Related
I have a map[string]int
I want to get the x top values from it and store them in another data structure, another map or a slice.
From https://blog.golang.org/go-maps-in-action#TOC_7. I understood that:
When iterating over a map with a range loop, the iteration order is
not specified and is not guaranteed to be the same from one iteration
to the next.
so the result structure will be a slice then.
I had a look at several related topics but none fits my problem:
related topic 1
related topic 2
related topic 3
What would be the most efficient way to do this please?
Thanks,
Edit:
My solution would be to turn my map into a slice and sort it, then extract the first x values.
But is there a better way ?
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sort"
)
func main() {
// I want the x top values
x := 3
// Here is the map
m := make(map[string]int)
m["k1"] = 7
m["k2"] = 31
m["k3"] = 24
m["k4"] = 13
m["k5"] = 31
m["k6"] = 12
m["k7"] = 25
m["k8"] = -8
m["k9"] = -76
m["k10"] = 22
m["k11"] = 76
// Turning the map into this structure
type kv struct {
Key string
Value int
}
var ss []kv
for k, v := range m {
ss = append(ss, kv{k, v})
}
// Then sorting the slice by value, higher first.
sort.Slice(ss, func(i, j int) bool {
return ss[i].Value > ss[j].Value
})
// Print the x top values
for _, kv := range ss[:x] {
fmt.Printf("%s, %d\n", kv.Key, kv.Value)
}
}
Link to golang playground example
If I want to have a map at the end with the x top values, then with my solution I would have to turn the slice into a map again. Would this still be the most efficient way to do it?
Creating a slice and sorting is a fine solution; however, you could also use a heap. The Big O performance should be equal for both implementations (n log n) so this is a viable alternative with the advantage that if you want to add new entries you can still efficiently access the top N items without repeatedly sorting the entire set.
To use a heap, you would implement the heap.Interface for the kv type with a Less function that compares Values as greater than (h[i].Value > h[j].Value), add all of the entries from the map, and then pop the number of items you want to use.
For example (Go Playground):
func main() {
m := getMap()
// Create a heap from the map and print the top N values.
h := getHeap(m)
for i := 1; i <= 3; i++ {
fmt.Printf("%d) %#v\n", i, heap.Pop(h))
}
// 1) main.kv{Key:"k11", Value:76}
// 2) main.kv{Key:"k2", Value:31}
// 3) main.kv{Key:"k5", Value:31}
}
func getHeap(m map[string]int) *KVHeap {
h := &KVHeap{}
heap.Init(h)
for k, v := range m {
heap.Push(h, kv{k, v})
}
return h
}
// See https://golang.org/pkg/container/heap/
type KVHeap []kv
// Note that "Less" is greater-than here so we can pop *larger* items.
func (h KVHeap) Less(i, j int) bool { return h[i].Value > h[j].Value }
func (h KVHeap) Swap(i, j int) { h[i], h[j] = h[j], h[i] }
func (h KVHeap) Len() int { return len(h) }
func (h *KVHeap) Push(x interface{}) {
*h = append(*h, x.(kv))
}
func (h *KVHeap) Pop() interface{} {
old := *h
n := len(old)
x := old[n-1]
*h = old[0 : n-1]
return x
}
The problem is: find the index of two numbers that nums[index1] + nums[index2] == target. Here is my attempt in golang (index starts from 1):
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
var nums = []int{0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 25182, 25184, 25186, 25188, 25190, 25192, 25194, 25196} // The number list is too long, I put the whole numbers in a gist: https://gist.github.com/nickleeh/8eedb39e008da8b47864
var target int = 16021
func twoSum(nums []int, target int) (int, int) {
if len(nums) <= 1 {
return 0, 0
}
hdict := make(map[int]int)
for i := 1; i < len(nums); i++ {
if val, ok := hdict[nums[i+1]]; ok {
return val, i + 1
} else {
hdict[target-nums[i+1]] = i + 1
}
}
return 0, 0
}
func main() {
fmt.Println(twoSum(nums, target))
}
The nums list is too long, I put it into a gist:
https://gist.github.com/nickleeh/8eedb39e008da8b47864
This code works fine, but I find the return 0,0 part is ugly, and it runs ten times slower than the Julia translation. I would like to know is there any part that is written terrible and affect the performance?
