I am trying to write a function scramble(str1, str2) that returns true if a portion of str1 characters can be rearranged to match str2, otherwise returns false. Only lower case letters (a-z) will be used. No punctuation or digits will be included. For example:
str1 = 'rkqodlw'; str2 = 'world' should return true.
str1 = 'cedewaraaossoqqyt'; str2 = 'codewars' should return true.
str1 = 'katas'; str2 = 'steak' should return false.
This is my code:
def scramble(s1, s2)
#sorts strings into arrays
first = s1.split("").sort
second = s2.split("").sort
correctLetters = 0
for i in 0...first.length
#check for occurrences of first letter
occurrencesFirst = first.count(s1[i])
for j in 0...second.length
#scan through second string
occurrencesSecond = second.count(s2[j])
#if letter to be tested is correct and occurrences of first less than occurrences of second
#meaning word cannot be formed
if (s2[j] == s1[i]) && occurrencesFirst < occurrencesSecond
return false
elsif s2[j] == s1[i]
correctLetters += 1
elsif first.count(s1[s2[j]]) == 0
return false
end
end
end
if correctLetters == 0
return false
end
return true
end
I need help optimising this code. Please give me suggestions.
Here is one efficient and Ruby-like way of doing that.
Code
def scramble(str1, str2)
h1 = char_counts(str1)
h2 = char_counts(str2)
h2.all? { |ch, nbr| nbr <= h1[ch] }
end
def char_counts(str)
str.each_char.with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |ch, h| h[ch] += 1 }
end
Examples
scramble('abecacdeba', 'abceae')
#=> true
scramble('abecacdeba', 'abweae')
#=> false
Explanation
The three steps are as follows.
str1 = 'abecacdeba'
str2 = 'abceae'
h1 = char_counts(str1)
#=> {"a"=>3, "b"=>2, "e"=>2, "c"=>2, "d"=>1}
h2 = char_counts(str2)
#=> {"a"=>2, "b"=>1, "c"=>1, "e"=>2}
h2.all? { |ch, nbr| nbr <= h1[ch] }
#=> true
The last statement is equivalent to
2 <= 3 && 1 <= 2 && 1 <= 2 && 2 <=2
The method char_counts constructs what is sometimes called a "counting hash". To understand how char_counts works, see Hash::new, especially the explanation of the effect of providing a default value as an argument of new. In brief, if a hash is defined h = Hash.new(0), then if h does not have a key k, h[k] returns the default value, here 0 (and the hash is not changed).
Suppose, for different data,
h1 = { "a"=>2 }
h2 = { "a"=>1, "b"=>2 }
Then we would find that 1 <= 2 #=> true but 2 <= 0 #=> false, so the method would return false. The second comparison is 2 <= h1["b"]. As h1 does not have a key "b", h1["b"] returns the default value, 0.
The method char_counts is effectively a short way of writing the method expressed as follows.
def char_counts(str)
h = {}
str.each_char do |ch|
h[ch] = 0 unless h.key?(ch) # instead of Hash.new(0)
h[ch] = h[c] + 1 # instead of h[c][ += 1
end
h # no need for this if use `each_with_object`
end
See Enumerable#each_with_object, String#each_char (preferable to String.chars, as the latter produces an unneeded temporary array whereas the former returns an enumerator) and Hash#key? (or Hash#has_key?, Hash#include? or Hash#member?).
An Alternative
def scramble(str1, str2)
str2.chars.difference(str1.chars).empty?
end
class Array
def difference(other)
h = other.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |e,h| h[e] += 1 }
reject { |e| h[e] > 0 && h[e] -= 1 }
end
end
I have found the method Array#difference to be so useful I proposed it be added to the Ruby Core (here). The response has been, er, underwhelming.
One way:
def scramble(s1,s2)
s2.chars.uniq.all? { |c| s1.count(c) >= s2.count(c) }
end
Another way:
def scramble(s1,s2)
pool = s1.chars.group_by(&:itself)
s2.chars.all? { |c| pool[c]&.pop }
end
Yet another:
def scramble(s1,s2)
('a'..'z').all? { |c| s1.count(c) >= s2.count(c) }
end
Since this appears to be from codewars, I submitted my first two there. Both got accepted and the first one was a bit faster. Then I was shown solutions of others and saw someone using ('a'..'z') and it's fast, so I include that here.
