Disclaimer: This is Glua (Lua used by Garry's Mod)
I just need to compare tables between them and return the difference, like if I was substrating them.
TableOne = {thing = "bob", 89 = 1, 654654 = {"hi"}} --Around 3k items like that
TableTwo = {thing = "bob", 654654 = "hi"} --Same, around 3k
function table.GetDifference(t1, t2)
local diff = {}
for k, dat in pairs(t1) do --Loop through the biggest table
if(!table.HasValue(t2, t1[k])) then --Checking if t2 hasn't the value
table.insert(diff, t1[k]) --Insert the value in the difference table
print(t1[k])
end
end
return diff
end
if table.Count(t1) != table.Count(t2) then --Check if amount is equal, in my use I don't need to check if they are exact.
PrintTable(table.GetDifference(t1, t2)) --Print the difference.
end
My problem being that with only one of difference between the two tables, this returns me more than 200 items. The only item I added was a String. I tried many other functions like this one but they usually cause a stack overflow error because of the table's length.
Your problem is with this line
if(!table.HasValue(t2, t1[k])) then --Checking if t2 hasn't the value
Change it to this:
if(!table.HasValue(t2, k) or t1[k] != t2[k]) then --Checking if t2[k] matches
Right now what is happening is that you're looking at an entry like thing = "bob" and then you're looking to see whether t2 has "bob" as a key. And it doesn't. But neither did t1 so that shouldn't be regarded as a difference.
Related
I am trying to output some necessary rows for my report using a simple query to fetch. That's the query:-
SELECT DISTINCT Z.ITEMDESC, X.NMCODDES AS CODE
FROM NMCODMAS X, NMITEMAS Y, NMSALREC Z
WHERE
X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
AND Y.FINISHGD='Y'
AND X.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND Y.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND X.COMPCODE=Y.COMPCODE
AND Y.USERDEF1=X.NMSOFCDE
AND Y.ITEMCODE=Z.ITEMCODE
AND Z.DOCTDATE BETWEEN NVL(:P11,Z.DOCTDATE) AND NVL(:P12,Z.DOCTDATE)
And Here's the ouput
But for some reasons I can't use X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ' IN WHERE. So, I just use X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ' in a CASE WHEN Expression. Just Like that:-
SELECT DISTINCT Z.ITEMDESC,
CASE
WHEN X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
THEN X.NMCODDES
END AS CODE
FROM NMCODMAS X, NMITEMAS Y, NMSALREC Z
WHERE
-- X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
Y.FINISHGD='Y'
AND X.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND Y.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND X.COMPCODE=Y.COMPCODE
AND Y.USERDEF1=X.NMSOFCDE
AND Y.ITEMCODE=Z.ITEMCODE
AND Z.DOCTDATE BETWEEN NVL(:P11,Z.DOCTDATE) AND NVL(:P12,Z.DOCTDATE)
In this case every row has been duplicated with an NULL NMCODDES field. Check the output-output
I can't understand why there has been an extra empty row for every item. And using an ELSE in the above code doesn't make any difference. Because I can assure that in my DATABASE every item has an unique NMHRDCDE. SO, even using ELSE in the case will not solve my problem.
Could someone help me pinpointing the problem??
The only way to ignore that rows is:
select * from (/*YOUR QUERY*/) where code is not null;
As WJack wrote your nulls are ruturned when case not matches and it is correct behaviour. Where clause defines which rows will be returned, case defines what will be returned for rows. So your second query returns rows for any X.NMHRDCDE but do not have value for X.NMHRDCDE != 'PKZ'
Try this:
select a.ITEMDESC,b.CODE from
(SELECT DISTINCT Z.ITEMDESC
FROM NMCODMAS X, NMITEMAS Y, NMSALREC Z
WHERE
-- X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
Y.FINISHGD='Y'
AND X.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND Y.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND X.COMPCODE=Y.COMPCODE
AND Y.USERDEF1=X.NMSOFCDE
AND Y.ITEMCODE=Z.ITEMCODE
AND Z.DOCTDATE BETWEEN NVL(:P11,Z.DOCTDATE) AND NVL(:P12,Z.DOCTDATE)) as a
LEFT JOIN
(SELECT DISTINCT Z.ITEMDESC,
CASE
WHEN X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
THEN X.NMCODDES
END AS CODE
FROM NMCODMAS X, NMITEMAS Y, NMSALREC Z
WHERE
-- X.NMHRDCDE='PKZ'
Y.FINISHGD='Y'
AND X.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND Y.COMPCODE=Z.COMPCODE
AND X.COMPCODE=Y.COMPCODE
AND Y.USERDEF1=X.NMSOFCDE
AND Y.ITEMCODE=Z.ITEMCODE
AND Z.DOCTDATE BETWEEN NVL(:P11,Z.DOCTDATE) AND NVL(:P12,Z.DOCTDATE)) as b
on a.ITEMDESC = b.ITEMDESC
I have a question about the way I put together this piece of Lua code.
