tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post3269481978144047279..comments2010-02-26T19:25:21.727ZSamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01345100698738870730noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-54306909594821708382010-02-26T19:25:21.727Z2010-02-26T19:25:21.727ZWhat did you get as an answer for that 4-digit product palindrome?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-88649728269243033212009-08-26T14:18:39.736+01:002009-08-26T14:18:39.736+01:00@Anonymous:<br />Glad I could helpSamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01345100698738870730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-47880134898404745572009-08-26T02:17:01.325+01:002009-08-26T02:17:01.325+01:00This is brilliant. Thanks for sharing.<br /><br />I&#39;m using this to cancel Linq to SQL queries without any problems so far. There are some limitations, but for the most part they do not matter:<br /><br />1. call to AsCancelable must be the last thing in the pipeline so instead of putting it right after first from, you should put it after select, ie.<br />var query = from row in dc.table where... select ...;<br />var query = query.AsCancelable(...);<br /><br />This allows runtime to push your query to SQLServer as if this was just another ordinary query.<br /><br />2. Of course, you won&#39;t be able to cancel query at database level, but you can stop fetching rows, which is what I actually neaded.<br /><br />3. Unfortunately this means you can&#39;t use stuf like Max, First, etc. in any usefull way. If you put it before AsCancelable, you&#39;ll only get one record so there&#39;s no need to cancel anything, and if you put it after, it will be evaluated at client, which is probably not what you intended.<br /><br />Aside from this I don&#39;t see any obvious problems.<br /><br />Also, if you want to use it to query SQL, it makes sense to declare it as<br />public static IEnumerable(T) AsCancelable(T)(this IQueryable(T) sequence...)<br />This way you can say<br />long itemCount = sequence.Count();<br />right there in the extension method itself and save yourself the trouble of doing it manually, and sending it in as a parameter every time you use it. Count will be executed at database and it won&#39;t enumerate collection in the process.<br /><br />Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction. This was bogging me down for some time now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-18921474709483481192008-10-09T09:22:00.000+01:002008-10-09T09:22:00.000+01:00Cancelling a Linq to SQL query is much more difficult, I'm afraid. I don't really have any answers. <BR/><BR/>My best suggestion is to run the query on a separate thread so that you can abandon it, if needs be. You might not be able to do this in all circumstances though, because I think the DataContext is tied to a specific thread.Samhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01345100698738870730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-5639091124209462082008-10-08T22:40:00.000+01:002008-10-08T22:40:00.000+01:00how to cancel a linq to sql execution?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-9175139305440717762008-07-15T08:58:00.000+01:002008-07-15T08:58:00.000+01:00BW,<BR/> You can certainly use TakeWhile to support cancellation, but it wouldn't give you the progress reporting as well.<BR/><BR/>SamSamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01345100698738870730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-31409111907720723422008-07-14T02:44:00.000+01:002008-07-14T02:44:00.000+01:00Couldn't you just as easily use TakeWhile for this task?BWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17683471955431290697noreply@blogger.com