Store Static Filter By Key Expression

Question

I've got an function which generates an expression to filter a table by it's primary key, when passed in an Object[], this is very similar to Find function except that it doesn't materialize so you can pass an IQueryable around afterwards

public static Expression<Func<T, bool>> FilterByPrimaryKeyPredicate<T>(this DbContext dbContext, object[] id)
{
    var keyProperties = dbContext.GetPrimaryKeyProperties<T>();
    var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "e");
    var body = keyProperties
        // e => e.{propertyName} == new {id = id[i]}.id
        .Select((p, i) => Expression.Equal(
            Expression.Property(parameter, p.Name),
            Expression.Convert(
                Expression.PropertyOrField(Expression.Constant(new { id = id[i] }), "id"),
                p.ClrType)))
        .Aggregate(Expression.AndAlso);
    return Expression.Lambda<Func<T, bool>>(body, parameter);
}

This works by first getting the primary keys for a table, it creates binary expression foreach property, the Id is wrapped in an anonymous type to leverage the query cache. This is working fine. However, I'd like to take this a step further.

I'd like to preserve the Expression so I don't have to generate it each time I pass on a new set of ids, How can I store this Expression while still leveraging the Query Cache?

Edit TL;DR

So I'm attempt to cache it using array access in a static class as suggest, however I'm encountering an error:

public class PrimaryKeyFilterContainer<T>
{
    const string ANON_ID_PROP = "id";
    static Expression<Func<T, bool>> _filter;
    Type ANON_TYPE = new { id = (object)0 }.GetType();
    public object[] id { get; set; }

    public PrimaryKeyFilterContainer()
    {
    }

    public Expression<Func<T, bool>> GetFilter(DbContext dbContext, object[] id)
    {
        this.id = id;

        if(null == _filter)
        {
            var keyProperties = dbContext.GetPrimaryKeyProperties<T>();
            var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "e");
            var body = keyProperties
                // e => e.PK[i] == id[i]
                .Select((p, i) => Expression.Equal(
                    Expression.Property(parameter, p.Name),
                    Expression.Convert(BuildNewExpression(i),
                        p.ClrType)))
                .Aggregate(Expression.AndAlso);

            _filter = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, bool>>(body, parameter);
        }

        return _filter;
    }

    NewExpression BuildNewExpression(int index)
    {
        var currentObject = Expression.Constant(this);
        var fieldAccess = Expression.PropertyOrField(currentObject, nameof(id));
        var arrayAccess = Expression.ArrayAccess(fieldAccess, Expression.Constant(index));
        return Expression.New(ANON_TYPE.GetConstructor(new[] { typeof(object) }), arrayAccess);
    }
}

No coercion operator is defined between types '<>f__AnonymousType0`1[System.Object]' and 'System.Int32'

I'm getting closer but I'm not sure if it's going to work still.

Answer 1

As I mentioned in the comments, the main problem is that we cannot use array index access inside the expression tree - EF6 throws not supported exception and EF Core turns it into client evaluation.

So we need to store the keys in a class with dynamic count of properties and property types. Fortunately the System.Tuple generic classes provide such functionality, and can be used in both EF6 and EF Core.

Following is a class that implements the above idea:

public class PrimaryKeyFilter<TEntity>
    where TEntity : class
{
    object valueBuffer;
    Func<object[], object> valueArrayConverter;

    public PrimaryKeyFilter(DbContext dbContext)
    {
        var keyProperties = dbContext.GetPrimaryKeyProperties<TEntity>();

        // Create value buffer type (Tuple) from key properties
        var valueBufferType = TupleTypes[keyProperties.Count - 1]
            .MakeGenericType(keyProperties.Select(p => p.ClrType).ToArray());

        // Build the delegate for converting value array to value buffer
        {
            // object[] values => new Tuple(values[0], values[1], ...)
            var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(object[]), "values");
            var body = Expression.New(
                valueBufferType.GetConstructors().Single(),
                keyProperties.Select((p, i) => Expression.Convert(
                    Expression.ArrayIndex(parameter, Expression.Constant(i)),
                    p.ClrType)));
            valueArrayConverter = Expression.Lambda<Func<object[], object>>(body, parameter).Compile();
        }

        // Build the predicate expression
        {
            var parameter = Expression.Parameter(typeof(TEntity), "e");
            var valueBuffer = Expression.Convert(
                Expression.Field(Expression.Constant(this), nameof(this.valueBuffer)),
                valueBufferType);
            var body = keyProperties
                // e => e.{propertyName} == valueBuffer.Item{i + 1}
                .Select((p, i) => Expression.Equal(
                    Expression.Property(parameter, p.Name),
                    Expression.Property(valueBuffer, $"Item{i + 1}")))
                .Aggregate(Expression.AndAlso);
            Predicate = Expression.Lambda<Func<TEntity, bool>>(body, parameter);
        }
    }

    public Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> Predicate { get; }

    public void SetValues(params object[] values) =>
        valueBuffer = valueArrayConverter(values);

    static readonly Type[] TupleTypes =
    {
        typeof(Tuple<>),
        typeof(Tuple<,>),
        typeof(Tuple<,,>),
        typeof(Tuple<,,,>),
        typeof(Tuple<,,,,>),
        typeof(Tuple<,,,,,>),
        typeof(Tuple<,,,,,,>),
        typeof(Tuple<,,,,,,,>),
    };
}

You can create and store an instance of the class. Then use the expression returned by the Predicate property inside the query. And SetValues method to set the parameters.

The drawback is that the value storage is bound to the class instance, hence it cannot be used concurrently. The original approach works well in all scenarios, and the performance impact IMO should be negligible, so you might consider staying on it.