Say, there is a function like the one below, containing 200 myTable tables, where the names are ordered alphabetically:
function loadTable(x)
local myTable
if x == "aaron" then myTable = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0}
elseif x == "bobby" then myTable = {1,3,3,4,5,8,7,8,9,1}
elseif x == "cory" then myTable = {1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9,2}
elseif x == "devin" then myTable = {1,2,3,4,5,2,3,4,9,0}
...
else
print("table not available")
end
return myTable
end
and now I want to find the table corresponding to x == "zac" (which happens to be somewhere at the end). I use this line of code:
local foundTable = loadTable("zac")
Isnt this like not efficient at all? If it has to find the table at the very end of the function it has to go through all the previous lines of code. Is there some way to code this more efficiently in lua and find the correct table faster? ?
This can become a lot faster by using... a table!
Simply make a table whose keys are the name of the person and the values are the table you want to load, like this:
local tables = {
john = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0},
peter = {1,3,3,4,5,8,7,8,9,1},
william = {1,2,3,3,3,6,7,8,9,2},
victoria = {1,2,3,4,5,2,3,4,9,0}
--...
}
Then, instead of calling loadTable("richard") simply use tables["richard"] or tables.richard if the key is a valid identifier
Lets say I have a table like so:
{
value = 4
},
{
value = 3
},
{
value = 1
},
{
value = 2
}
and I want to iterate over this and print the value in order so the output is like so:
1
2
3
4
How do I do this, I understand how to use ipairs and pairs, and table.sort, but that only works if using table.insert and the key is valid, I need to be loop over this in order of the value.
I tried a custom function but it simply printed them in the incorrect order.
I have tried:
Creating an index and looping that
Sorting the table (throws error: attempt to perform __lt on table and table)
And a combination of sorts, indexes and other tables that not only didn't work, but also made it very complicated.
I am well and truly stumped.
Sorting the table
This was the right solution.
(throws error: attempt to perform __lt on table and table)
Sounds like you tried to use a < b.
For Lua to be able to sort values, it has to know how to compare them. It knows how to compare numbers and strings, but by default it has idea how to compare two tables. Consider this:
local people = {
{ name = 'fred', age = 43 },
{ name = 'ted', age = 31 },
{ name = 'ned', age = 12 },
}
If I call sort on people, how can Lua know what I intend? I doesn't know what 'age' or 'name' means or which I'd want to use for comparison. I have to tell it.
It's possible to add a metatable to a table which tells Lua what the < operator means for a table, but you can also supply sort with a callback function that tells it how to compare two objects.
You supply sort with a function that receives two values and you return whether the first is "less than" the second, using your knowledge of the tables. In the case of your tables:
table.sort(t, function(a,b) return a.value < b.value end)
for i,entry in ipairs(t) do
print(i,entry.value)
end
If you want to leave the original table unchanged, you could create a custom 'sort by value' iterator like this:
local function valueSort(a,b)
return a.value < b.value;
end
function sortByValue( tbl ) -- use as iterator
-- build new table to sort
local sorted = {};
for i,v in ipairs( tbl ) do sorted[i] = v end;
-- sort new table
table.sort( sorted, valueSort );
-- return iterator
return ipairs( sorted );
end
When sortByValue() is called, it clones tbl to a new sorted table, and then sorts the sorted table. It then hands the sorted table over to ipairs(), and ipairs outputs the iterator to be used by the for loop.
To use:
for i,v in sortByValue( myTable ) do
print(v)
end
While this ensures your original table remains unaltered, it has the downside that each time you do an iteration the iterator has to clone myTable to make a new sorted table, and then table.sort that sorted table.