The codewars "performance tests" aren't shown explicitly but they're all up to about 45000 letters long. So I benchmarked these solutions as well as Cary's (yours was too slow to be included) on shuffles of the alphabet repeated to be about that long (and doing it 100 times):
user system total real
Stefan 1 0.812000 0.000000 0.812000 ( 0.811765)
Stefan 2 2.141000 0.000000 2.141000 ( 2.127585)
Other 0.125000 0.000000 0.125000 ( 0.122248)
Cary 1 2.562000 0.000000 2.562000 ( 2.575366)
Cary 2 3.094000 0.000000 3.094000 ( 3.106834)
Moral of the story? String#count is fast here. Like, ridiculously fast. Almost unbelievably fast (I actually had to run extra tests to believe it). It counts through about 1.9 billion letters per second (100 times 26 letters times 2 strings of ~45000 letters, all in 0.12 seconds). Note that the difference to my own first solution is just that I do s2.chars.uniq, and that increases the time from 0.12 seconds to 0.81 seconds. Meaning this double pass through one string takes about six times as long as the 52 passes for counting. The counting is about 150 times faster. I did expect it to be very fast, because it presumably just searches a byte in an array of bytes using C code (edit: looks like it does), but this speed still surprised me.
Code:
require 'benchmark'
def scramble_stefan1(s1,s2)
s2.chars.uniq.all? { |c| s1.count(c) >= s2.count(c) }
end
def scramble_stefan2(s1,s2)
pool = s1.chars.group_by(&:itself)
s2.chars.all? { |c| pool[c]&.pop }
end
def scramble_other(s1,s2)
('a'..'z').all? { |c| s1.count(c) >= s2.count(c) }
end
def scramble_cary1(str1, str2)
h1 = char_counts(str1)
h2 = char_counts(str2)
h2.all? { |ch, nbr| nbr <= h1[ch] }
end
def char_counts(str)
str.each_char.with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |ch, h| h[ch] += 1 }
end
def scramble_cary2(str1, str2)
str2.chars.difference(str1.chars).empty?
end
class Array
def difference(other)
h = other.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |e,h| h[e] += 1 }
reject { |e| h[e] > 0 && h[e] -= 1 }
end
end
Benchmark.bmbm do |x|
n = 100
s1 = (('a'..'z').to_a * (45000 / 26)).shuffle.join
s2 = s1.chars.shuffle.join
x.report('Stefan 1') { n.times { scramble_stefan1(s1, s2) } }
x.report('Stefan 2') { n.times { scramble_stefan2(s1, s2) } }
x.report('Other') { n.times { scramble_other(s1, s2) } }
x.report('Cary 1') { n.times { scramble_cary1(s1, s2) } }
x.report('Cary 2') { n.times { scramble_cary2(s1, s2) } }
end
Related
I am currently doing a Ruby challenge and get the error Terminated due to timeout
for some testcases where the string input is very long (10.000+ characters).
How can I improve my code?
Ruby challenge description
You are given a string containing characters A and B only. Your task is to change it into a string such that there are no matching adjacent characters. To do this, you are allowed to delete zero or more characters in the string.
Your task is to find the minimum number of required deletions.
For example, given the string s = AABAAB, remove A an at positions 0 and 3 to make s = ABAB in 2 deletions.
My function
def alternatingCharacters(s)
counter = 0
s.chars.each_with_index { |char, idx| counter += 1 if s.chars[idx + 1] == char }
return counter
end
Thank you!
This could be faster returning the count:
str.size - str.chars.chunk_while{ |a, b| a == b }.to_a.size
The second part uses String#chars method in conjunction with Enumerable#chunk_while.
This way the second part groups in subarrays:
'aababbabbaab'.chars.chunk_while{ |a, b| a == b}.to_a
#=> [["a", "a"], ["b"], ["a"], ["b", "b"], ["a"], ["b", "b"], ["a", "a"], ["b"]]
Trivial if you can use squeeze:
str.length - str.squeeze.length
Otherwise, you could try a regular expression that matches those A (or B) that are preceded by another A (or B):
str.enum_for(:scan, /(?<=A)A|(?<=B)B/).count
Using enum_for avoids the creation of the intermediate array.
