I have a table that is generated by lua code and returned as a callback to client side, but the data is not ordered and I want to return a list sorted by id
local players = {}
for k, player in ipairs(QBCore.Functions.GetPlayers()) do
local charinfo = QBCore.Functions.GetPlayer(player).PlayerData.charinfo
local csn = QBCore.Functions.GetPlayer(player).PlayerData.citizenid
local playerjob = QBCore.Functions.GetPlayer(player).PlayerData.job.label
local ped = GetPlayerPed(player)
local playerCoords = GetEntityCoords(ped)
players[k] = {
["id"] = player,
["name"] = tostring(GetPlayerName(player)),
["charName"] = ("%s %s"):format(charinfo.firstname, charinfo.lastname),
["csn"] = csn,
["playerjob"] = playerjob,
["serverid"] = player,
["ped"] = GetPlayerPed(player),
["coords"] = playerCoords,
}
end
cb(players)
you can use table.sort to order your players table. this will sort the table in-place using the function you provide to determine the order.
table.sort is also explained in Programming in Lua: 19.3 – Sort
Here is an example based on your question:
players =
{
{id = 3217},
{id = 6716},
{id = 3432},
{id = 5575},
{id = 6124},
{id = 1156},
{id = 1789},
}
table.sort(players, function(p1,p2) return p1.id < p2.id end)
for k, v in ipairs(players) do
print(k, v.id)
end
Output:
1 1156
2 1789
3 3217
4 3432
5 5575
6 6124
7 6716
Related
The following query works, but I want to get the same result without using grp.Sum(). Can we do it?
from item in (await VehicleReplaceCostDataAsync())
group item by (item.type, item.size, item.ADA, item.eseq) into grp
orderby (grp.Key.eseq, grp.Key.size, grp.Key.ADA)
select new VehicleReplacementCost
{
type = grp.Key.type,
size = grp.Key.size,
ADA = grp.Key.ADA,
count = grp.Sum(x => x.count),
cost = grp.Sum(x => x.cost),
Fcount = grp.Sum(x => x.Fcount),
Fcost = grp.Sum(x => x.Fcost),
eseq = grp.Key.eseq,
}).ToList();
Perhaps by using .Aggregate()? [docs]
count = grp.Aggregate(0, (a, b) => a + b.count)
Thanks for the answer from Astrid. It looks like a good one, but I didn't test it. My colleague gave this solution instead by using yield:
var groups = costs
.GroupBy(type => (type.SystemId, type.Type, type.Size, type.ADA, type.Eseq))
.OrderBy(group => (group.Key.SystemId, group.Key.Eseq, group.Key.Size, group.Key.ADA));
foreach (var group in groups)
{
var result = new ProgramGuideVehicleCostRow
{
SystemId = group.Key.SystemId,
Type = group.Key.Type,
Size = group.Key.Size,
ADA = group.Key.ADA,
};
foreach (var row in group)
{
result.Cost += row.Cost;
result.Fcost += row.Fcost;
result.Count += row.Count;
result.Fcount += row.Fcount;
}
yield return result;
}
I need to sort a list _rolls to have both the users rolls and ranks taken into considerations.
_rolls = {
{Username="User1", Roll=50, RankPrio=1},
{Username="User2", Roll=2, RankPrio=3},
{Username="User4", Roll=10, RankPrio=2},
{Username="User5", Roll=9, RankPrio=2},
{Username="User3", Roll=32, RankPrio=2}
}
I want the list to be sorted like
_rolls = {
{Username="User2", Roll=2, RankPrio=3},
{Username="User3", Roll=32, RankPrio=2},
{Username="User4", Roll=10, RankPrio=2},
{Username="User5", Roll=9, RankPrio=2},
{Username="User1", Roll=50, RankPrio=1}
}
i know i can use this to sort by Rolls but i cant see a way to do both.
