Related
I was looking at code regarding how to return a mode from an array and I ran into this code:
def mode(array)
answer = array.inject ({}) { |k, v| k[v]=array.count(v);k}
answer.select { |k,v| v == answer.values.max}.keys
end
I'm trying to conceptualize what the syntax means behind it as I am fairly new to Ruby and don't exactly understand how hashes are being used here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Line by line:
answer = array.inject ({}) { |k, v| k[v]=array.count(v);k}
This assembles a hash of counts. I would not have called the variable answer because it is not the answer, it is an intermediary step. The inject() method (also known as reduce()) allows you to iterate over a collection, keeping an accumulator (e.g. a running total or in this case a hash collecting counts). It needs a starting value of {} so that the hash exists when attempting to store a value. Given the array [1,2,2,2,3,4,5,6,6] the counts would look like this: {1=>1, 2=>3, 3=>1, 4=>1, 5=>1, 6=>2}.
answer.select { |k,v| v == answer.values.max}.keys
This selects all elements in the above hash whose value is equal to the maximum value, in other words the highest. Then it identifies the keys associated with the maximum values. Note that it will list multiple values if they share the maximum value.
An alternative:
If you didn't care about returning multiple, you could use group_by as follows:
array.group_by{|x|x}.values.max_by(&:size).first
or, in Ruby 2.2+:
array.group_by{&:itself}.values.max_by(&:size).first
The inject method acts like an accumulator. Here is a simpler example:
sum = [1,2,3].inject(0) { |current_tally, new_value| current_tally + new_value }
The 0 is the starting point.
So after the first line, we have a hash that maps each number to the number of times it appears.
The mode calls for the most frequent element, and that is what the next line does: selects only those who are equal to the maximum.
I believe your question has been answered, and #Mark mentioned different ways to do the calculations. I would like to just focus on other ways to improve the first line of code:
answer = array.inject ({}) { |k, v| k[v] = array.count(v); k }
First, let's create some data:
array = [1,2,1,4,3,2,1]
Use each_with_object instead of inject
My suspicion is that the code might be fairly old, as Enumerable#each_with_object, which was introduced in v. 1.9, is arguably a better choice here than Enumerable#inject (aka reduce). If we were to use each_with_object, the first line would be:
answer = array.each_with_object ({}) { |v,k| k[v] = array.count(v) }
#=> {1=>3, 2=>2, 4=>1, 3=>1}
each_with_object returns the object, a hash held by the block variable v.
As you see, each_with_object is very similar to inject, the only differences being:
it is not necessary to return v from the block to each_with_object, as it is with inject (the reason for that annoying ; v at the end of inject's block);
the block variable for the object (k) follows v with each_with_object, whereas it proceeds v with inject; and
when not given a block, each_with_object returns an enumerator, meaning it can be chained to other other methods (e.g., arr.each_with_object.with_index ....
Don't get me wrong, inject remains an extremely powerful method, and in many situations it has no peer.
Two more improvements
In addition to replacing inject with each_with_object, let me make two other changes:
answer = array.uniq.each_with_object ({}) { |k,h| h[k] = array.count(k) }
#=> {1=>3, 2=>2, 4=>1, 3=>1}
In the original expression, the object returned by inject (sometimes called the "memo") was represented by the block variable k, which I am using to represent a hash key ("k" for "key"). Simlarly, as the object is a hash, I chose to use h for its block variable. Like many others, I prefer to keep the block variables short and use names that indicate object type (e.g., a for array, h for hash, s for string, sym for symbol, and so on).
Now suppose:
array = [1,1]
then inject would pass the first 1 into the block and then compute k[1] = array.count(1) #=> 2, so the hash k returned to inject would be {1=>2}. It would then pass the second 1 into the block, again compute k[1] = array.count(1) #=> 2, overwriting 1=>1 in k with 1=>1; that is, not changing it at all. Doesn't it make more sense to just do this for the unique values of array? That's why I have: array.uniq....
