elements to 312874 elements. When you figure that each element is sequentially copied via Array.CopyTo(), that ain't too shabby.
Total time to fill: admittedly skewed due to logging and an OnResize event I added to the source; however, still impressive to fill 300k integers while resizing 15 times during the operation. Just out of curiosity, what would the total time to fill be if I already knew the capacity? 13ms
So, now, what if Entry were a class? Would these times or metrics really differ that much?
Capacity: 312874
MemSize: 2660827 bytes
Completed Resize: 26ms
Total time to fill: 964ms
Obviously, the big difference is in resizing. Any difference if Dictionary is initialized with the Capacity? Not enough to be concerned with ... 12ms.
What happens is, because Entry is a struct, it does not require initialization like a reference type. This is both the beauty and the bane of the value type. In order to use Entry as a reference type, I had to insert the following code:
/*
* Added to satisfy initialization of entry elements --
* this is where the extra time is spent resizing the Entry array
* **/
for (int i = 0 ; i < prime ; i++)
{
destinationArray[i] = new Entry( );
}
/* *********************************************** */
The reason I had to initialize each array element of Entry as a reference type can be found at MSDN: Structure Design. In short:
Do not provide a default constructor for a structure.
If a structure defines a default constructor, when arrays of the structure are created, the common language runtime automatically executes the default constructor on each array element.
Some compilers, such as the C# compiler, do not allow structures to have default constructors.
It is actually quite simple and we will borrow from Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:
...what do we take away from this: in short, be responsible with the use of value types. They are quick and efficient, but have the ability to cause many unexpected behaviors if not properly maintained (i.e. unintentional copies).
Best Solution
Here you can pass parameter to delete command :
The code taken from MSDN