If performance is vital, you can greatly speed things up by 'caching' the work done by the sortByValue() iterator. Updated code:
local resort, sorted = true;
local function valueSort(a,b)
return a.value < b.value;
end
function sortByValue( tbl ) -- use as iterator
if not sorted then -- rebuild sorted table
sorted = {};
for i,v in ipairs( tbl ) do sorted[i] = v end;
resort = true;
end
if resort then -- sort the 'sorted' table
table.sort( sorted, valueSort );
resort = false;
end
-- return iterator
return ipairs( sorted );
end
Each time you add or remove an element to/from myTable set sorted = nil. This lets the iterator know it needs to rebuild the sorted table (and also re-sort it).
Each time you update a value property within one of the nested tables, set resort = true. This lets the iterator know it has to do a table.sort.
Now, when you use the iterator, it will try and re-use the previous sorted results from the cached sorted table.
If it can't find the sorted table (eg. on first use of the iterator, or because you set sorted = nil to force a rebuild) it will rebuild it. If it sees it needs to resort (eg. on first use, or if the sorted table was rebuilt, or if you set resort = true) then it will resort the sorted table.
Can anybody tell me how I would get the records in the first statement that are not in the second statement (see below)?
from or in TblOrganisations
where or.OrgType == 2
select or.PkOrgID
Second query:
from o in TblOrganisations
join m in LuMetricSites
on o.PkOrgID equals m.FkSiteID
orderby m.SiteOrder
select o.PkOrgID
If you only need the IDs then Except should do the trick:
var inFirstButNotInSecond = first.Except(second);
Note that Except treats the two sequences as sets. This means that any duplicate elements in first won't be included in the results. I suspect that this won't be a problem since the name PkOrgID suggests a unique ID of some kind.
(See the documentation for Enumerable.Except and Queryable.Except for more info.)
Do you need the whole records, or just the IDs? The IDs are easy...
var ids = firstQuery.Except(secondQuery);
EDIT: Okay, if you can't do that, you'll need something like:
var secondQuery = ...; // As you've already got it
var query = from or in TblOrganisations
where or.OrgType == 2
where !secondQuery.Contains(or.PkOrgID)
select ...;
Check the SQL it produces, but I think it should do the right thing. Note that there's no point in performing any ordering in the second query - or even the join against TblOrganisations. In other words, you could use:
var query = from or in TblOrganisations
where or.OrgType == 2
where !LuMetricSites.Select(m => m.FkSiteID).Contains(or.PkOrgID)
select ...;
Use Except:
var filtered = first.Except(second);
I have a table that is filled with random content that a user enters. I want my users to be able to rapidly search through this table, and one way of facilitating their search is by sorting the table alphabetically. Originally, the table looked something like this:
myTable = {
Zebra = "black and white",
Apple = "I love them!",
Coin = "25cents"
}
I was able to implement a pairsByKeys() function which allowed me to output the tables contents in alphabetical order, but not to store them that way. Because of the way the searching is setup, the table itself needs to be in alphabetical order.
function pairsByKeys (t, f)
local a = {}
for n in pairs(t) do
table.insert(a, n)
end
table.sort(a, f)
local i = 0 -- iterator variable
local iter = function () -- iterator function
i = i + 1
if a[i] == nil then
return nil
else
return a[i], t[a[i]]
end
end
return iter
end
After a time I came to understand (perhaps incorrectly - you tell me) that non-numerically indexed tables cannot be sorted alphabetically. So then I started thinking of ways around that - one way I thought of is sorting the table and then putting each value into a numerically indexed array, something like below:
myTable = {
[1] = { Apple = "I love them!" },
[2] = { Coin = "25cents" },
[3] = { Zebra = "black and white" },
}
In principle, I feel this should work, but for some reason I am having difficulty with it. My table does not appear to be sorting. Here is the function I use, with the above function, to sort the table:
SortFunc = function ()
local newtbl = {}
local t = {}
for title,value in pairsByKeys(myTable) do
newtbl[title] = value
tinsert(t,newtbl[title])
end
myTable = t
end
myTable still does not end up being sorted. Why?
Lua's table can be hybrid. For numerical keys, starting at 1, it uses a vector and for other keys it uses a hash.
For example, {1="foo", 2="bar", 4="hey", my="name"}
1 & 2, will be placed in a vector, 4 & my will be placed in a hashtable. 4 broke the sequence and that's the reason for including it into the hashtable.
For information on how to sort Lua's table take a look here: 19.3 - Sort
Your new table needs consecutive integer keys and needs values themselves to be tables. So you want something on this order:
SortFunc = function (myTable)
local t = {}
for title,value in pairsByKeys(myTable) do
table.insert(t, { title = title, value = value })
end
myTable = t
return myTable
end
This assumes that pairsByKeys does what I think it does...