Edit:
Julia's translation:
function two_sum(nums, target)
if length(nums) <= 1
return false
end
hdict = Dict()
for i in 1:length(nums)
if haskey(hdict, nums[i])
return [hdict[nums[i]], i]
else
hdict[target - nums[i]] = i
end
end
end
In my opinion if no elements found adding up to target, best would be to return values which are invalid indices, e.g. -1. Although returning 0, 0 would be enough as a valid index pair can't be 2 equal indices, this is more convenient (because if you forget to check the return values and you attempt to use the invalid indices, you will immediately get a run-time panic, alerting you not to forget checking the validity of the return values). As so, in my solutions I will get rid of that i + 1 shifts as it makes no sense.
Benchmarking of different solutions can be found at the end of the answer.
If sorting allowed:
If the slice is big and not changing, and you have to call this twoSum() function many times, the most efficient solution would be to sort the numbers simply using sort.Ints() in advance:
sort.Ints(nums)
And then you don't have to build a map, you can use binary search implemented in sort.SearchInts():
func twoSumSorted(nums []int, target int) (int, int) {
for i, v := range nums {
v2 := target - v
if j := sort.SearchInts(nums, v2); v2 == nums[j] {
return i, j
}
}
return -1, -1
}
Note: Note that after sorting, the indices returned will be indices of values in the sorted slice. This may differ from indices in the original (unsorted) slice (which may or may not be a problem). If you do need indices from the original order (original, unsorted slice), you may store sorted and unsorted index mapping so you can get what the original index is. For details see this question:
Get the indices of the array after sorting in golang
If sorting is not allowed:
Here is your solution getting rid of that i + 1 shifts as it makes no sense. Slice and array indices are zero based in all languages. Also utilizing for ... range:
func twoSum(nums []int, target int) (int, int) {
if len(nums) <= 1 {
return -1, -1
}
m := make(map[int]int)
for i, v := range nums {
if j, ok := m[v]; ok {
return j, i
}
m[target-v] = i
}
return -1, -1
}
If the nums slice is big and the solution is not found fast (meaning the i index grows big) that means a lot of elements will be added to the map. Maps start with small capacity, and they are internally grown if additional space is required to host many elements (key-value pairs). An internal growing requires rehashing and rebuilding with the already added elements. This is "very" expensive.
It does not seem significant but it really is. Since you know the max elements that will end up in the map (worst case is len(nums)), you can create a map with a big-enough capacity to hold all elements for the worst case. The gain will be that no internal growing and rehashing will be required. You can provide the initial capacity as the second argument to make() when creating the map. This speeds up twoSum2() big time if nums is big:
func twoSum2(nums []int, target int) (int, int) {
if len(nums) <= 1 {
return -1, -1
}
m := make(map[int]int, len(nums))
for i, v := range nums {
if j, ok := m[v]; ok {
return j, i
}
m[target-v] = i
}
return -1, -1
}
Benchmarking
Here's a little benchmarking code to test execution speed of the 3 solutions with the input nums and target you provided. Note that in order to test twoSumSorted(), you first have to sort the nums slice.
Save this into a file named xx_test.go and run it with go test -bench .:
package main
import (
"sort"
"testing"
)
func BenchmarkTwoSum(b *testing.B) {
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
twoSum(nums, target)
}
}
func BenchmarkTwoSum2(b *testing.B) {
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
twoSum2(nums, target)
}
}
func BenchmarkTwoSumSorted(b *testing.B) {
sort.Ints(nums)
b.ResetTimer()
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
twoSumSorted(nums, target)
}
}
Output:
BenchmarkTwoSum-4 1000 1405542 ns/op
BenchmarkTwoSum2-4 2000 722661 ns/op
BenchmarkTwoSumSorted-4 10000000 133 ns/op
As you can see, making a map with big enough capacity speeds up: it runs twice as fast.
And as mentioned, if nums can be sorted in advance, that is ~10,000 times faster!
If nums is always sorted, you can do a binary search to see if the complement to whichever number you're on is also in the slice.
func binary(haystack []int, needle, startsAt int) int {
pivot := len(haystack) / 2
switch {
case haystack[pivot] == needle:
return pivot + startsAt
case len(haystack) <= 1:
return -1
case needle > haystack[pivot]:
return binary(haystack[pivot+1:], needle, startsAt+pivot+1)
case needle < haystack[pivot]:
return binary(haystack[:pivot], needle, startsAt)
}
return -1 // code can never fall off here, but the compiler complains
// if you don't have any returns out of conditionals.