Even better: use a counting hash
This is still quite inefficient--all those counts. Here's a way that reads better and is probably more efficient:
array.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |k,h| h[k] += 1 }
#=> {1=>3, 2=>2, 4=>1, 3=>1}
Let's have a look at this in gory detail. Firstly, the docs for Hash#new read, "If obj is specified [i.e., Hash.new(obj)], this single object will be used for all default values." This means that if:
h = Hash.new('cat')
and h does not have a key dog, then:
h['dog'] #=> 'cat'
Important: The last expression is often misunderstood. It merely returns the default value. str = "It does *not* add the key-value pair 'dog'=>'cat' to the hash." Let me repeat that: puts str.
Now let's see what's happening here:
enum = array.each_with_object(Hash.new(0))
#=> #<Enumerator: [1, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 1]:each_with_object({})>
We can see the contents of the enumerator by converting it to an array:
enum.to_a
#=> [[1, {}], [2, {}], [1, {}], [4, {}], [3, {}], [2, {}], [1, {}]]
These seven elements are passed into the block by the method each:
enum.each { |k,h| h[k] += 1 }
=> {1=>3, 2=>2, 4=>1, 3=>1}
Pretty cool, eh?
We can simulate this using Enumerator#next. The first value of enum ([1, {}]) is passed to the block and assigned to the block variables:
k,h = enum.next
#=> [1, {}]
k #=> 1
h #=> {}
and we compute:
h[k] += 1
#=> h[k] = h[k] + 1 (what '+=' means)
# = 0 + 1 = 1 (h[k] on the right equals the default value
# of 1 since `h` has no key `k`)
so now:
h #=> {1=>1}
Next, each passes the second value of enum into the block and similar calculations are performed:
k,h = enum.next
#=> [2, {1=>1}]
k #=> 2
h #=> {1=>1}
h[k] += 1
#=> 1
h #=> {1=>1, 2=>1}
Things are a little different when the third element of enum is passed in, because h now has a key 1:
k,h = enum.next
#=> [1, {1=>1, 2=>1}]
k #=> 1
h #=> {1=>1, 2=>1}
h[k] += 1
#=> h[k] = h[k] + 1
#=> h[1] = h[1] + 1
#=> h[1] = 1 + 1 => 2
h #=> {1=>1, 2=>1}
The remaining calculations are performed similarly.
wordfrequency = Hash.new(0)
splitfed.each { |word| wordfrequency[word] += 1 }
wordfrequency = wordfrequency.sort_by {|x,y| y }
wordfrequency.reverse!
puts wordfrequency
I have added the words into a hash table and have gotten it to sort by word frequency, but then order within each frequency is random when I want it to be in alphabetical order. Any quick fixes? Thanks! Much appreciated.
You can use:
wordfrequency = wordfrequency.sort_by{|x,y| [y, x] }
to sort by the value then the key.
In your case,
splitfed = ["bye", "hi", "hi", "a", "a", "there", "alphabet"]
wordfrequency = Hash.new(0)
splitfed.each { |word| wordfrequency[word] += 1 }
wordfrequency = wordfrequency.sort_by{|x,y| [y, x] }
wordfrequency.reverse!
puts wordfrequency.inspect
will output:
[["hi", 2], ["a", 2], ["there", 1], ["bye", 1], ["alphabet", 1]]
which is reverse ordered by the occurrence of the word then the word itself.
Make sure you note (which might be pretty obvious) that wordfrequency is now an array.
Hashes do not necessarily sort in natural order; it is down to the individual data structure. If you want to pretty print a hash, you need to sort the keys, then iterate over that sorted list of keys, outputting the value for each key as you go.
There are tricks you can do to do this on a single line, or collect the entries from the hash into a sorted array of arrays, but ultimately they all come back to sorting the keys then retrieving the data for the sorted key list.
Some hashes maintain insertion order, some hashes maintain a sorted structure which you can then traverse as you process the hash, but these are exceptions to the rule.