table.sort(_rolls, function(a,b) return a.Roll < b.Roll end)
You just need to write the comparison function so that it compares the Roll fields when the RankPrio fields compare equal:
_rolls = {
{Username="User1", Roll=50, RankPrio=1},
{Username="User2", Roll=2, RankPrio=3},
{Username="User4", Roll=10, RankPrio=2},
{Username="User5", Roll=9, RankPrio=2},
{Username="User3", Roll=32, RankPrio=2}
}
table.sort(_rolls,
function (a, b)
if a.RankPrio == b.RankPrio then
return b.Roll < a.Roll
else return b.RankPrio < a.RankPrio
end
end)
> table.inspect(_rolls)
1 =
RankPrio = 3
Username = User2
Roll = 2
2 =
RankPrio = 2
Username = User3
Roll = 32
3 =
RankPrio = 2
Username = User4
Roll = 10
4 =
RankPrio = 2
Username = User5
Roll = 9
5 =
RankPrio = 1
Username = User1
Roll = 50
I have following PIG script which is taking lot of time for processing 342 files with 256 MB as split size(testing only). Can anybody suggest improvement:
SPLIT filteredalnumcdrs into splitalnumcdrs_1 IF (
(SUBSTRING(aparty,2,3) == '-')),
splitalnumcdrs_2 OTHERWISE;
tmpsplitalnumcdrs_1 = FOREACH splitalnumcdrs_1 GENERATE aparty,srcgt,destgt,SUBSTRING(aparty,0,2) as splitaparty,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost;
groupsplitalnumcdrs_1 = GROUP tmpsplitalnumcdrs_1 BY (aparty,srcgt,destgt,splitaparty,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost);
distinctsplitalnumcdrs_1 = FOREACH groupsplitalnumcdrs_1 {
uniqsplitalnumcdrs_1 = DISTINCT tmpsplitalnumcdrs_1.(aparty,srcgt,destgt,splitaparty,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost);
GENERATE FLATTEN(group),COUNT(tmpsplitalnumcdrs_1) as countalnumcdrs;
};
tmpsplitalnumcdrs_2 = FOREACH splitalnumcdrs_2 GENERATE aparty,srcgt,destgt,aparty as splitaparty_2,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost;
groupsplitalnumcdrs_2 = GROUP tmpsplitalnumcdrs_2 BY (aparty,srcgt,destgt,splitaparty_2,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost);
distinctsplitalnumcdrs_2 = FOREACH groupsplitalnumcdrs_2 {
uniqsplitalnumcdrs_2 = DISTINCT tmpsplitalnumcdrs_2.(aparty,srcgt,destgt,splitaparty_2,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost);
GENERATE FLATTEN(group),COUNT(tmpsplitalnumcdrs_2) as countsplitalnumcdrs_2;
};
distinctalnumcdrs = UNION distinctsplitalnumcdrs_1,distinctsplitalnumcdrs_2;
alnumreportmap = FOREACH distinctalnumcdrs GENERATE aparty,smsiuc_udfs.mapgtabparty(srcgt,destgt,splitaparty,bparty),smscgt,status,prepost,countalnumcdrs PARALLEL 20;
alnumreportmapgroup = GROUP alnumreportmap BY (aparty,mappedreport,smscgt,status,prepost);
alnumreportmaprecord = FOREACH alnumreportmapgroup GENERATE FLATTEN(group),SUM(alnumreportmap.countalnumcdrs) as alnumsmscount;
you can avoid union
tmpsplitalnumcdrs = foreach filteredalnumcdrs generate aparty,srcgt,destgt,(SUBSTRING(aparty,2,3) == '-' ?SUBSTRING(aparty,0,2):aparty) as splitaparty,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost;
distinctsplitalnumcdrs = FOREACH tmpsplitalnumcdrs {
uniqsplitalnumcdrs = DISTINCT tmpsplitalnumcdrs.(aparty,srcgt,destgt,splitaparty,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost);
GENERATE FLATTEN(group),COUNT(tmpsplitalnumcdrs) as countsplitalnumcdrs;
};
why do you need
uniqsplitalnumcdrs = DISTINCT tmpsplitalnumcdrs.(aparty,srcgt,destgt,splitaparty,bparty,smscgt,status,prepost);
positions = {
--table 1
[1] = {pos = {fromPosition = {x=1809, y=317, z=8},toPosition = {x=1818, y=331, z=8}}, m = {"100 monster"}},
--table 2
[2] = {pos = {fromPosition = {x=1809, y=317, z=8},toPosition = {x=1818, y=331, z=8}}, m = {"100 monster"}},
-- table3
[3] = {pos = {fromPosition = {x=1809, y=317, z=8},toPosition = {x=1818, y=331, z=8}}, m = {"100 monster"}}
}
tb = positions[?]--what need place here?