}
func twoSum(nums []int, target int) (int, int) {
for i, num := range nums {
adjusted := target - num
if j := binary(nums, adjusted, 0); j != -1 {
return i, j
}
}
return 0, 0
}
playground example
Or you can use sort.SearchInts which implements binary searching.
func twoSum(nums []int, target int) (int, int) {
for i, num := range nums {
adjusted := target - num
if j := sort.SearchInts(nums, adjusted); nums[j] == adjusted {
// sort.SearchInts returns the index where the searched number
// would be if it was there. If it's not, then nums[j] != adjusted.
return i, j
}
}
return 0, 0
}
Can anyone comment on whether this is a reasonable and idiomatic way of implementing circular shift of integer arrays in Go? (I deliberately chose not to use bitwise operations.)
How could it be improved?
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
a := []int{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}
fmt.Println(a)
rotateR(a, 5)
fmt.Println(a)
rotateL(a, 5)
fmt.Println(a)
}
func rotateL(a []int, i int) {
for count := 1; count <= i; count++ {
tmp := a[0]
for n := 1;n < len(a);n++ {
a[n-1] = a[n]
}
a[len(a)-1] = tmp
}
}
func rotateR(a []int, i int) {
for count := 1; count <= i; count++ {
tmp := a[len(a)-1]
for n := len(a)-2;n >=0 ;n-- {
a[n+1] = a[n]
}
a[0] = tmp
}
}
Rotating the slice one position at a time, and repeating to get the total desired rotation means it will take time proportional to rotation distance × length of slice. By moving each element directly into its final position you can do this in time proportional to just the length of the slice.
The code for this is a little more tricky than you have, and you’ll need a GCD function to determine how many times to go through the slice:
func gcd(a, b int) int {
for b != 0 {
a, b = b, a % b
}
return a
}
func rotateL(a []int, i int) {
// Ensure the shift amount is less than the length of the array,
// and that it is positive.
i = i % len(a)
if i < 0 {
i += len(a)
}
for c := 0; c < gcd(i, len(a)); c++ {
t := a[c]
j := c
for {
k := j + i
// loop around if we go past the end of the slice
if k >= len(a) {
k -= len(a)
}
// end when we get to where we started
if k == c {
break
}
// move the element directly into its final position
a[j] = a[k]
j = k
}
a[j] = t
}
}
Rotating a slice of size l right by p positions is equivalent to rotating it left by l − p positions, so you can simplify your rotateR function by using rotateL:
func rotateR(a []int, i int) {
rotateL(a, len(a) - i)
}
Your code is fine for in-place modification.
Don't clearly understand what you mean by bitwise operations. Maybe this
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
a := []int{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}
fmt.Println(a)
rotateR(&a, 4)
fmt.Println(a)
rotateL(&a, 4)
fmt.Println(a)
}
func rotateL(a *[]int, i int) {
x, b := (*a)[:i], (*a)[i:]
*a = append(b, x...)
}
func rotateR(a *[]int, i int) {
x, b := (*a)[:(len(*a)-i)], (*a)[(len(*a)-i):]
*a = append(b, x...)
}
Code works https://play.golang.org/p/0VtiRFQVl7
It's called reslicing in Go vocabulary. Tradeoff is coping and looping in your snippet vs dynamic allocation in this. It's your choice, but in case of shifting 10000 elements array by one position reslicing looks much cheaper.
I like Uvelichitel solution but if you would like modular arithmetic which would be O(n) complexity
package main
func main(){
s := []string{"1", "2", "3"}
rot := 5
fmt.Println("Before RotL", s)
fmt.Println("After RotL", rotL(rot, s))
fmt.Println("Before RotR", s)
fmt.Println("After RotR", rotR(rot,s))
}
func rotL(m int, arr []string) []string{
newArr := make([]string, len(arr))
for i, k := range arr{
newPos := (((i - m) % len(arr)) + len(arr)) % len(arr)
newArr[newPos] = k
}
return newArr
}
func rotR(m int, arr []string) []string{
newArr := make([]string, len(arr))
for i, k := range arr{
newPos := (i + m) % len(arr)
newArr[newPos] = k
}
return newArr
}
If you need to enter multiple values, whatever you want (upd code Uvelichitel)
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
var N, n int
fmt.Scan(&N)
a := make([]int, N)
for i := 0; i < N; i++ {
fmt.Scan(&a[i])
}
fmt.Scan(&n)
if n > 0 {
rotateR(&a, n%len(a))
} else {
rotateL(&a, (n*-1)%len(a))
}
for _, elem := range a {
fmt.Print(elem, " ")
}
}
func rotateL(a *[]int, i int) {
x, b := (*a)[:i], (*a)[i:]
*a = append(b, x...)