The main issue with:
s.chars.each_with_index { |char, idx| counter += 1 if s.chars[idx + 1] == char }
Is the fact that you don't save chars into a variable. s.chars will rip apart the string into an array of characters. The first s.chars call outside the loop is fine. However there is no reason to do this for each character in s. This means if you have a string of 10.000 characters, you'll instantiate 10.001 arrays of size 10.000.
Re-using the characters array will give you a huge performance boost:
require 'benchmark'
s = ''
options = %w[A B]
10_000.times { s << options.sample }
Benchmark.bm do |x|
x.report do
counter = 0
s.chars.each_with_index { |char, idx| counter += 1 if s.chars[idx + 1] == char }
# create a character array for each iteration ^
end
x.report do
counter = 0
chars = s.chars # <- only create a character array once
chars.each_with_index { |char, idx| counter += 1 if chars[idx + 1] == char }
end
end
user system total real
8.279767 0.000001 8.279768 ( 8.279655)
0.002188 0.000003 0.002191 ( 0.002191)
You could also make use of enumerator methods like each_cons and count to simplify the code, this doesn't increase performance cost a lot, but makes the code a lot more readable.
Benchmark.bm do |x|
x.report do
counter = 0
chars = s.chars
chars.each_with_index { |char, idx| counter += 1 if chars[idx + 1] == char }
end
x.report do
s.each_char.each_cons(2).count { |a, b| a == b }
# ^ using each_char instead of chars to avoid
# instantiating a character array
end
end
user system total real
0.002923 0.000000 0.002923 ( 0.002920)
0.003995 0.000000 0.003995 ( 0.003994)
All right. I think I have the right idea to find the solution to Euler #23 (The one about finding the sum of all numbers that can't be expressed as the sum of two abundant numbers).
However, it is clear that one of my methods is too damn brutal.
How do you un-brute force this and make it work?
sum_of_two_abunds?(num, array) is the problematic method. I've tried pre-excluding certain numbers and it's still taking forever and I'm not even sure that it's giving the right answer.
def divsum(number)
divsum = 1
(2..Math.sqrt(number)).each {|i| divsum += i + number/i if number % i == 0}
divsum -= Math.sqrt(number) if Math.sqrt(number).integer?
divsum
end
def is_abundant?(num)
return true if divsum(num) > num
return false
end
def get_abundants(uptonum)
abundants = (12..uptonum).select {|int| is_abundant?(int)}
end
def sum_of_two_abunds?(num, array)
#abundant, and can be made from adding two abundant numbers.
array.each do |abun1|
array.each do |abun2|
current = abun1+abun2
break if current > num
return true if current == num
end
end
return false
end
def non_abundant_sum
ceiling = 28123
sum = (1..23).inject(:+) + (24..ceiling).select{|i| i < 945 && i % 2 != 0}.inject(:+)
numeri = (24..ceiling).to_a
numeri.delete_if {|i| i < 945 && i % 2 != 0}
numeri.delete_if {|i| i % 100 == 0}
abundants = get_abundants(ceiling)
numeri.each {|numerus| sum += numerus if sum_of_two_abunds?(numerus, abundants) == false}
return sum
end
start_time = Time.now
puts non_abundant_sum
#Not enough numbers getting excluded from the total.
duration = Time.now - start_time
puts "Took #{duration} s "
Solution 1
A simple way to make it a lot faster is to speed up your sum_of_two_abunds? method:
def sum_of_two_abunds?(num, array)
array.each do |abun1|
array.each do |abun2|
current = abun1+abun2
break if current > num
return true if current == num
end
end
return false
end
Instead of that inner loop, just ask the array whether it contains num - abun1:
def sum_of_two_abunds?(num, array)
array.each do |abun1|
return true if array.include?(num - abun1)
end
false
end
That's already faster than your Ruby code, since it's simpler and running faster C code. Also, now that that idea is clear, you can take advantage of the fact that the array is sorted and search num - abun1 with binary search:
def sum_of_two_abunds?(num, array)
array.each do |abun1|
return true if array.bsearch { |x| num - abun1 <=> x }
end
false
end
And making that Rubyish:
def sum_of_two_abunds?(num, array)
array.any? do |abun1|
array.bsearch { |x| num - abun1 <=> x }
end
end
Now you can get rid of your own special case optimizations and fix your incorrect divsum (which for example claims that divsum(4) is 5 ... you should really compare against a naive implementation that doesn't try any square root optimizations).
