ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

LINQ: When to use SingleOrDefault vs. FirstOrDefault() with filtering criteria

Consider the IEnumerable extension methods SingleOrDefault() and FirstOrDefault()

MSDN documents that SingleOrDefault:

Returns the only element of a sequence, or a default value if the sequence is empty; this method throws an exception if there is more than one element in the sequence.

whereas FirstOrDefault from MSDN (presumably when using an OrderBy() or OrderByDescending() or none at all),

Returns the first element of a sequence

Consider a handful of example queries, it's not always clear when to use these two methods:

var someCust = db.Customers
.SingleOrDefault(c=>c.ID == 5); //unlikely(?) to be more than one, but technically COULD BE

var bobbyCust = db.Customers
.FirstOrDefault(c=>c.FirstName == "Bobby"); //clearly could be one or many, so use First?

var latestCust = db.Customers
.OrderByDescending(x=> x.CreatedOn)
.FirstOrDefault();//Single or First, or does it matter?

Question

What conventions do you follow or suggest when deciding to use SingleOrDefault() and FirstOrDefault() in your LINQ queries?


s
shashwat

If your result set returns 0 records:

SingleOrDefault returns the default value for the type (e.g. default for int is 0)

FirstOrDefault returns the default value for the type

If you result set returns 1 record:

SingleOrDefault returns that record

FirstOrDefault returns that record

If your result set returns many records:

SingleOrDefault throws an exception

FirstOrDefault returns the first record

Conclusion:

If you want an exception to be thrown if the result set contains many records, use SingleOrDefault.

If you always want 1 record no matter what the result set contains, use FirstOrDefault


I would suggest that it's rare to actually want the exception so most of the time FirstOrDefault would be preferred. I know cases would exist just not that often imo.
FirstOrDefault is returned first record means new record(last) / old record(first) ?can u clarify me?
@Duk, it depends on how you sort the records. You can use OrderBy() or OrderByDescending() etc before calling FirstOrDefault. See the OP's code example.
I like this answer too. Especially given that there are some occasions where you actually want the exception thrown because you intend to handle that rare case properly elsewhere as opposed to just pretend it doesn't happen. When you want the exception you are saying this clearly, and also forcing others to handle just encase making the overall system more robust.
It is very clearly stated so that one can easily understand.
W
Wai Ha Lee

Whenever you use SingleOrDefault, you clearly state that the query should result in at most a single result. On the other hand, when FirstOrDefault is used, the query can return any amount of results but you state that you only want the first one.

I personally find the semantics very different and using the appropriate one, depending on the expected results, improves readability.


A very important difference is that if you use SingleOrDefault on a sequence with more than one element, it throws an exception.
@kami if it didn't throw an exception it would be exactly like FirstOrDefault. The exception is what makes it SingleOrDefault. Good point bringing it up, and puts a nail on the coffin of differences.
I must say that from performance wise, the FirstOrDefault is working about 10 times faster than SingleOrDefault , using a List of 9,000,000 elements, class contains 2 integers and the Func contains a search of these two integers. Searching 200 times in a loop took 22 seconds on var v = list.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id1 == i && x.Id2 == i); and var v = list.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Id1 == i && x.Id2 == i); about 3 seconds
@BitsandBytesHandyman If SignleOrDefault didn't throw an exception when the sequence contained more than one items it would not behave exactly like FirstOrDefault. FirstOrDefault returns the first item, or null if the sequence is empty. SingleOrDefault should return the only item, or null if the sequence is empty OR if it contains more than one items, without throwing an exception at all.
@RSW Yes, I am aware of that. Reading carefully my comment, I was saying what SingleOrDefault should do, not what it does. But of course, what it should do, is very subjective. For me, the "SomethingOrDefault" pattern means: Get the value of "Something". If "Something" fails to return a value, return the default value. Which means that the default value should be returned even in the case where "Something" would throw an exception. So, where Single would throw an exception, SingleOrDefault should return the default value, in my perspective.
S
Stefan Steinegger

There is

a semantical difference

a performance difference

between the two.

Semantical Difference:

FirstOrDefault returns a first item of potentially multiple (or default if none exists).

SingleOrDefault assumes that there is a single item and returns it (or default if none exists). Multiple items are a violation of contract, an exception is thrown.

Performance Difference

FirstOrDefault is usually faster, it iterates until it finds the element and only has to iterate the whole enumerable when it doesn't find it. In many cases, there is a high probability to find an item.

SingleOrDefault needs to check if there is only one element and therefore always iterates the whole enumerable. To be precise, it iterates until it finds a second element and throws an exception. But in most cases, there is no second element.