Ruby's group_by is the basis for this:
words = %w[foo bar bar baz]
words.group_by{ |w| w }
# => {"foo"=>["foo"], "bar"=>["bar", "bar"], "baz"=>["baz"]}
words.group_by{ |w| w }.map{ |k, v| [k, v.size ] }
# => [["foo", 1], ["bar", 2], ["baz", 1]]
If you want to sort by the words then by their frequency:
words.group_by{ |w| w }.map{ |k, v| [k, v.size ] }.sort_by{ |k, v| [k, v] }
# => [["bar", 2], ["baz", 1], ["foo", 1]]
If you want to sort by the frequency then by the words:
words.group_by{ |w| w }.map{ |k, v| [k, v.size ] }.sort_by{ |k, v| [v, k] }
# => [["baz", 1], ["foo", 1], ["bar", 2]]
I have a hash:
hash = {"a" => 1, "b" =>2, "c" => 3, "d" => 4}
And I have an array:
array = ["b", "a", "d"]
I would like to create a new array that is made up of the original hash values that correspond with original hash keys that are also found in the original array while maintaining the sequence of the original array. The desired array being:
desired_array = [2, 1, 3]
The idea here is to take the word "bad", assign numbers to the alphabet, and then make an array of the numbers that correspond with "b" "a" and "d" in that order.
Since your question is a little unclear I'm assuming you want desired_array to be an array (you say you want a new array and finish the sentence off with new hash). Also in your example I'm assuming you want desired_array to be [2, 1, 4] for ['b', 'a', 'd'] and not [2, 1, 3] for ['b', 'a', 'c'].
You should just you the Enumerable#map method to create a array that will map the first array to the your desired array like so:
desired_array = array.map { |k| hash[k] }
You should familiarize yourself with the Enumerable#map method, it's quite the handy method. From the rubydocs for the method: Returns a new array with the results of running block once for every element in enum. So in this case we are iterating through array and invoking hash[k] to select the value from the hash and creating a new array with values selected by the hash. Since iteration is in order, you will maintain the original sequence.
I would use Enumerable#map followed by Enumerable#sort_by, for example:
hash = {"d" => 4, "b" =>2, "c" => 3, "a" => 1}
order = ["b", "a", "d"]
# For each key in order, create a [key, value] pair from the hash.
# (Doing it this way instead of filtering the hash.to_a is O(n) vs O(n^2) without
# an additional hash-probe mapping. It also feels more natural.)
selected_pairs = order.map {|v| [v, hash[v]]}
# For each pair create a surrogate ordering based on the `order`-index
# (The surrogate value is only computed once, not each sort-compare step.
# This is, however, an O(n^2) operation on-top of the sort.)
sorted = selected_pairs.sort_by {|p| order.find_index(p[0]) }
p sorted
# sorted =>
# [["b", 2], ["a", 1], ["d", 4]]
I've not turned the result back into a Hash, because I am of the belief that hashes should not be treated as having any sort of order, except for debugging aids. (Do keep in mind that Ruby 2 hashes are ordered-by-insertion.)
All you need is values_at:
hash.values_at *array
Enumerable methods map, each works perfect
desired_array = array.map { |k| hash[k] }
or
desired_array = array.each { |k| hash[k] }
I am building a histogram based on of the amount of words in a text file. I have an array of hashes whose keys are the words and the values are the amount of times the word appears per line. I need to use the sort method on this array of hashes to sort the values in order of the most occurring word to the least. This is what my sort line looks like:
twoOfArray.sort { |k, v| v <=> k }
twoOfArray.each { |key, value| puts "#{key} occurs #{value} times" "\n"}
Full code is here. If I use the sort! method, I get an undefined method error. Does anyone know why?
I would convert your data structure (an array of hashes) into just one large hash. If you want to sort the words, there's no reason to have them in separate hashes.
Then, if your hash is something like {'the' => 5, 'and' => 23, 'beer' => 2} you can sort via:
> h = {'the' => 5, 'and' => 23, 'beer' => 2}
> a = h.sort {|a, b| b[1] <=> a[1] } # sort converts a hash into an array of arrays.
