I want to create a random string of a fixed length (8 chars in my use case) and the generated string has to be case sensitive and unique against a blacklist. I know this sounds like a UUID but I have a specific requirement that prevents me from utilizing them
some characters are disallowed, i.e. I, l and 1 are lookalikes, and O and 0 as well
My initial implementation is solid and solves the task but performs poorly. And by poorly I mean it is doomed to be slower and slower every day.
This is my current implementation I want to optimize:
private function uuid()
{
$chars = 'ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTVUWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstvuwxyz23456789';
$uuid = null;
while (true) {
$uuid = substr(str_shuffle($chars), 0, 8);
if (null === DB::table('codes')->select('id')->whereRaw('BINARY uuid = ?', [$uuid])->first())) {
break;
}
}
return $uuid;
}
Please spare me the critique, we live in an agile world and this implementation is functional and is quick to code.
With a small set of data it works beautifully. However if I have 10 million entries in the blacklist and try to create 1000 more it fails flat as it takes 30+ minutes.
A real use case would be to have 10+ million entries in the DB and to attempt to create 20 thousand new unique codes.
I was thinking of pre-seeding all allowed values but this would be insane:
(24+24+8)^8 = 9.6717312e+13
It would be great if the community can point me in the right direction.
Best,
Nikola
Two options:
Just use a hash of something unique, and truncate so it fits in the bandwidth of your identifier. Hashes sometimes collide, so you will still need to check the database and retry if a code is already in use.
s = "This is a string that uniquely identifies voucher #1. Blah blah."
h = hash(s)
guid = truncate(hash)
Generate five of the digits from an incrementing counter and three randomly. A thief will have a worse than 1 in 140,000 chance of guessing a code, depending on your character set.
u = Db.GetIncrementingCounter()
p = Random.GetCharacters(3)
guid = u + p
I ended up modifying the approach: instead of checking for uuid existence on every loop, e.g. 50K DB checks, I now split the generated codes into multiple chunks of 1000 codes and issue an INSERT IGNORE batch query within a transaction.
If the affected rows are as many as the items (1000 in this case) I know there wasn't a collision and I can commit the transaction. Otherwise I need to rollback the chunk and generate another 1000 codes.
Related
I'm implementing an openpeeps.com library for Flutter in which user can create their own peeps to use as an avatar within our product.
One of the reasons behind using peeps as avatar is that (in theory) it can be easily stored as a single value within a database.
A Peep within my library contains of up to 6 PeepAtoms:
class Peep {
final PeepAtom head;
final PeepAtom face;
final PeepAtom facialHair;
final PeepAtom? accessories;
final PeepAtom? body;
final PeepAtom? pose;
}
A PeepAtom is currently just a name identifying the underlying image file required to build a Peep:
class PeepAtom {
final String name;
}
How to get a hash?
What I'd like to do now is get a single value from a Peep (int or string) which I can store in a database. If I retrieve the data, I'd like to deconstruct the value into the unique atoms so I can render the appropriate atom images to display the Peep. While I'm not really looking to optimize for storage size, it would be nice if the bytesize would be small.
Since I'm normally not working with such stuff I don't have an idea what's the best option. These are my (naïve) ideas:
do a Peep.toJson and convert the output to base64. Likely inefficient due to a bunch of unnecessary characters.
do a PeepAtom.hashCode for each field within a Peep and upload this. As an array that would be 64bit = 8 Byte * 6 (Atoms). Thats pretty ok but not a single value.
since there are only a limited number of Atoms in each category (less than 100) I could use bitshifts and ^ to put this into one int. However, I think this would not really working because I'd need a unique identifier and since I'm code generating the PeepAtoms within my code that likely would be quite complex.
Any better ideas/algorithms?
I'm not sure what you mean by "quite complex". It looks quite simple to pack your atoms into a double.
Note that this is no way a "hash". A hash is a lossy operation. I presume that you want to recover the original data.
Based on your description, you need seven bits for each atom. They can range in 0..98 (since you said "less than 100"). A double has 52 bits of mantissa. Your six atoms needs 42 bits, so it fits easily. For atoms that can be null, just give that a special unused 7-bit value, like 127.
