Nov 15, 2020 02:40 PM|mgebhard|LINK
that is exactly what i don't want to do...that's the reason i switched from first example to second example because first eg was able to be converted to a join instead of using IN so i did that but in case of 2nd eg its not possible as per my knowledge that's
the sole reason i asked what to do in that case as sometimes we have to write IN queries which can't be converted to JOIN
Your second LINQ does NOT create an IN clause. It creates a WHERE EXISTS sub query which is NOT what you asked. The "Contains()" extension will create an "IN" clause.