}
func rotateR(a *[]int, i int) {
x, b := (*a)[:(len(*a)-i)], (*a)[(len(*a)-i):]
*a = append(b, x...)
}
I imported the math library in my program, and I was trying to find the minimum of three numbers in the following way:
v1[j+1] = math.Min(v1[j]+1, math.Min(v0[j+1]+1, v0[j]+cost))
where v1 is declared as:
t := "stackoverflow"
v1 := make([]int, len(t)+1)
However, when I run my program I get the following error:
./levenshtein_distance.go:36: cannot use int(v0[j + 1] + 1) (type int) as type float64 in argument to math.Min
I thought it was weird because I have another program where I write
fmt.Println(math.Min(2,3))
and that program outputs 2 without complaining.
so I ended up casting the values as float64, so that math.Min could work:
v1[j+1] = math.Min(float64(v1[j]+1), math.Min(float64(v0[j+1]+1), float64(v0[j]+cost)))
With this approach, I got the following error:
./levenshtein_distance.go:36: cannot use math.Min(int(v1[j] + 1), math.Min(int(v0[j + 1] + 1), int(v0[j] + cost))) (type float64) as type int in assignment
so to get rid of the problem, I just casted the result back to int
I thought this was extremely inefficient and hard to read:
v1[j+1] = int(math.Min(float64(v1[j]+1), math.Min(float64(v0[j+1]+1), float64(v0[j]+cost))))
I also wrote a small minInt function, but I think this should be unnecessary because the other programs that make use of math.Min work just fine when taking integers, so I concluded this has to be a problem of my program and not the library per se.
Is there anything that I'm doing terrible wrong?
Here's a program that you can use to reproduce the issues above, line 36 specifically:
package main
import (
"math"
)
func main() {
LevenshteinDistance("stackoverflow", "stackexchange")
}
func LevenshteinDistance(s string, t string) int {
if s == t {
return 0
}
if len(s) == 0 {
return len(t)
}
if len(t) == 0 {
return len(s)
}
v0 := make([]int, len(t)+1)
v1 := make([]int, len(t)+1)
for i := 0; i < len(v0); i++ {
v0[i] = i
}
for i := 0; i < len(s); i++ {
v1[0] = i + 1
for j := 0; j < len(t); j++ {
cost := 0
if s[i] != t[j] {
cost = 1
}
v1[j+1] = int(math.Min(float64(v1[j]+1), math.Min(float64(v0[j+1]+1), float64(v0[j]+cost))))
}
for j := 0; j < len(v0); j++ {
v0[j] = v1[j]
}
}
return v1[len(t)]
}
Until Go 1.18 a one-off function was the standard way; for example, the stdlib's sort.go does it near the top of the file:
func min(a, b int) int {
if a < b {
return a
}
return b
}
You might still want or need to use this approach so your code works on Go versions below 1.18!
Starting with Go 1.18, you can write a generic min function which is just as efficient at run time as the hand-coded single-type version, but works with any type with < and > operators:
func min[T constraints.Ordered](a, b T) T {
if a < b {
return a
}
return b
}
func main() {
fmt.Println(min(1, 2))
fmt.Println(min(1.5, 2.5))
fmt.Println(min("Hello", "世界"))
}
There's been discussion of updating the stdlib to add generic versions of existing functions, but if that happens it won't be until a later version.
math.Min(2, 3) happened to work because numeric constants in Go are untyped. Beware of treating float64s as a universal number type in general, though, since integers above 2^53 will get rounded if converted to float64.