Now just use multiply and add to combine them. Use modulo and divide to pull them back out. E.g.:
double val = head;
val = val * 128 + face;
val = val * 128 + facialHair;
...
To extract:
int pose = val % 128;
val = (val / 128).floorToDouble();
int body = val % 128;
val = (val / 128).floorToDouble();
...
I want to find out the best way to perform a group-by in SAS so I can perform some benchmarks. The simplest two ways I can think of is Proc SQL and Proc means. Here is the example in proc sql
proc sql noprint; /* took 6 mins */
create table summ as select
id,
sum(val)
from
randint
group by
id
;
quit;
I think there are ways to make this run fast
use sasfile command to load the data into memory first
create an index on id
Are there any other options I can use? Any SAS options I should turn on to make this run as fast as possible? I am not tied to proc sql nor proc means, so if there are faster ways then I would love to know about it!!!
My set up code is as below
options macrogen;
options obs=max sortsize=max source2 FULLSTIMER;
options minoperator SASTRACE=',,,d' SASTRACELOC=SASLOG;
options compress = binary NOSTSUFFIX;
options noxwait noxsync;
options LRECL=32767;
proc fcmp outlib=work.myfunc.sample;
function RandBetween(min, max);
return (min + floor((1 + max - min) * rand("uniform")));
endsub;
run;
options cmplib=work.myfunc;
data RandInt;
do i = 1 to 250000000;
id = RandBetween(1, 2500000);
val = rand("uniform");
output;
end;
drop i;
run;
My SAS comparison macros are as below
%macro sasbench(dosql = N); %macro _; %mend;
%if &dosql. = Y %then %do;
proc sql noprint; /* took 6 mins */
create table summ as select
id,
sum(val)
from
randint
group by
id
;
quit;
%end;
proc means data=randint sum noprint;
var val ;
class id;
output out = summmeans(drop=_type_ _freq_) sum = /autoname;
run;
%mend;
%sasbench();
/**/
/*sasfile randint load;*/
/*%sasbench();*/
/*sasfile randint close;*/
proc datasets lib=work;
modify randint;
INDEX CREATE id / nomiss;
run;
%sasbench();
sasfile is only a benefit if the entire data set can fit into session ram limits and if the data set is going to be used more than once. I suppose this would make sense if your benchmark includes multiple runs / different techniques on the same sasfile.
An index on id would help if the data was unsorted by id. When the data set is presorted by id the id column metadata will have sortedby flag set which a procedure can use for its own internal optimization, however there is no guarantee. As for indexes, use option msglevel=i to get informational messages in the log about index selection during processing.
The fastest way is direct addressing, but requires enough ram to handle the largest id value as an array index:
array ids(250000000) _temporary_
ids(id) + value
The next fastest way is probably hand coded array based hashing:
search SAS conference proceedings for papers by Paul Dorfman
The next fastest hash way is probably the hash component object with key suminc.
DATA Step was edited to align with the comments
data demo_data;
do rownum = 1 to 1000;
id = ceil(100*ranuni(123)); * NOTE: 100 different groups, disordered;
value = ceil(1000*ranuni(123)); * NOTE: want to sum value over group, for demonstration individual values integers from 1..1000;
output;
end;
run;
data _null_;
if 0 then set demo_data(keep=id value); %* prep pdv ;
length total 8; %* prep keysum variable ;
call missing (total); %* prevent warnings ;
declare hash ids (ordered:'a', suminc:'value', keysum:'total'); %* ordered ensures keys will be sorted ascending upon output ;
ids.defineKey('id');
*ids.defineData('id'); % * not having a defineData is an implicit way of adding only the keys as data, only data + keysum variables are .output;
ids.defineDone();
* read all records and touch each hash key in order to perform tacit total+value summation;
do until (end);
set demo_data end=end;
if ids.find() ne 0 then ids.add();
end;
ids.output(dataset:'sum_value_over_id'); * save the summation of each key combination;
stop;
run;
Note: There can be only one keysum variable.
If the suminc variable was set to be always 1 instead of value, then the keysum would be the count instead of the total.
