I have a data series that contains various names of the same organizations. I want harmonize these names into a given standard using a mapping dictionary. I am currently using a nested for loop to iterate through each series element and if it is within the dictionary's values, I update the series value with the dictionary key.
# For example, corporation_series is:
0 'Corp1'
1 'Corp-1'
2 'Corp 1'
3 'Corp2'
4 'Corp--2'
dtype: object
# Dictionary is:
mapping_dict = {
'Corporation_1': ['Corp1', 'Corp-1', 'Corp 1'],
'Corporation_2': ['Corp2', 'Corp--2'],
}
# I use this logic to replace the values in the series
for index, value in corporation_series.items():
for key, list in mapping_dict.items():
if value in list:
corporation_series = corporation_series.replace(value, key)
So, if the series has a value of 'Corp1', and it exists in the dictionary's values, the logic replaces it with the corresponding key of corporations. However, it is an extremely expensive method. Could someone recommend me a better way of doing this operation? Much appreciated.
I found a solution by using python's .map function. In order to use .map, I had to invert my dictionary:
# Inverted Dict:
mapping_dict = {
'Corp1': ['Corporation_1'],
'Corp-1': ['Corporation_1'],
'Corp 1': ['Corporation_1'],
'Corp2': ['Corporation_2'],
'Corp--2':['Corporation_2'],
}
# use .map
corporation_series.map(newdict)
Instead of 5 minutes of processing, took around 5s. While this is works, I sure there are better solutions out there. Any suggestions would be most welcome.
Related
With a normal array, I can use the arrayname.find_index('whatimlookingfor') to get the position within the array.
I can't figure out how to do this when the elements of the array are Struct's.
Scenario: I have a struct that consists of an ID and the Filename. In one function I need to find within that array the ID of a different file than the one I'm currently processing. I know the other filename, so what I was hoping that I could do something like:
arrayname.filename.find_index(parsedfilename)
But this obviously fails. Without iterating through the entire array is there a way to quickly reference the index of where the match happens? Or am I out of luck because the array is a collection of structs?
index (same as find_index) takes a block in which you can code up any true/false logic for your finder. To find the index of the first item whose filename does not match parsedfilename...
found_index = items.index { |item| item.filename != parsedfilename }
Many methods which work with Arrays and Enumerables also take blocks.
I am currently trying to compare every element of an array with the others (in Ruby). Those elements are objects of a class. I need to find similarities between them. My idea was to loop through the original array and in this loop creating a new array containing the other elements (not the one of the outer loop) and then loop through this second array and compare every item with the one in the outer each loop.
Here is some pseudocode:
originalArray.each{
|origElement|
tempArray = createNewArray from original array without origElement
tempArray.each{
|differentElement|
Compare origElement with differentElement
}
}
How can I create that tempArray?
I think you should use Array#permutation for this
original_array.permutation(2) { |elements| Compare elements[0] with elements[1] }
First, I want to say bjhaid's answer is beautiful and for your specific instance, it is the one that should be used.
However, I wanted to provide a more general answer that answers the direct question you asked: "How can I create that tempArray?"
If you wanted to delete all values that are equal to the element in the original array, you could simply do:
tempArray = originalArray - [origElement]
However, if you only want to delete that element, you could do:
originalArray.each_with_index {
|origElement, index|
tempArray = originalArray.dup
tempArray.delete_at(index)
tempArray.each{
|differentElement|
Compare origElement with differentElement
}
}
Also, a note on styling. You probably want to use underscores instead of CamelCase for all methods/variables. In the Ruby community, CamelCase is typically reserved for class / module names. You also probably want to keep the "piped-in" variables (called block arguments) on the same line as the beginning of the block. It is certainly not a requirement, but it is an almost universal convention in the Ruby community.
This code snippet would be much more familiar and readable to your typical Ruby dev:
original_array.each_with_index do |orig_element, index|
temp_array = original_array.dup
temp_array.delete_at(index)
temp_array.each do |different_element|
Compare orig_element with different_element
end
end
I'm quite new to python and am having issues with for loop behaviour. In my code I'm reading config from a file using configobj. The contents of the config file are variable and that is where I'm seeing issues.
Here's my test code:
if webconf.has_key(group):
scenario_list = webconf[group]['Scenarios']['names']
for scenario in scenario_list:
print "Scenario name = %s\n" % scenario
The "scenario_list" variable will contain any number of strings. When 'names' has multiple elements "scenario" is set to the value of each element, which is fine. When "names" has only 1 element then the loop iterates over each character of the first entry, breaking my code.
So, how do I get the for loop simply to return the value of the entry in "scenario_list" when list length is 1?
Thankyou in advance for any advice offered.