There is no built-in min or max function for integers, but it’s simple to write your own. Thanks to support for variadic functions we can even compare more integers with just one call:
func MinOf(vars ...int) int {
min := vars[0]
for _, i := range vars {
if min > i {
min = i
}
}
return min
}
Usage:
MinOf(3, 9, 6, 2)
Similarly here is the max function:
func MaxOf(vars ...int) int {
max := vars[0]
for _, i := range vars {
if max < i {
max = i
}
}
return max
}
For example,
package main
import "fmt"
func min(x, y int) int {
if x < y {
return x
}
return y
}
func main() {
t := "stackoverflow"
v0 := make([]int, len(t)+1)
v1 := make([]int, len(t)+1)
cost := 1
j := 0
v1[j+1] = min(v1[j]+1, min(v0[j+1]+1, v0[j]+cost))
fmt.Println(v1[j+1])
}
Output:
1
Though the question is quite old, maybe my package imath can be helpful for someone who does not like reinventing a bicycle. There are few functions, finding minimal of two integers: ix.Min (for int), i8.Min (for int8), ux.Min (for uint) and so on. The package can be obtained with go get, imported in your project by URL and functions referred as typeabbreviation.FuncName, for example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"<Full URL>/go-imath/ix"
)
func main() {
a, b := 45, -42
fmt.Println(ix.Min(a, b)) // Output: -42
}
As the accepted answer states, with the introduction of generics in go 1.18 it's now possible to write a generic function that provides min/max for different numeric types (there is not one built into the language). And with variadic arguments we can support comparing 2 elements or a longer list of elements.
func Min[T constraints.Ordered](args ...T) T {
min := args[0]
for _, x := range args {
if x < min {
min = x
}
}
return min
}
func Max[T constraints.Ordered](args ...T) T {
max := args[0]
for _, x := range args {
if x > max {
max = x
}
}
return max
}
example calls:
Max(1, 2) // 2
Max(4, 5, 3, 1, 2) // 5
Could use https://github.com/pkg/math:
import (
"fmt"
"github.com/pkg/math"
)
func main() {
a, b := 45, -42
fmt.Println(math.Min(a, b)) // Output: -42
}
Since the issue has already been resolved, I would like to add a few words. Always remember that the math package in Golang operates on float64. You can use type conversion to cast int into a float64. Keep in mind to account for type ranges. For example, you cannot fit a float64 into an int16 if the number exceeds the limit for int16 which is 32767. Last but not least, if you convert a float into an int in Golang, the decimal points get truncated without any rounding.
If you want the minimum of a set of N integers you can use (assuming N > 0):
import "sort"
func min(set []int) int {
sort.Slice(set, func(i, j int) bool {
return set[i] < set[j]
})
return set[0]
}
Where the second argument to min function is your less function, that is, the function that decides when an element i of the passed slice is less than an element j
Check it out here in Go Playground: https://go.dev/play/p/lyQYlkwKrsA
What is the best way to remove items from a slice while ranging over it?
For example:
type MultiDataPoint []*DataPoint
func (m MultiDataPoint) Json() ([]byte, error) {
for i, d := range m {
err := d.clean()
if ( err != nil ) {
//Remove the DP from m
}
}
return json.Marshal(m)
}
As you have mentioned elsewhere, you can allocate new memory block and copy only valid elements to it. However, if you want to avoid the allocation, you can rewrite your slice in-place:
i := 0 // output index
for _, x := range s {
if isValid(x) {
// copy and increment index
s[i] = x
i++
}
}
// Prevent memory leak by erasing truncated values
// (not needed if values don't contain pointers, directly or indirectly)
for j := i; j < len(s); j++ {
s[j] = nil
}
s = s[:i]
Full example: http://play.golang.org/p/FNDFswPeDJ
Note this will leave old values after index i in the underlying array, so this will leak memory until the slice itself is garbage collected, if values are or contain pointers. You can solve this by setting all values to nil or the zero value from i until the end of the slice before truncating it.
I know its answered long time ago but i use something like this in other languages, but i don't know if it is the golang way.
Just iterate from back to front so you don't have to worry about indexes that are deleted. I am using the same example as Adam.
m = []int{3, 7, 2, 9, 4, 5}
for i := len(m)-1; i >= 0; i-- {
if m[i] < 5 {
m = append(m[:i], m[i+1:]...)
}
}
There might be better ways, but here's an example that deletes the even values from a slice:
m := []int{1,2,3,4,5,6}
deleted := 0
for i := range m {
j := i - deleted
if (m[j] & 1) == 0 {
m = m[:j+copy(m[j:], m[j+1:])]
deleted++
}
}
Note that I don't get the element using the i, d := range m syntax, since d would end up getting set to the wrong elements once you start deleting from the slice.