Conclusion

Use FirstOrDefault if you don't care how many items there are or when you can't afford checking uniqueness (e.g. in a very large collection). When you check uniqueness on adding the items to the collection, it might be too expensive to check it again when searching for those items.

Use SingleOrDefault if you don't have to care about performance too much and want to make sure that the assumption of a single item is clear to the reader and checked at runtime.

In practice, you use First / FirstOrDefault often even in cases when you assume a single item, to improve performance. You should still remember that Single / SingleOrDefault can improve readability (because it states the assumption of a single item) and stability (because it checks it) and use it appropriately.


+1 "or when you can't afford checking uniqueness (e.g. in a very large collection).". I was looking for this. I would also add enforce uniqueness when inserting, or/and by design instead of at the time of making query!
@memetolsen Consider the code spit for the two with LINQ to SQL - FirstOrDefault uses Top 1. SingleOrDefault uses Top 2.
@memetolsen correct in terms of the original answer, your comment was referring to the database, so I was offering what happens from the provider. While the .Net code only iterates over 2 values, the database visits as many records as it needs to until it hits the second one meeting the criteria.
About performance considerations of SingleOrDefault: it does not has to iterate over the entire collection. It just look if the returned results have more than one element. So, I think that process time is despicable.
"SingleOrDefault needs to check if there is only one element and therefore always iterates the whole enumerable" This is not true; it only needs to know if the enumerable contains "more than one" element, so simply retrieving the first two elements is sufficient. You can see in the source at github.com/microsoft/referencesource/blob/master/System.Core/… that there is no loop, just two calls to enumerator.MoveNext()
s
shalke

Nobody has mentioned that FirstOrDefault translated in SQL does TOP 1 record, and SingleOrDefault does TOP 2, because it needs to know is there more than 1 record.


When I ran a SingleOrDefault through LinqPad and VS, I never got SELECT TOP 2, with FirstOrDefault I was able to get SELECT TOP 1, but as far as I can tell you do not get SELECT TOP 2.
Hey i have been tried in linqpad too and sql query made me afraid because it completely fetch all rows. I am not sure how can this be happen?
This depends entirely on the LINQ provider used. For example, LINQ to SQL and LINQ to Entities could translate to SQL in different ways. I just tried LINQPad with the IQ MySql provider, and FirstOrDefault() adds LIMIT 0,1 while SingleOrDefault() adds nothing.
EF Core 2.1 translates FirstOrDefault to SELECT TOP(1), SingleOrDefault to SELECT TOP(2)
If you specify SingleOrDefault, the database does a SELECT TOP(2) so that .NET can Exception if there is more than one result.
P
Prakash

For LINQ -> SQL:

SingleOrDefault

will generate query like "select * from users where userid = 1"

Select matching record, Throws exception if more than one records found

Use if you are fetching data based on primary/unique key column

FirstOrDefault

will generate query like "select top 1 * from users where userid = 1"

Select first matching rows

Use if you are fetching data based on non primary/unique key column


i think you should remove "Select all matching rows" from SingleOrDefault
s
spender

I use SingleOrDefault in situations where my logic dictates that the will be either zero or one results. If there are more, it's an error situation, which is helpful.


Often I find that SingleOrDefault() highlights cases where I have not applied the correct filtering on the result set, or where there is an issue with duplications in the underlying data. More often than not I find myself using Single() and SingleOrDefault() over the First() methods.
There are performance implications for Single() and SingleOrDefault() on LINQ to Objects if you have a large enumerable but when talking to a database (e.g. SQL Server) it will do a top 2 call and if you're indexes are setup correctly that call shouldn't be expensive and I'd rather fail fast and find the data issue instead of possibly introducing other data issues by taking the wrong duplicate when calling First() or FirstOrDefault().
O
Olli

In your cases, I would use the following:

select by ID==5: it's OK to use SingleOrDefault here, because you expect one [or none] entity, if you got more than one entity with ID 5, there's something wrong and definitely exception worthy.

when searching for people whose first name equals "Bobby", there can be more than one (quite possibly I would think), so you should neither use Single nor First, just select with the Where-operation (if "Bobby" returns too many entities, the user has to refine his search or pick one of the returned results)

the order by creation date should also be performed with a Where-operation (unlikely to have only one entity, sorting wouldn't be of much use ;) this however implies you want ALL entities sorted - if you want just ONE, use FirstOrDefault, Single would throw every time if you got more than one entity.