Obtaining both sum and count over group via hash would require an explicit defineData for a count and sum variable and slightly different statements, such as:
declare hash ids (ordered:'a');
...
ids.defineData('id', 'count', 'total');
...
if ids.find() ne 0 then do; count=0; total=0; end;
count+1;
total+value;
ids.replace();
...
However, if value is known to be always a natural number, and group size is known to be < 10group size limit you could numerically encode the count by using a suminc of value + 10-group size limit and numerically decode count by processing the output data with count = (total - int(total)) * 10group size limit.
For sorted data the fastest way is most likely a DOW loop with accumulation.
proc sort data=foo;
by id;
data sum_value_over_id_v2(keep=id total);
do until (last.id);
set foo;
by id;
total = sum(total, value);
end;
run;
You will likely find that I/O is largest component of performance.
The best answer varies dramatically by the application. In your example, PROC SQL at least on my machine significantly outperforms PROC MEANS, but there are plenty of cases where it will not do so. It's able to in this case because it's building hash tables behind the scenes, more than likely, which are quite fast - a single pass through the data is all that's needed.
You certainly could speed things up by putting your full dataset into memory with SASFILE, if you have room to store the whole thing. You would have to have it in memory to begin with, though, more than likely; just reading it into memory for this purpose alone wouldn't really help since you're doing that read anyway.
As Richard notes, there are a bunch of ways to do this. I think PROC SQL will often be the fastest or similar to the fastest in simple cases, both because it's multithreaded (as opposed to data step being single threaded) and because it's got a fast hash table backend.
PROC MEANS is also usually going to be competitive, the case you show in the example is almost a worst case for it since it's got a huge number of class variables so I think it may be creating a temporary table on disk. It's also multithreaded. Reduce the class variable categories to 2500 instead of 2,500,000 and you get PROC MEANS a bit faster than PROC SQL (but within the margin of error).
Data step accumulation, either in a hash table or a DoW loop, will sometimes outperform both of the above, and sometimes not, again depending on the data. Here it does outperform slightly. The code for data step accumulation tends to be a bit more complex, which is why I'd usually discourage it unless the savings is substantial (having more code to maintain is worse, typically). PROC MEANS and PROC SQL require less maintenance and less to understand. But in applications where performance is critical and these solutions happen to be superior, it may be worth it to go this route, especially if the data step is helpful. Of course, the hash table method is limited to fitting the results in memory, though usually that's manageable.
Ultimately, I would encourage you to use whatever method is easiest to maintain but still gives sufficient performance; and when possible try to be self consistent with other code. If most of your code is in SQL, that is probably fine. SASFILE and indexes probably won't be needed, unless you're doing more complicated things than you present above. Summation is actually more work than I/O in many cases. Don't overcomplicate it, ultimately: programmer hours and difficulty of QA is something that should trump basic performance, unless you're talking several hours' difference. And if you are, then just run tests on your actual use case and see what works best.
If you assume the data is sorted then this is another solution
data sum_value_over_id_v2(keep=id total);
set a.randint(keep=id val);
by id;
total + val;
if last.id then do;
output;
total = 0;
end;
drop val;
run;
Here is the problem, where I need to transform an ID (defined as a long integer) to a smaller alfanumeric identifier. The details are the following:
Each individual on the problem as an unique ID, a long integer of size 13 (something like 123123412341234).
I need to generate a smaller representation of this unique ID, a alfanumeric string, something like A1CB3X. The problem is that 5 or 6 character length will not be enough to represent such a large integer.
The new ID (eg A1CB3X) should be valid in a context where we know that only a small number of individuals are present (less than 500). The new ID should be unique within that small set of individuals.
The new ID (eg A1CB3X) should be the result of a calculation made over the original ID. This means that taking the original ID elsewhere and applying the same calculation, we should get the same new ID (eg A1CB3X).
This calculation should occur when the individual is added to the set, meaning that not all individuals belonging to that set will be know at that time.
Any directions on how to solve such a problem?
Assuming that you don't need a formula that goes in both directions (which is impossible if you are reducing a 13-digit number to a 5 or 6-character alphanum string):
If you can have up to 6 alphanumeric characters that gives you 366 = 2,176,782,336 possibilities, assuming only numbers and uppercase letters.
