Each filter collection is made up of name value pairs representing different filters (or just one).
The simplicitly and extensibility of this it what makes it so great to work with.
Any new filter can be reduced to a name like DragonArmorSkinFilter and a value like YOUNG_BABY
Internally a filter also has a type and options.
The type specifies what kind of input the user is expected to make. A number filter for example should block everything that is not a number.
Options specify either the possible select options or the upper and lower bound of a number input.
Each filter takes in an auction and outputs if it matches that auction given its filtervalue.
The first filter system version used to do this with the .Where extension method on IQueryable.
An IQueryable is esentially an abstraction for any datasource such as a Database but can also be created from an array.
The possibility to create it from an array was used to check if a single auction was matched by a filter.
FilterEngine.AddFilters(new SaveAuction[] { auction }.AsQueryable(), Filters).Any();With the abstraction of IQueryable the code was relatively straight forward and easy to understand.
However, as I later noticed, the abstraction caused a slowdown which was only noticeable once other parts of the flipper got faster.
(Also the fact that some users made huge filter lists of 300+ items instead of the anticipated 10 didn't help)
Time to optimize#
After recognizing the problem I first tried to optimize the IQueryable which proofed to be pretty complicated,
as this Blog Post seems to have already figured out 10 years ago.
Then I found that the .Where extension method from Linq isn't the same for IQueryable and IEnumerable.
And in fact queries against an IEnumerable are much faster than the original ones.
So just switch everything to IEnumerable right?
Well not so fast. You could do that but would loose the benefit of an IQueryable which is that the query is executed in the Database and not in the code.
Ie. Every item history search on sky.coflnet.com would load all auctions (currently about 350 million) and only then filter them.
As you might can tell this isn't feasible and would not return any results before the HTTP timeout.
Instead I implemented both versions one Method taking and returning IEnumerable and one taking and returning IQueryable.
But now I had duplicated a lot of code. I absolutely hate duplicate code as it is guranteed that one version will differ from the other at some point.
There had to be a way to express the filter in a way that both .Where extensions understand.
And in fact there is. After analysing the parameters of the .Where methods I found they both accept Expression's.
An Expression in most cases is a so called Lamda which is a fancy term for a Method without a name.
An example! Here is the content of the Bin filter (simplified a bit)
public override Expression<Func<Auction, bool>> GetExpression(FilterArgs args)
{
if (args.Get(this) == "true")
return auction => auction.Bin;
return auction => !auction.Bin;
}GetExpression returns an Expression which is of type Func of Auction to bool.
Essentially a Method returning true or false given some Auction.
Because this is an Expression it can be analysed by the Database as well as used in code to match new flips very quickly. It also enables the filter value to be parsed only once and then reused as it is part of the Expression itself.
The fact that this isn't a loop or some nested structure AND can reuse parsed filter values makes it even faster.
Summary#
Using Expressions is the best way I found to match filters. If you have an even better way feel free to hit me up. Or even better submit a PullRequest :)
In case you are not overloaded by now, take a look at my first implementation
Or do some further reading about Expression trees