Are you using tuples rather than lists?
aTuple = (1,2,3)
aList = [1,2,3]
The big difference between tuples and lists are that tuples are immutable and lists are mutable. That is, with a list you may change the element of a list, or even add and remove elements.
The problem that you are likely encountering is related to a concept called tuple unpacking.
aList = [0] # aList is now [0]
notATuple = (0) # notATuple is now 0
# there was exactly one element in the tuple, so it was unpacked in the variable
aTuple = (0,) # aTuple is now (0,) - a tuple with one element
# the comma indicates that you wish that the tuple should not be unpacked
The only other problem I think of is that you are not putting the scenario string in a list or tuple when you have only one scenario. Python treats strings like lists (well, more like tuples) of characters. As such, if you iterate over a string you get the individual characters (the behaviour you experienced). Hence, you must put your scenario string in a list (or tuple) if want to iterate over your one string, and not its characters. Had you not been using strings you would have seen a runtime error.
I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this and I want to make sure I understand this to the "n'th level" :-)
a = { "a" => "Hello", "b" => "World" }
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
a = [ 10, 20 ]
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
So which to use? If I want to know if a has more than one element then it doesn't seem to matter but I want to make sure I understand the real difference. This applies to arrays too. I get the same results.
Also, I realize that count/size/length have different meanings with ActiveRecord. I'm mostly interested in pure Ruby (1.92) right now but if anyone wants to chime in on the difference AR makes that would be appreciated as well.
Thanks!
For arrays and hashes size is an alias for length. They are synonyms and do exactly the same thing.
count is more versatile - it can take an element or predicate and count only those items that match.
> [1,2,3].count{|x| x > 2 }
=> 1
In the case where you don't provide a parameter to count it has basically the same effect as calling length. There can be a performance difference though.
We can see from the source code for Array that they do almost exactly the same thing. Here is the C code for the implementation of array.length:
static VALUE
rb_ary_length(VALUE ary)
{
long len = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
return LONG2NUM(len);
}
And here is the relevant part from the implementation of array.count:
static VALUE
rb_ary_count(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE ary)
{
long n = 0;
if (argc == 0) {
VALUE *p, *pend;
if (!rb_block_given_p())
return LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary));
// etc..
}
}
The code for array.count does a few extra checks but in the end calls the exact same code: LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary)).
Hashes (source code) on the other hand don't seem to implement their own optimized version of count so the implementation from Enumerable (source code) is used, which iterates over all the elements and counts them one-by-one.
In general I'd advise using length (or its alias size) rather than count if you want to know how many elements there are altogether.
Regarding ActiveRecord, on the other hand, there are important differences. check out this post:
Counting ActiveRecord associations: count, size or length?
There is a crucial difference for applications which make use of database connections.
When you are using many ORMs (ActiveRecord, DataMapper, etc.) the general understanding is that .size will generate a query that requests all of the items from the database ('select * from mytable') and then give you the number of items resulting, whereas .count will generate a single query ('select count(*) from mytable') which is considerably faster.
Because these ORMs are so prevalent I following the principle of least astonishment. In general if I have something in memory already, then I use .size, and if my code will generate a request to a database (or external service via an API) I use .count.
In most cases (e.g. Array or String) size is an alias for length.
count normally comes from Enumerable and can take an optional predicate block. Thus enumerable.count {cond} is [roughly] (enumerable.select {cond}).length -- it can of course bypass the intermediate structure as it just needs the count of matching predicates.
Note: I am not sure if count forces an evaluation of the enumeration if the block is not specified or if it short-circuits to the length if possible.
Edit (and thanks to Mark's answer!): count without a block (at least for Arrays) does not force an evaluation. I suppose without formal behavior it's "open" for other implementations, if forcing an evaluation without a predicate ever even really makes sense anyway.
I found a good answare at http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/2008/2/27/count-length-size
In ActiveRecord, there are several ways to find out how many records
are in an association, and there are some subtle differences in how
they work.
post.comments.count - Determine the number of elements with an SQL
COUNT query. You can also specify conditions to count only a subset of
the associated elements (e.g. :conditions => {:author_name =>
"josh"}). If you set up a counter cache on the association, #count
will return that cached value instead of executing a new query.
post.comments.length - This always loads the contents of the
association into memory, then returns the number of elements loaded.
Note that this won't force an update if the association had been
previously loaded and then new comments were created through another
way (e.g. Comment.create(...) instead of post.comments.create(...)).
post.comments.size - This works as a combination of the two previous
options. If the collection has already been loaded, it will return its
length just like calling #length. If it hasn't been loaded yet, it's
like calling #count.
Also I have a personal experience:
<%= h(params.size.to_s) %> # works_like_that !
<%= h(params.count.to_s) %> # does_not_work_like_that !
We have a several ways to find out how many elements in an array like .length, .count and .size. However, It's better to use array.size rather than array.count. Because .size is better in performance.