To map your larger 13-digit number onto this space, you can take a modulo of some prime number slightly smaller than that, for example 2,176,782,317, the encode it with base-36 encoding.
alphanum_id = base36encode(longnumber_id % 2176782317)
For a set of 500, this gives you a
2176782317P500 / 2176782317500 chance of a collision
(P is permutation)
Best option is to change the base to 62 using case sensitive characters
If you want it to be shorter, you can add unicode characters. See below.
Here is javascript code for you: https://jsfiddle.net/vewmdt85/1/
function compress(n) {
var symbols = 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzÀÁÂÃÄÅÆÇÈÉÊËÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÕÖØÙÚÛÜÝÞßàáâãäåæçèéêëìíîïð'.split('');
var d = n;
var compressed = '';
while (d >= 1) {
compressed = symbols[(d - (symbols.length * Math.floor(d / symbols.length)))] + compressed;
d = Math.floor(d / symbols.length);
}
return compressed;
}
$('input').keyup(function() {
$('span').html(compress($(this).val()))
})
$('span').html(compress($('input').val()))
How about using some base-X conversion, for example 123123412341234 becomes 17N644R7CI in base-36 and 9999999999999 becomes 3JLXPT2PR?
If you need a mapping that works both directions, you can simply go for a larger base.
Meaning: using base 16, you can reduce 1 to 16 to a single character.
So, base36 is the "maximum" that allows for shorter strings (when 1-1 mapping is required)!
I have files that can be 19GB or greater, they will be huge but sorted. Can I use the fact that they are sorted to my advantage when searching to see if a certain string exists?
I looked at something called sgrep but not sure if its what I'm looking for. An example is I will have a 19GB text file with millions of rows of
ABCDEFG,1234,Jan 21,stackoverflow
and I want to search just the first column of these millions of row to see if ABCDEFG exists in this huge text file.
Is there a more efficient way then just greping this file for the string and seeing if a result comes. I don't even need the line, I just need almost a boolean, true/false if it is inside this file
Actually sgrep is what I was looking for. The reason I got confused was because structured grep has the same name as sorted grep and I was installing the wrong package. sgrep is amazing
I don't know if there are any utilities that would help you out if the box, but it would be pretty straight forward to write an application specific to your problem. A binary search would work well, and should yield your result within 20-30 queries against the file.
Let's say your lines are never more than 100 characters, and the file is B bytes long.
Do something like this in your favorite language:
sub file_has_line(file, target) {
a = 0
z = file.length
while (a < z) {
m = (a+z)/2
chunk = file.read(m, 200)
// That is, read 200 bytes, starting at m.
line = chunk.split(/\n/)[2]
// split the line on newlines, and keep only the second line.
if line < target
z = m - 1
else
a = m + 1
}
return (line == target)
}
If you're only doing a single lookup, this will dramatically speed up your program. Instead of reading ~20 GB, you'll be reading ~20 KB of data.
You could try to optimize this a bit by extrapolating that "Xerox" is going to be at 98% of the file and starting the midpoint there...but unless your need for optimization is quite extreme, you really won't see much difference. The binary search will get you that close within 4 or 5 passes, anyway.
If you're doing lots of lookups (I just saw your comment that you will be), I would look to pump all that data into a database where you can query at will.
So if you're doing 100,000 lookups, but this is a one-and-done process where having it in a database has no ongoing value, you could take another approach...
Sort your list of targets, to match the sort order of the log file. Then walk through each in parallel. You'll still end up reading the entire 20 GB file, but you'll only have to do it once and then you'll have all your answers. Something like this:
sub file_has_lines(file, target_array) {
target_array = target_array.sort
target = ''
hits = []
do {
if line < target
line = file.readln()
elsif line > target
target = target_array.pop()
elseif line == target
hits.push(line)
line = file.readln()
} while not file.eof()
return hits
}
it run corectly but it should have around 500 matches but it only has around 50 and I dont know why!
