I have numerous items that need to be stored and retrieved by their ID. Their IDs, however, do not always start at zero. In fact, they may be much higher, such as 500 or more.
If I store these in an array, so array[0] -> array[499] are null and then array[500] -> array[500+n] contain the objects, is this going to affect performance? Alternatively, would it be better storing them in array[0] -> array[n] and iterating though the list until I find the item with the corresponding ID?
Thanks,
Will
Without knowing how you plan on using your array, from the brief description you've given, I would suggest using a Dictionary instead.
var dict:Dictionary = new Dictionary();
var someObject:Object {id: 500};
dict[someObject.id] = someObject; // store someObject in key 500
var retrievedObject:Object = dict[500]; // retrieve object from key 500
Related
Is there any way to initialize a Sequential value not in one fellow swoop?
Like, can I declare it, then use a for loop to populate it, step by step?
As this could all happen inside a class body, the true immutability of the Sequential value could then kick in once the class instance construction phase has been completed.
Example:
Sequential<String> strSeq;
for (i in span(0,10)) {
strSeq[i] = "hello";
}
This code doesn't work, as I get this error:
Error:(12, 9) ceylon: illegal receiving type for index expression:
'Sequential' is not a subtype of 'KeyedCorrespondenceMutator' or
'IndexedCorrespondenceMutator'
So what I can conclude is that sequences must be assigned in one statement, right?
Yes, several language guarantees hinge on the immutability of sequential objects, so that immutability must be guaranteed by the language – it can’t just trust you that you won’t mutate it after the initialization is done :)
Typically, what you do in this situation is construct some sort of collection (e. g. an ArrayList from ceylon.collection), mutate it however you want, and then take its .sequence() when you’re done.
Your specific case can also be written as a comprehension in a sequential literal:
String[] strSeq = [for (i in 0..10) "hello"];
The square brackets used to create a sequence literal accept not only a comma-separated list of values, but also a for-comprehension:
String[] strSeq = [for (i in 0..10) "hello"];
You can also do both at the same time, as long as the for-comprehension comes last:
String[] strSeq = ["hello", "hello", for (i in 0..8) "hello"];
In this specific case, you could also do this:
String[] strSeq = ["hello"].repeat(11);
You can also get a sequence of sequences via nesting:
String[][] strSeqSeq = [for (i in 0..2) [for (j in 0..2) "hello"]];
And you can do the cartesian product (notice that the nested for-comprehension here isn't in square brackets):
[Integer, Character][] pairs = [for (i in 0..2) for (j in "abc") [i, j]];
Foo[] is an abbreviation for Sequential<Foo>, and x..y translates to span(x, y).
If you know upfront the size of the sequence you want to create, then a very efficient way is to use an Array:
value array = Array.ofSize(11, "");
for (i in 0:11) {
array[i] = "hello";
}
String[] strSeq = array.sequence();
On the other hand, if you don't know the size upfront, then, as described by Lucas, you need to use either:
a comprehension, or
some sort of growable array, like ArrayList.
I have a lua script, which simplified is like this:
local item = {};
local id = redis.call("INCR", "counter");
item["id"] = id;
item["data"] = KEYS[1]
redis.call("SET", "item:" .. id, cjson.encode(item));
return cjson.encode(item);
KEYS[1] is a stringified json object:
JSON.stringify({name : 'some name'});
What happens is that because I'm using cjson.encode to add the item to the set, it seems to be getting stringified twice, so the result is:
{"id":20,"data":"{\"name\":\"some name\"}"}
Is there a better way to be handling this?
First, regardless your question, you're using KEYS the wrong way and your script isn't written according to the guidelines. You should not generate key names in your script (i.e. call SET with "item:" .. id as a keyname) but rather use the KEYS input array to declare any keys involved a priori.
Secondly, instead of passing the stringified string with KEYS, use the ARGV input array.
Thirdly, you can do item["data"] = json.decode(ARGV[1]) to avoid the double encoding.
Lastly, perhaps you should learn about Redis' Hash data type - it may be more suitable to your needs.
I have two ways in which i can send data(json string) to server.
1)map<key,list>
eg. {"components":["ab","bc","cd"],"values":[1,2,3]}
This represents value of component "ab" is 1.
2) map<key,values>
eg. {"ab":1,"bc":2,"cd":3}
Now above example is of three components but I want to send thousands of components so which one is more scalable in terms of size and performance.
If you feel I missed some details feel free to ask.
Server side you will have to do this if you want value for key "bc":
Option 1: {"components":["ab","bc","cd"],"values":[1,2,3]}
String json = [...] // got json from client
MyJsonObject jo = new Gson().fromJson(json, MyJsonObject.class);
int index = jo.getComponents().indexOf("bc"); // O(n)
int value = jo.getValuess().get(index); // O(1)
Option 2: {"ab":1,"bc":2,"cd":3}
String json = [...] // got json from client
MyJsonObject jo = new Gson().fromJson(json, MyJsonObject.class);
int value = jo.get("bc"); // O(1) ~ O(n)
I believe the option 2 is better because of better performance. Moreover it is simpler and more readable than option 1. Differences in the bandwidth can be neglected.
But you should decide what solution is better for your application.
At the beginning of a method I want to check if the method is called with these exact parameters before, and if so, return the result that was returned back then.