Adding more to Mark Byers answer. In Ruby the method array.size is an alias to Array#length method. There is no technical difference in using any of these two methods. Possibly you won't see any difference in performance as well. However, the array.count also does the same job but with some extra functionalities Array#count
It can be used to get total no of elements based on some condition. Count can be called in three ways:
Array#count # Returns number of elements in Array
Array#count n # Returns number of elements having value n in Array
Array#count{|i| i.even?} Returns count based on condition invoked on each element array
array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,4,3,2,4,5,6,7,1,2,4]
array.size # => 17
array.length # => 17
array.count # => 17
Here all three methods do the same job. However here is where the count gets interesting.
Let us say, I want to find how many array elements does the array contains with value 2
array.count 2 # => 3
The array has a total of three elements with value as 2.
Now, I want to find all the array elements greater than 4
array.count{|i| i > 4} # =>6
The array has total 6 elements which are > than 4.
I hope it gives some info about count method.
Why I can't use table.sort to sort tables with associative indexes?
In general, Lua tables are pure associative arrays. There is no "natural" order other than the as a side effect of the particular hash table implementation used in the Lua core. This makes sense because values of any Lua data type (other than nil) can be used as both keys and values; but only strings and numbers have any kind of sensible ordering, and then only between values of like type.
For example, what should the sorted order of this table be:
unsortable = {
answer=42,
true="Beauty",
[function() return 17 end] = function() return 42 end,
[math.pi] = "pi",
[ {} ] = {},
12, 11, 10, 9, 8
}
It has one string key, one boolean key, one function key, one non-integral key, one table key, and five integer keys. Should the function sort ahead of the string? How do you compare the string to a number? Where should the table sort? And what about userdata and thread values which don't happen to appear in this table?
By convention, values indexed by sequential integers beginning with 1 are commonly used as lists. Several functions and common idioms follow this convention, and table.sort is one example. Functions that operate over lists usually ignore any values stored at keys that are not part of the list. Again, table.sort is an example: it sorts only those elements that are stored at keys that are part of the list.
Another example is the # operator. For the above table, #unsortable is 5 because unsortable[5] ~= nil and unsortable[6] == nil. Notice that the value stored at the numeric index math.pi is not counted even though pi is between 3 and 4 because it is not an integer. Furthermore, none of the other non-integer keys are counted either. This means that a simple for loop can iterate over the entire list:
for i in 1,#unsortable do
print(i,unsortable[i])
end
Although that is often written as
for i,v in ipairs(unsortable) do
print(i,v)
end
In short, Lua tables are unordered collections of values, each indexed by a key; but there is a special convention for sequential integer keys beginning at 1.
Edit: For the special case of non-integral keys with a suitable partial ordering, there is a work-around involving a separate index table. The described content of tables keyed by string values is a suitable example for this trick.
First, collect the keys in a new table, in the form of a list. That is, make a table indexed by consecutive integers beginning at 1 with keys as values and sort that. Then, use that index to iterate over the original table in the desired order.
For example, here is foreachinorder(), which uses this technique to iterate over all values of a table, calling a function for each key/value pair, in an order determined by a comparison function.
function foreachinorder(t, f, cmp)
-- first extract a list of the keys from t
local keys = {}
for k,_ in pairs(t) do
keys[#keys+1] = k
end
-- sort the keys according to the function cmp. If cmp
-- is omitted, table.sort() defaults to the < operator
table.sort(keys,cmp)
-- finally, loop over the keys in sorted order, and operate
-- on elements of t
for _,k in ipairs(keys) do
f(k,t[k])
end
end
It constructs an index, sorts it with table.sort(), then loops over each element in the sorted index and calls the function f for each one. The function f is passed the key and value. The sort order is determined by an optional comparison function which is passed to table.sort. It is called with two elements to compare (the keys to the table t in this case) and must return true if the first is less than the second. If omitted, table.sort uses the built-in < operator.
For example, given the following table:
t1 = {
a = 1,
b = 2,
c = 3,
}
then foreachinorder(t1,print) prints:
a 1
b 2
c 3
and foreachinorder(t1,print,function(a,b) return a>b end) prints:
c 3
b 2
a 1
You can only sort tables with consecutive integer keys starting at 1, i.e., lists. If you have another table of key-value pairs, you can make a list of pairs and sort that:
function sortpairs(t, lt)
local u = { }
for k, v in pairs(t) do table.insert(u, { key = k, value = v }) end
table.sort(u, lt)
return u
end
Of course this is useful only if you provide a custom ordering (lt) which expects as arguments key/value pairs.
This issue is discussed at greater length in a related question about sorting Lua tables.
Because they don't have any order in the first place. It's like trying to sort a garbage bag full of bananas.