I disagree. If your database ID is a primary key, then the database is already enforcing uniqueness. Wasting CPU cycle to check if the database is doing its job on every query is just silly.
S
Steven

SingleOrDefault: You're saying that "At most" there is one item matching the query or default FirstOrDefault: You're saying that there is "At least" one item matching the query or default

Say that out loud next time you need to choose and you shall likely choose wisely. :)


Actually having no results is perfectly acceptable use of FirstOrDefault. More correctly: FirstOrDefault` = Any number of results but I only care about the first one, there may also be no results. SingleOrDefault = There are 1 or 0 results, if there are more that means there's an error somewhere. First = There is at least one result, and I want it. Single = There is exactly 1 result, no more, no less, and I want that one.
k
karlingen

Both are the element operators and they are used to select a single element from a sequence. But there is a minor difference between them. SingleOrDefault() operator would throw an exception if more than one elements are satisfied the condition where as FirstOrDefault() will not throw any exception for the same. Here is the example.

List<int> items = new List<int>() {9,10,9};
//Returns the first element of a sequence after satisfied the condition more than one elements
int result1 = items.Where(item => item == 9).FirstOrDefault();
//Throw the exception after satisfied the condition more than one elements
int result3 = items.Where(item => item == 9).SingleOrDefault();

"there is a minor difference between them" - That's major!
b
bytebender

In your last example:

var latestCust = db.Customers
.OrderByDescending(x=> x.CreatedOn)
.FirstOrDefault();//Single or First, or doesn't matter?

Yes it does. If you try to use SingleOrDefault() and the query results in more than record you would get and exception. The only time you can safely use SingleOrDefault() is when you are expecting only 1 and only 1 result...


That's correct. If you get 0 result, you also get an exception.
N
Nikolay Kostov

So as I understand now, SingleOrDefault will be good if you are querying for data that is guaranteed to be unique i.e. enforced by DB constraints like primary key.

Or is there a better way of querying for the primary key.

Assuming my TableAcc has

AccountNumber - Primary Key, integer
AccountName
AccountOpenedDate
AccountIsActive
etc.

and I want to query for an AccountNumber 987654, I use

var data = datacontext.TableAcc.FirstOrDefault(obj => obj.AccountNumber == 987654);

V
Vasil Kosturski

In my opinion FirstOrDefault is being overused a lot. In the majority of the cases when you’re filtering data you would either expect to get back a collection of elements matching the logical condition or a single unique element by its unique identifier – such as a user, book, post etc... That’s why we can even get as far as saying that FirstOrDefault() is a code smell not because there is something wrong with it but because it’s being used way too often. This blog post explores the topic in details. IMO most of the times SingleOrDefault() is a much better alternative so watch out for this mistake and make sure you use the most appropriate method that clearly represents your contract and expectations.


E
El Dude

One thing that is missed in the responses....

If there are multiple results, FirstOrDefault without an order by can bring back different results based on which ever index strategy happened to be used by the server.

Personally I cannot stand seeing FirstOrDefault in code because to me it says the developer didn't care about the results. With an order by though it can be useful as a way of enforcing the latest/earliest. I've had to correct a lot of issues caused by careless developers using FirstOrDefault.


P
PinoyDev

In essence this gives you some sort of validation to clean up your data, if you choose one over the other it will both give the data but SingleOrDefault will make you realize that when the data you're expecting should only have 1 result and spits out more 1 then you need to take a look at why your stored procedure or query resulted in such, duplicated items are never good in queries anyways.


F
Fred

I queried Google for the usage of the different methods on GitHub. This is done by running a Google search query for each method and limiting the query to the github.com domain and the .cs file extension by using the query "site:github.com file:cs ..."

It seems that the First* methods are more commonly used than the Single* methods.

| Method               | Results |
|----------------------|---------|
| FirstAsync           |     315 |
| SingleAsync          |     166 |
| FirstOrDefaultAsync  |     357 |
| SingleOrDefaultAsync |     237 |
| FirstOrDefault       |   17400 |
| SingleOrDefault      |    2950 |

interesting answer, but hope it didn't imply to choose by popularity
T
Theron Govender

I don't understand why you're using FirstOrDefault(x=> x.ID == key) when this could retrieve results much faster if you use Find(key). If you are querying with the Primary key of the table, the rule of thumb is to always use Find(key). FirstOrDefault should be used for predicate stuff like (x=> x.Username == username) etc.

this did not deserve a downvote as the heading of the question was not specific to linq on DB or Linq to List/IEnumerable etc.


Which namespace is Find() in?
Could you tell us please? Still waiting for an answer.
The word "IEnumerable" is in the very first line of the question body. If you only read the title and not the actual question, and posted an incorrect answer as a result, that's your mistake and a perfectly legitimate reason to downvote IMO.