> a
#=> [['and', 23], ['the', 5], ['beer', 2]]
This is the input hash:
p Score.periods #{"q1"=>0, "q2"=>1, "q3"=>2, "q4"=>3, "h1"=>4, "h2"=>5}
This is my current code to exchange the keys with the values, while converting the keys to symbols:
periods = Score.periods.inject({}) do |hsh,(k,v)|
hsh[v] = k.to_sym
hsh
end
Here is the result:
p periods #{0=>:q1, 1=>:q2, 2=>:q3, 3=>:q4, 4=>:h1, 5=>:h2}
It just seems like my code is clunky and it shouldn't take 4 lines to do what I'm doing here. Is there a cleaner way to write this?
You can do this:
Hash[periods.values.zip(periods.keys.map(&:to_sym))]
Or if you're using a version of Ruby where to_h is available for arrays, you can do this:
periods.values.zip(periods.keys.map(&:to_sym)).to_h
What the two examples above do is make arrays of the keys and values of the original hash. Note that the string keys of the hash are mapped to symbols by passing to_sym to map as a Proc:
periods.keys.map(&:to_sym)
# => [:q1, :q2, :q3, :q4, :h1, :h2]
periods.values
# => [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Then it zips them up into an array of [value, key] pairs, where each corresponding elements of values is matched with its corresponding key in keys:
periods.values.zip(periods.keys.map(&:to_sym))
# => [[0, :q1], [1, :q2], [2, :q3], [3, :q4], [4, :h1], [5, :h2]]
Then that array can be converted back into a hash using Hash[array] or array.to_h.
The simplest way is:
data = {"q1"=>0, "q2"=>1, "q3"=>2, "q4"=>3, "h1"=>4, "h2"=>5}
Hash[data.invert.collect { |k, v| [ k, v.to_sym ] }]
The Hash[] method converts an array of key/value pairs into an actual Hash. Quite handy for situations like this.
If you're using Ruby on Rails this could be even easier:
data.symbolize_keys.invert
h = {"q1"=>0, "q2"=>1, "q3"=>2, "q4"=>3, "h1"=>4, "h2"=>5}
h.each_with_object({}) { |(k,v),g| g[v] = k.to_sym }
#=> {0=>:q1, 1=>:q2, 2=>:q3, 3=>:q4, 4=>:h1, 5=>:h2}
The steps are as follows (for the benefit of Ruby newbies).
enum = h.each_with_object({})
#=> #<Enumerator: {0=>"q1", 1=>"q2", 2=>"q3", 3=>"q4",
# 4=>"h1", 5=>"h2"}:each_with_object({})>
The elements that will be generated by the enumerator and passed to the block can be seen by converting the enumerator to an array, using Enumerable#entries or Enumerable#to_a.
enum.entries
#=> [[["q1", 0], {}], [["q2", 1], {}], [["q3", 2], {}],
# [["q4", 3], {}], [["h1", 4], {}], [["h2", 5], {}]]
Continuing,
enum.each { |(k,v),g| g[v] = k.to_sym }
#=> {0=>:q1, 1=>:q2, 2=>:q3, 3=>:q4, 4=>:h1, 5=>:h2}
In the last step, Enumerator#each passes the first element generated by enum to the block and assigns the three block variables. Consider the first element of enum that is passed to the block and the associated calculation of values for the three block variables. (I must first execute enum.rewind to reinitialize enum, as each above took the enumerator to its end. See Enumerator#rewind).
(k, v), g = enum.next
#=> [["q1", 0], {}]
k #=> "q1"
v #=> 0
g #=> {}
See Enumerator#next. The block calculation is therefore
g[v] = k.to_sym
#=> :q1
Hence,
g #=> {0=>:q1}
The next element of enum is passed to the block and similar calculations are performed.
(k, v), g = enum.next
#=> [["q2", 1], {0=>:q1}]
k #=> "q2"
v #=> 1
g #=> {0=>:q1}
g[v] = k.to_sym
#=> :q2
g #=> {0=>:q1, 1=>:q2}
The remaining calculations are similar.