I am trying to sort my results by a sub-total. This sub-total was not received from a SQL count, but rather from using the Group Feature to create the stepped report. I've attached an image of what my results look like. In that image, you can see that it's currently ordered/sorted by the Client Number, and then the matter number (which you can't see but isn't really important at this time).
What I want is for it to list the Client's with the most matters first - that's the sub-total. In the image you can see there is one that has 6, so that should come first. The end sort would be Highest Count -> Client Number -> Matter Number.
Any guidance someone can give me would be great. I was trying to figure out how to do the count from the SQL side, but I don't seem to see a way to do a sub-total count of how many matters each client has. I can only count each matter individually, and do a grand total of how many matters were there, total.
Related
this is a type of question I usually encounter when doing SWE Internship OA for Trading/Payment Services companies: given a list of transactions of the form "Action-Customer ID-Transaction ID-Amount", we are asked to process them and return a list of actions to take or the amount of money remained.
Here is a specific example. Input is a list of string, with the form "Action-Order ID-Price-Amount-Buy/Sell" with only 2 actions SUB (Submit) and CXL (Cancel).
For Buy, Higher price has higher priority while for Sell, lower price has higher priority. If for the same Buy or Sell category, the prices are similar then the string came earlier has higher priority.
If price of buy >= price of sell, then two orders are matched and Amount = min(Amount of Sell, Amount of Buy), Buy or Sell will be decided accordingly.
If an order has already been filled, it will not be cancelled.
If Order ID in CXL action does not exist, there will be no effect (no error).
We are asked to return a list of actions to take, output should be a list of strings with the following format: "Order ID-Buy/Sell-Amount to Buy/Sell"
Input and output examples:
Input: ["SUB-hghg-10-400-B", "SUB-abab-15-500-B", "SUB-abcd-10-400-S"]
Output: ["abcd-S-400"]
Explanation: "abab" has higher Buy price than "hghg" even though it came later, so it will be processed first. Amount of abab = 500, Amount of abcd = 400 => Amount = 400
Input: ["SUB-hghg-10-400-B", "CXL-hghg"]
Output: []
Explanation: do nothing because the order was cancelled before it is filled.
I have attempted the problem using hash maps but it gets too complicated for me. Before, I also encountered a similar problem but the difference is that the Cancel will remove the order regardless of whether it has been filled or not, and in that case I use a LinkedList to keep track of the orders.
I want to ask if there are any general approaches to optimally solve these kinds of problems. I have wandered LeetCode for some time, practicing some Medium questions but have not encountered this problem type. If there is any typical data structure to efficiently store the information of each order, I would like to know also. I have also searched the Internet for some keywords like algorithmic trading, algorithms to process payments/transactions but I have not found anything useful yet. Any help is greatly appreciated!
Thank you so much for reading my lengthy post.
So your input is a series of submitted orders and cancels and your output is a sequence of the trades that happen when orders are matched, right?
I'd approach the problem as follows: Create an order book data structure that contains all open (unmatched) oders, buys and sells separately, ordered by price.
Init: The order book is of course initialized empty. Initialize your list of resulting trades empty as well.
Loop: Then process the incoming requests (submit or cancel) one by one and apply them to the order book. This will either add the order to the book or the order matches one or more other orders and a new trade is generated. Append the resulting trade to your trades list.
That's it basically. However, please note that matching a new order with the book is not completely trivial. One order in the book may only be matched partially and remain in the book or the new order will only be matched partially and the rest amount has to be added to the book. I'd recommend to write unit tests for the single step so you are sure your orders are sorted and matched as intended.
Anyone who's read Parse documentation has stumbled upon this
Caveat: Count queries are rate limited to a maximum of 160 requests per minute. They can also return inaccurate results for classes with more than 1,000 objects. Thus, it is preferable to architect your application to avoid this sort of count operation (by using counters, for example.)
Why's there such limitation and inaccuracy?
To quote the Parse Engineering Blog Post: Building Scalable Apps on Parse
Suppose you are building a product catalog. You might want to display
the count of products in each category on the top-level navigation
screen. If you run a count query for each of these UI elements, they
will not run efficiently on large data sets because MongoDB does not
use counting B-trees. Instead, we recommend that you use a separate
Parse Object to keep track of counts for each category. Whenever a
product gets added or deleted, you can increment or decrement the
counts in an afterSave or afterDelete Cloud Code handler.
To add on to this, here is another quote by Hector Ramos from the Parse Developers Google Group
Count queries have always been expensive once you throw some
constraints in. If you only care about the total size of the
collection, you can run a count query without any constraints and that
one should be pretty fast, as getting the total number of records is a
different problem than counting how many of these match an arbitrary
list of constraints. This is just the reality of working with database
systems.
The inaccuracy is not due to the 1000 request object limit. The count query will try to get the total number of records regardless of size, but since the operation may take a large amount of time to complete, it is possible that the database has changed during that window and the count value that is returned may no longer be valid.