This is a probelm for my comsci class that I am having isues with
we had to make a function that checks a list for duplication I got that part but then we had to apply it to the birthday paradox( more info here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem) thats where I am runing into problem because my teacher said that the total number of times should be around 500 or 50% but for me its only going around 50-70 times or 5%
duplicateNumber=0
import random
def has_duplicates(listToCheck):
for i in listToCheck:
x=listToCheck.index(i)
del listToCheck[x]
if i in listToCheck:
return True
else:
return False
listA=[1,2,3,4]
listB=[1,2,3,1]
#print has_duplicates(listA)
#print has_duplicates(listB)
for i in range(0,1000):
birthdayList=[]
for i in range(0,23):
birthday=random.randint(1,365)
birthdayList.append(birthday)
x= has_duplicates(birthdayList)
if x==True:
duplicateNumber+=1
else:
pass
print "after 1000 simulations with 23 students there were", duplicateNumber,"simulations with atleast one match. The approximate probibilatiy is", round(((duplicateNumber/1000)*100),3),"%"
This code gave me a result in line with what you were expecting:
import random
duplicateNumber=0
def has_duplicates(listToCheck):
number_set = set(listToCheck)
if len(number_set) is not len(listToCheck):
return True
else:
return False
for i in range(0,1000):
birthdayList=[]
for j in range(0,23):
birthday=random.randint(1,365)
birthdayList.append(birthday)
x = has_duplicates(birthdayList)
if x==True:
duplicateNumber+=1
print "after 1000 simulations with 23 students there were", duplicateNumber,"simulations with atleast one match. The approximate probibilatiy is", round(((duplicateNumber/1000.0)*100),3),"%"
The first change I made was tidying up the indices you were using in those nested for loops. You'll see I changed the second one to j, as they were previously bot i.
The big one, though, was to the has_duplicates function. The basic principle here is that creating a set out of the incoming list gets the unique values in the list. By comparing the number of items in the number_set to the number in listToCheck we can judge whether there are any duplicates or not.
Here is what you are looking for. As this is not standard practice (to just throw code at a new user), I apologize if this offends any other users. However, I believe showing the OP a correct way to write a program should be could all do us a favor if said user keeps the lack of documentation further on in his career.
Thus, please take a careful look at the code, and fill in the blanks. Look up the python doumentation (as dry as it is), and try to understand the things that you don't get right away. Even if you understand something just by the name, it would still be wise to see what is actually happening when some built-in method is being used.
Last, but not least, take a look at this code, and take a look at your code. Note the differences, and keep trying to write your code from scratch (without looking at mine), and if it messes up, see where you went wrong, and start over. This sort of practice is key if you wish to succeed later on in programming!
def same_birthdays():
import random
'''
This is a program that does ________. It is really important
that we tell readers of this code what it does, so that the
reader doesn't have to piece all of the puzzles together,
while the key is right there, in the mind of the programmer.
'''
count = 0
#Count is going to store the number of times that we have the same birthdays
timesToRun = 1000 #timesToRun should probably be in a parameter
#timesToRun is clearly defined in its name as well. Further elaboration
#on its purpose is not necessary.
for i in range(0,timesToRun):
birthdayList = []
for j in range(0,23):
random_birthday = random.randint(1,365)
birthdayList.append(random_birthday)
birthdayList = sorted(birthdayList) #sorting for easier matching
#If we really want to, we could provide a check in the above nester
#for loop to check right away if there is a duplicate.
#But again, we are here
for j in range(0, len(birthdayList)-1):
if (birthdayList[j] == birthdayList[j+1]):
count+=1
break #leaving this nested for-loop
return count
If you wish to find the percent, then get rid of the above return statement and add:
return (count/timesToRun)
Here's a solution that doesn't use set(). It also takes a different approach with the array so that each index represents a day of the year. I also removed the hasDuplicate() function.
import random
sim_total=0
birthdayList=[]
#initialize an array of 0's representing each calendar day
for i in range(365):
birthdayList.append(0)
for i in range(0,1000):
first_dup=True
for n in range(365):
birthdayList[n]=0
for b in range(0, 23):
r = random.randint(0,364)
birthdayList[r]+=1
if (birthdayList[r] > 1) and (first_dup==True):
sim_total+=1
first_dup=False
avg = float(sim_total) / 1000 * 100
print "after 1000 simulations with 23 students there were", sim_total,"simulations with atleast one duplicate. The approximate problibility is", round(avg,3),"%"