And then it should finish in well under a minute (about 11 seconds on my PC).
Solution 2
Or you could instead ditch sum_of_two_abunds? entirely and just create all sums of two abundants and nullify their contribution to the sum:
def non_abundant_sum
ceiling = 28123
abundants = get_abundants(ceiling)
numeri = (0..ceiling).to_a
abundants.each { |a| abundants.each { |b| numeri[a + b] = 0 } }
numeri.compact.sum
end
That runs on my PC in about 3 seconds.
def encrypt(string)
alphabet = ("a".."b").to_a
result = ""
idx = 0
while idx < string.length
character = string[idx]
if character == " "
result += " "
else
n = alphabet.index(character)
n_plus = (n + 1) % alphabet.length
result += alphabet[n_plus]
end
idx += 1
end
return result
end
puts encrypt("abc")
puts encrypt("xyz")
I'm trying to get "abc" to print out "bcd" and "xyz" to print "yza". I want to advance the letter forward by 1. Can someone point me to the right direction?
All I had to do was change your alphabet array to go from a to z, not a to b, and it works fine.
def encrypt(string)
alphabet = ("a".."z").to_a
result = ""
idx = 0
while idx < string.length
character = string[idx]
if character == " "
result += " "
else
n = alphabet.index(character)
n_plus = (n + 1) % alphabet.length
result += alphabet[n_plus]
end
idx += 1
end
return result
end
puts encrypt("abc")
puts encrypt("xyz")
Another way to solve the issue, that I think is simpler, personally, is to use String#tr:
ALPHA = ('a'..'z').to_a.join #=> "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
BMQIB = ('a'..'z').to_a.rotate(1).join #=> "bcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyza"
def encrypt(str)
str.tr(ALPHA,BMQIB)
end
def decrypt(str)
str.tr(BMQIB,ALPHA)
end
encrypt('pizza') #=> "qjaab"
decrypt('qjaab') #=> "pizza"
Alternatively if you don't want to take up that memory storing the alphabet you could use character codings and then just use arithmetic operations on them to shift the letters:
def encrypt(string)
result = ""
idx = 0
while idx < string.length
result += (string[idx].ord == 32 ? (string[idx].chr) : (string[idx].ord+1).chr)
idx += 1
end
result
end
Other strange thing about ruby is that you do not need to explicitly return something at the end of the method body. It just returns the last thing by default. This is considered good style amongst ruby folks.
Your question has been answered, so here are a couple of more Ruby-like ways of doing that.
Use String#gsub with a hash
CODE_MAP = ('a'..'z').each_with_object({}) { |c,h| h[c] = c < 'z' ? c.next : 'a' }
#=> {"a"=>"b", "b"=>"c",..., "y"=>"z", "z"=>"a"}
DECODE_MAP = CODE_MAP.invert
#=> {"b"=>"a", "c"=>"b",..., "z"=>"y", "a"=>"z"}
def encrypt(word)
word.gsub(/./, CODE_MAP)
end
def decrypt(word)
word.gsub(/./, DECODE_MAP)
end
encrypt('pizza')
#=> "qjaab"
decrypt('qjaab')
#=> "pizza"
Use String#gsub with Array#rotate
LETTERS = ('a'..'z').to_a
#=> ["a", "b", ..., "z"]
def encrypt(word)
word.gsub(/./) { |c| LETTERS.rotate[LETTERS.index(c)] }
end
def decrypt(word)
word.gsub(/./) { |c| LETTERS.rotate(-1)[LETTERS.index(c)] }
end
encrypt('pizza')
#=> "qjaab"
decrypt('qjaab')
#=> "pizza"