for _,x in pairs(tb.m) do --function
for s = 1, tonumber(x:match("%d+")) do
pos = {x = math.random(tb.pos.fromPosition.x, tb.pos.toPosition.x), y = math.random(tb.pos.fromPosition.y, tb1.pos.toPosition.y), z = tb.pos.fromPosition.z}
doCreateMonster(x:match("%s(.+)"), pos)
end
end
Here the problem, i use tb = positions[1], and it only for one table in "positions" table. But how apply this function for all tables in this table?
I don't know Lua very well but you could loop over the table:
for i = 0, table.getn(positions), 1 do
tb = positions[i]
...
end
Sources :
http://lua.gts-stolberg.de/en/schleifen.php and http://www.lua.org/pil/19.1.html
You need to iterate over positions with a numerical for.
Note that, unlike Antoine Lassauzay's answer, the loop starts at 1 and not 0, and uses the # operator instead of table.getn (deprecated function in Lua 5.1, removed in Lua 5.2).
for i=1,#positions do
tb = positions[i]
...
end
use the pairs() built-in. there isn't any reason to do a numeric for loop here.
for index, position in pairs(positions) do
tb = positions[index]
-- tb is now exactly the same value as variable 'position'
end
I have 2 datatables in a dataset. One table has a list called CostTypes. Just an Id and Description field.
The other datatable is the master table and has many records and one of the columns is the cost type. There will be cost types that are not reference in this datatable. There is another column in this databale called cost.
What I am trying to do is get a summary by cost type with a total of the cost. But I want ALL cost types listed any values not in the master table will be zero.
CostType table
Id, Description
1,Marketing
2,Sales
3,Production
4,Service
Master table
Id, Cost, CostTypeId
1,10,1
2,120,1
3,40,3
So I would like to see a result in a datable (if possible) so I can bind to datagridview
Marketing 130
Sales 0
Production 40
Service 0
Thanks for the help everyone, this is what I came up from the answers - Can anyone suggest any improvements???
Also how can I convert the result in query1 into a datable???
var query1 =
from rowCT in costTypes.AsEnumerable()
from rowSTD in stdRates.AsEnumerable()
.Where( d => d.Field<int?>( "CostTypeId" ) == rowCT.Field<int?>( "CostTypeId" ) )
.DefaultIfEmpty()
group new { row0 = rowCT, row1 = rowSTD }
by rowCT.Field<string>( "Description" ) into g
select new
{
g.Key,
Cost = g.Sum( x => x.row1 == null ? 0 : x.row1.Field<decimal>( "Cost" ) ),
TotalCost = g.Sum( x => x.row1 == null ? 0 : x.row1.Field<decimal>( "TotalCost" ) ),
TotalHours = g.Sum( x => x.row1 == null ? 0 : x.row1.Field<decimal>( "TotalHours" ) ),
TotalLabourCost = g.Sum( x => x.row1 == null ? 0 : x.row1.Field<decimal>( "TotalLabourCost" ) )
}
;
Maybe something like this:
Test data:
DataTable dt=new DataTable();
dt.Columns.Add("Id",typeof(int));
dt.Columns.Add("Description",typeof(string));
dt.Rows.Add(1,"Marketing");
dt.Rows.Add(2,"Sales");
dt.Rows.Add(3,"Production");
dt.Rows.Add(4,"Service");
DataTable dt2=new DataTable();
dt2.Columns.Add("Id",typeof(int));
dt2.Columns.Add("Cost",typeof(int));
dt2.Columns.Add("CostTypeId",typeof(int));
dt2.Rows.Add(1,10,1);
dt2.Rows.Add(2,120,1);
dt2.Rows.Add(3,40,1);
Linq query
var query=(
from row in dt.AsEnumerable()
from row1 in dt2.AsEnumerable()
.Where (d =>d.Field<int>("Id")==row.Field<int>("Id") )
.DefaultIfEmpty()
group new{row,row1}
by row.Field<string>("Description") into g