Here is a more idiomatic Go way to remove elements from slices.
temp := s[:0]
for _, x := range s {
if isValid(x) {
temp = append(temp, x)
}
}
s = temp
Playground link: https://play.golang.org/p/OH5Ymsat7s9
Note: The example and playground links are based upon #tomasz's answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/20551116/12003457
One other option is to use a normal for loop using the length of the slice and subtract 1 from the index each time a value is removed. See the following example:
m := []int{3, 7, 2, 9, 4, 5}
for i := 0; i < len(m); i++ {
if m[i] < 5 {
m = append(m[:i], m[i+1:]...)
i-- // -1 as the slice just got shorter
}
}
I don't know if len() uses enough resources to make any difference but you could also run it just once and subtract from the length value too:
m := []int{3, 7, 2, 9, 4, 5}
for i, s := 0, len(m); i < s; i++ {
if m[i] < 5 {
m = append(m[:i], m[i+1:]...)
s--
i--
}
}
Something like:
m = append(m[:i], m[i+1:]...)
You don't even need to count backwards but you do need to check that you're at the end of the array where the suggested append() will fail. Here's an example of removing duplicate positive integers from a sorted list:
// Remove repeating numbers
numbers := []int{1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5}
log.Println(numbers)
for i, numbersCount, prevNum := 0, len(numbers), -1; i < numbersCount; numbersCount = len(numbers) {
if numbers[i] == prevNum {
if i == numbersCount-1 {
numbers = numbers[:i]
} else {
numbers = append(numbers[:i], numbers[i+1:]...)
}
continue
}
prevNum = numbers[i]
i++
}
log.Println(numbers)
Playground: https://play.golang.org/p/v93MgtCQsaN
I just implement a method which removes all nil elements in slice.
And I used it to solve a leetcode problems, it works perfectly.
/**
* Definition for singly-linked list.
* type ListNode struct {
* Val int
* Next *ListNode
* }
*/
func removeNil(lists *[]*ListNode) {
for i := 0; i < len(*lists); i++ {
if (*lists)[i] == nil {
*lists = append((*lists)[:i], (*lists)[i+1:]...)
i--
}
}
}
You can avoid memory leaks, as suggested in #tomasz's answer, controlling the capacity of the underlying array with a full slice expression. Look at the following function that remove duplicates from a slice of integers:
package main
import "fmt"
func removeDuplicates(a []int) []int {
for i, j := 0, 1; i < len(a) && j < len(a); i, j = i+1, j+1 {
if a[i] == a[j] {
copy(a[j:], a[j+1:])
// resize the capacity of the underlying array using the "full slice expression"
// a[low : high : max]
a = a[: len(a)-1 : len(a)-1]
i--
j--
}
}
return a
}
func main() {
a := []int{2, 3, 3, 3, 6, 9, 9}
fmt.Println(a)
a = removeDuplicates(a)
fmt.Println(a)
}
// [2 3 3 3 6 9 9]
// [2 3 6 9]
For reasons #tomasz has explained, there are issues with removing in place. That's why it is practice in golang not to do that, but to reconstruct the slice. So several answers go beyond the answer of #tomasz.
If elements should be unique, it's practice to use the keys of a map for this. I like to contribute an example of deletion by use of a map.
What's nice, the boolean values are available for a second purpose. In this example I calculate Set a minus Set b. As Golang doesn't have a real set, I make sure the output is unique. I use the boolean values as well for the algorithm.
The map gets close to O(n). I don't know the implementation. append() should be O(n). So the runtime is similar fast as deletion in place. Real deletion in place would cause a shifting of the upper end to clean up. If not done in batch, the runtime should be worse.
In this special case, I also use the map as a register, to avoid a nested loop over Set a and Set b to keep the runtime close to O(n).
type Set []int
func differenceOfSets(a, b Set) (difference Set) {
m := map[int]bool{}
for _, element := range a {
m[element] = true
}
for _, element := range b {
if _, registered := m[element]; registered {
m[element] = false
}
}
for element, present := range m {
if present {
difference = append(difference, element)
}
}
return difference
}
Try Sort and Binary search.
Example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sort"
)
func main() {
// Our slice.
s := []int{3, 7, 2, 9, 4, 5}
// 1. Iterate over it.
for i, v := range s {
func(i, v int) {}(i, v)
}
// 2. Sort it. (by whatever condition of yours)
sort.Slice(s, func(i, j int) bool {
return s[i] < s[j]
})
// 3. Cut it only once.
i := sort.Search(len(s), func(i int) bool { return s[i] >= 5 })
s = s[i:]
// That's it!
fmt.Println(s) // [5 7 9]
}
https://play.golang.org/p/LnF6o0yMJGT