At first, with one parameter, I used a Dictionary, but now I need to check 3 parameters (a String, an Object and a boolean).
I tried making a custom Object like so:
var cacheKey:Object = { identifier:identifier, type:type, someBoolean:someBoolean };
//if key already exists, return it (not working)
if (resultCache[cacheKey]) return resultCache[cacheKey];
//else: create result ...
//and save it in the cache
resultCache[cacheKey] = result;
But this doesn't work, because the seccond time the function is called, the new cacheKey is not the same object as the first, even though it's properties are the same.
So my question is: is there a datatype that will check the properties of the object used as key for a matching key?
And what else is my best option? Create a cache for the keys as well? :/
Note there are two aspects to the technical solution: equality comparison and indexing.
The Cliff Notes version:
It's easy to do custom equality comparison
In order to perform indexing, you need to know more than whether one object is equal to another -- you need to know which is object is "bigger" than the other.
If all of your properties are primitives you should squash them into a single string and use an Object to keep track of them (NOT a Dictionary).
If you need to compare some of the individual properties for reference equality you're going to have a write a function to determine which set of properties is bigger than the other, and then make your own collection class that uses the output of the comparison function to implement its own a binary search tree based indexing.
If the number of unique sets of arguments is in the several hundreds or less AND you do need reference comparison for your Object argument, just use an Array and the some method to do a naive comparison to all cached keys. Only you know how expensive your actual method is, so it's up to you to decide what lookup cost (which depends on the number of unique arguments provided to the function) is acceptable.
Equality comparison
To address equality comparison it is easy enough to write some code to compare objects for the values of their properties, rather than for reference equality. The following function enforces strict set comparison, so that both objects must contain exactly the same properties (no additional properties on either object allowed) with the same values:
public static propsEqual(obj1:Object, obj2:Object):Boolean {
for(key1:* in obj1) {
if(obj2[key1] === undefined)
return false;
if(obj2[key1] != obj2[key1])
return false;
}
for(key2:* in obj2)
if(obj1[key2] === undefined)
return false;
return true;
}
You could speed it up by eliminating the second for loop with the tradeoff that {A:1, B:2} will be deemed equal to {A:1, B:2, C:'An extra property'}.
Indexing
The problem with this in your case is that you lose the indexing that a Dictionary provides for reference equality or that an Object provides for string keys. You would have to compare each new set of function arguments to the entire list of previously seen arguments, such as using Array.some. I use the field currentArgs and the method to avoid generating a new closure every time.
private var cachedArgs:Array = [];
private var currentArgs:Object;
function yourMethod(stringArg:String, objArg:Object, boolArg:Boolean):* {
currentArgs = { stringArg:stringArg, objArg:objArg, boolArg:boolArg };
var iveSeenThisBefore:Boolean = cachedArgs.some(compareToCurrent);
if(!iveSeenThisBefore)
cachedArgs.push(currentArgs);
}
function compareToCurrent(obj:Object):Boolean {
return someUtil.propsEqual(obj, currentArgs);
}
This means comparison will be O(n) time, where n is the ever increasing number of unique sets of function arguments.
If all the arguments to your function are primitive, see the very similar question In AS3, where do you draw the line between Dictionary and ArrayCollection?. The title doesn't sound very similar but the solution in the accepted answer (yes I wrote it) addresses the exact same techinical issue -- using multiple primitive values as a single compound key. The basic gist in your case would be:
private var cachedArgs:Object = {};
function yourMethod(stringArg:String, objArg:Object, boolArg:Boolean):* {
var argKey:String = stringArg + objArg.toString() + (boolArg ? 'T' : 'F');
if(cachedArgs[argKey] === undefined)
cachedArgs[argKey] = _yourMethod(stringArg, objArg, boolArg);
return cachedArgs[argKey];
}
private function _yourMethod(stringArg:String, objArg:Object, boolArg:Boolean):* {
// Do stuff
return something;
}
If you really need to determine which reference is "bigger" than another (as the Dictionary does internally) you're going to have to wade into some ugly stuff, since Adobe has not yet provided any API to retrieve the "value" / "address" of a reference. The best thing I've found so far is this interesting hack: How can I get an instance's "memory location" in ActionScript?. Without doing a bunch of performance tests I don't know if using this hack to compare references will kill the advantages gained by binary search tree indexnig. Naturally it would depend on the number of keys.
How can I perform the following operations on a dictionary, provided all my values are unique and unsorted.
key : value
152 : 780
87 : 688
2165 : 15
I want to get all keys.
I want to find key for value 688
I want to get all values.
Preferably, without a loop and without having to maintain the key-value relation in an external object.
I sometimes miss, python for these sort of things.
If the keys are integer values, Array might help. It is a sparse array; so for and for each will only process keys that have been assigned a value (I have no idea about memory usage though).
So:
var list: Array = [];
list[1] = 10;
list[4] = 40;
for each(var value: int in list) trace(value);
// outputs (order can be different)
// 10
// 40
// index has to be * or String; the compiler gives an error if it is not
for(var index: * in list) trace(index);
// outputs (order can be different)
// 1
// 4
There is a indexOf method to get the key for a value; there is no simple function to get all keys though.
You cannot do any point you want without the cost of an iteration over your Dictionary. So maintaining another object seems to be what you need to do.