# Write a method that takes in a string. Your method should return the
# most common letter in the array, and a count of how many times it
# appears.
#
# Difficulty: medium.
def most_common_letter(string)
letter = 0
letter_count = 0
idx1 = 0
mostfreq_letter = 0
largest_letter_count = 0
while idx1 < string.length
letter = string[idx1]
idx2 = 0
while idx2 < string.length
if letter == string[idx2]
letter_count += 1
end
idx2 += 1
end
if letter_count > largest_letter_count
largest_letter_count = letter_count
mostfreq_letter = letter
end
idx1 += 1
end
return [mostfreq_letter, largest_letter_count]
end
# These are tests to check that your code is working. After writing
# your solution, they should all print true.
puts(
'most_common_letter("abca") == ["a", 2]: ' +
(most_common_letter('abca') == ['a', 2]).to_s
)
puts(
'most_common_letter("abbab") == ["b", 3]: ' +
(most_common_letter('abbab') == ['b', 3]).to_s
)
So in my mind the program should set a letter and then once that is set cycle through the string looking for letters that are the same, and then once there is one it adds to letter count and then it judges if its the largest letter count and if it is those values are stored to the eventual return value that should be correct once the while loop ends. However I keep getting false false. Where am I going wrong?
Your code does not return [false, false] to me; but it does return incorrect results. The hint by samgak should lead you to the bug.
However, for a bit shorter and more Rubyish alternative:
def most_common_letter(string)
Hash.new(0).tap { |h|
string.each_char { |c| h[c] += 1 }
}.max_by { |k, v| v }
end
Create a new Hash that has a default value of 0 for each entry; iterate over characters and count the frequency for each of them in the hash; then find which hash entry is the largest. When a hash is iterated, it produces pairs, just like what you want for your function output, so that's nice, too.
I have a hash table:
hash = Hash.new(0)
hash[:key] = hash[:key] + 1 # Line 1
hash[:key] += 1 # Line 2
Line 1 and Line 2 do the same thing. Looks like line 1 needs to query hash by key two times while line 2 only once. Is that true? Or they are actually same?
I created a ruby script to benchmark it
require 'benchmark'
def my_case1()
#hash[:key] = #hash[:key] + 1
end
def my_case2()
#hash[:key] += 1
end
n = 10000000
Benchmark.bm do |test|
test.report("case 1") {
#hash = Hash.new(1)
#hash[:key] = 0
n.times do; my_case1(); end
}
test.report("case 2") {
#hash = Hash.new(1)
#hash[:key] = 0
n.times do; my_case2(); end
}
end
Here is the result
user system total real
case 1 3.620000 0.080000 3.700000 ( 4.253319)
case 2 3.560000 0.080000 3.640000 ( 4.178699)
It looks hash[:key] += 1 is slightly better.
#sza beat me to it :)
Here is my example irb session:
> require 'benchmark'
=> true
> n = 10000000
=> 10000000
> Benchmark.bm do |x|
> hash = Hash.new(0)
> x.report("Case 1:") { n.times do; hash[:key] = hash[:key] + 1; end }
> hash = Hash.new(0)
> x.report("Case 2:") { n.times do; hash[:key] += 1; end }
> end
user system total real
Case 1: 1.070000 0.000000 1.070000 ( 1.071366)
Case 2: 1.040000 0.000000 1.040000 ( 1.043644)
The Ruby Language Specification spells out the algorithm for evaluating abbreviated indexing assignment expressions quite clearly. It is something like this:
primary_expression[indexing_argument_list] ω= expression
# ω can be any operator, in this example, it is +
is (roughly) evaluated like
o = primary_expression
*l = indexing_argument_list
v = o.[](*l)
w = expression
l << (v ω w)
o.[]=(*l)
In particular, you can see that both the getter and the setter are called exactly once.
You can also see that by looking at the informal desugaring:
hash[:key] += 1
# is syntactic sugar for
hash[:key] = hash[:key] + 1
# which is syntactic sugar for
hash.[]=(:key, hash.[](:key).+(1))
Again, you see that both the setter and the getter are called exactly once.
second one is the customary way of doing it. It is more efficient.