select new
{
g.Key,
Cost=g.Sum (x =>x.row1==null?0:x.row1.Field<int>("Cost"))
}
);
Result
Key Cost
Marketing 10
Sales 120
Production 40
Service 0
You can use the Sum extension method to compute the cost. It will return 0 if the collection is empty which is exactly what you want:
var costTypes = new DataTable("CostTypes");
costTypes.Columns.Add("Id", typeof(Int32));
costTypes.Columns.Add("Description", typeof(String));
costTypes.Rows.Add(1, "Marketing");
costTypes.Rows.Add(2, "Sales");
costTypes.Rows.Add(3, "Production");
costTypes.Rows.Add(4, "Service");
var costEntries = new DataTable("CostEntries");
costEntries.Columns.Add("Id", typeof(Int32));
costEntries.Columns.Add("Cost", typeof(Int32));
costEntries.Columns.Add("CostTypeId", typeof(Int32));
costEntries.Rows.Add(1, 10, 1);
costEntries.Rows.Add(2, 120, 1);
costEntries.Rows.Add(3, 40, 3);
var costs = costTypes
.Rows
.Cast<DataRow>()
.Select(
dr => new {
Id = dr.Field<Int32>("Id"),
Description = dr.Field<String>("Description")
}
)
.Select(
ct => new {
ct.Description,
TotalCost = costEntries
.Rows
.Cast<DataRow>()
.Where(ce => ce.Field<Int32>("CostTypeId") == ct.Id)
.Sum(ce => ce.Field<Int32>("Cost"))
}
);
The result is:
Description|TotalCost
-----------+---------
Marketing | 130
Sales | 0
Production | 40
Service | 0
You can create a new DataSet quite simply:
var costsDataTable = new DataTable("Costs");
costsDataTable.Columns.Add("Description", typeof(String));
costsDataTable.Columns.Add("TotalCost", typeof(Int32));
foreach (var cost in costs)
costsDataTable.Rows.Add(cost.Description, cost.TotalCost);
If the linear search performed by the Where in the code above is a concern you can improve the performance by creating a lookup table in advance:
var costEntriesLookup = costEntries
.Rows
.Cast<DataRow>()
.Select(
ce => new {
Cost = ce.Field<Int32>("Cost"),
CostTypeId = ce.Field<Int32>("CostTypeId")
}
)
.ToLookup(ce => ce.CostTypeId, ce => ce.Cost);
var costs = costTypes
.Rows
.Cast<DataRow>()
.Select(
dr => new {
Id = dr.Field<Int32>("Id"),
Description = dr.Field<String>("Description")
}
)
.Select(
ct => new {
ct.Description,
TotalCost = costEntriesLookup.Contains(ct.Id)
? costEntriesLookup[ct.Id].Sum()
: 0
}
);
I came up with a simpler bit of linq than others seemed to use. Thanks to Martin Liversage for the code to create the input data.
var costTypes = new DataTable("CostTypes");
costTypes.Columns.Add("Id", typeof(Int32));
costTypes.Columns.Add("Description", typeof(String));
costTypes.Rows.Add(1, "Marketing");
costTypes.Rows.Add(2, "Sales");
costTypes.Rows.Add(3, "Production");
costTypes.Rows.Add(4, "Service");
var costEntries = new DataTable("CostEntries");
costEntries.Columns.Add("Id", typeof(Int32));
costEntries.Columns.Add("Cost", typeof(Int32));
costEntries.Columns.Add("CostTypeId", typeof(Int32));
costEntries.Rows.Add(1, 10, 1);
costEntries.Rows.Add(2, 120, 1);
costEntries.Rows.Add(3, 40, 3);
var cte = costTypes.Rows.Cast<DataRow>();
var cee = costEntries.Rows.Cast<DataRow>();
var output = cte.Select(
ct => new {
Description = ct["Description"],
Sum = cee.Where(ce=>ce["CostTypeId"].Equals(ct["Id"])).Sum(ce=>(int)ce["Cost"])
}
);
This may lose efficiency on larger tables since each cost type will search the cost entry table whereas using grouping I suspect you only need one pass over the table. Personally I'd prefer the (to my mind) simpler looking code. It will depend on your use case though.