The recommended way to handle counts is to essentially maintain your own index using before/after save hooks. However, this is also a non-ideal solution because save hooks can arbitrarily fail part way through and (worse) postSave hooks have no error propagation.
The limitation is simply to stop people using counts too much, they're just as runtime costly as full queries in effect.
The inaccuracy is because queries are limited to 1000 result objects (100 by default) and counts have the same hard limit.
You can run a recursive query to build up a count, but it's a crappy option. Hence the only really good option at this point in time (and as far as we can see in the future) is to keep an index of the things you're interested in counting and update the counts when anything changes. You would usually do that with save hooks in cloud code.
I'm using Cube and Cubism. It's perfect, except for one thing... I need to display the total events numerically. E.g. I have a metric showing API calls per 10 second, I need to know the total API calls.
Is there anything built-in that I'm missing?
I thought about adding a (Mongo) count in the evaluator, but events expire so that wouldn't work.
Keeping track of the running total client-side and including it in the event could be an option, but the sources are distributed and the events are not monotonic, so a simple sum on the last 10 seconds won't work. I would need to be able to query 'get the last event for each distinct source'. Is that possible?
I have a lot of metrics, so I really want to keep the number of client requests to a minimum. If I could get e.g. cumulative alongside value in the standard metric query I'd be happy.
EDIT
I was missing something... using sum and a large (e.g. 1 day) step works.
I was missing something... using sum and a large (e.g. 1 day) step works perfectly.
As much as I like using GUIDs as the unique identifiers in my system, it is not very user-friendly for fields like an order number where a customer may have to repeat that to a customer service representative.
What's a good algorithm to use to generate order number so that it is:
Unique
Not sequential (purely for optics)
Numeric values only (so it can be easily read to a CSR over phone or keyed in)
< 10 digits
Can be generated in the middle tier without doing a round trip to the database.
UPDATE (12/05/2009)
After carefully reviewing each of the answers posted, we decided to randomize a 9-digit number in the middle tier to be saved in the DB. In the case of a collision, we'll regenerate a new number.
If the middle tier cannot check what "order numbers" already exists in the database, the best it can do will be the equivalent of generating a random number. However, if you generate a random number that's constrained to be less than 1 billion, you should start worrying about accidental collisions at around sqrt(1 billion), i.e., after a few tens of thousand entries generated this way, the risk of collisions is material. What if the order number is sequential but in a disguised way, i.e. the next multiple of some large prime number modulo 1 billion -- would that meet your requirements?
<Moan>OK sounds like a classic case of premature optimisation. You imagine a performance problem (Oh my god I have to access the - horror - database to get an order number! My that might be slow) and end up with a convoluted mess of psuedo random generators and a ton of duplicate handling code.</moan>
One simple practical answer is to run a sequence per customer. The real order number being a composite of customer number and order number. You can easily retrieve the last sequence used when retriving other stuff about your customer.
One simple option is to use the date and time, eg. 0912012359, and if two orders are received in the same minute, simply increment the second order by a minute (it doesn't matter if the time is out, it's just an order number).
If you don't want the date to be visible, then calculate it as the number of minutes since a fixed point in time, eg. when you started taking orders or some other arbitary date. Again, with the duplicate check/increment.
Your competitors will glean nothing from this, and it's easy to implement.
Maybe you could try generating some unique text using a markov chain - see here for an example implementation in Python. Maybe use sequential numbers (rather than random ones) to generate the chain, so that (hopefully) the each order number is unique.
Just a warning, though - see here for what can possibly happen if you aren't careful with your settings.
One solution would be to take the hash of some field of the order. This will not guarantee that it is unique from the order numbers of all of the other orders, but the likelihood of a collision is very low. I would imagine that without "doing a round trip to the database" it would be challenging to make sure that the order number is unique.
In case you are not familiar with hash functions, the wikipedia page is pretty good.
You could base64-encode a guid. This will meet all your criteria except the "numeric values only" requirement.
Really, though, the correct thing to do here is let the database generate the order number. That may mean creating an order template record that doesn't actually have an order number until the user saves it, or it might be adding the ability to create empty (but perhaps uncommitted) orders.
Use primitive polynomials as finite field generator.
Your 10 digit requirement is a huge limitation. Consider a two stage approach.
Use a GUID
Prefix the GUID with a 10 digit (or 5 or 4 digit) hash of the GUID.
You will have multiple hits on the hash value. But not that many. The customer service people will very easily be able to figure out which order is in question based on additional information from the customer.
The straightforward answer to most of your bullet points:
Make the first six digits a sequentially-increasing field, and append three digits of hash to the end. Or seven and two, or eight and one, depending on how many orders you envision having to support.
However, you'll still have to call a function on the back-end to reserve a new order number; otherwise, it's impossible to guarantee a non-collision, since there are so few digits.
We do TTT-CCCCCC-1A-N1.
T = Circuit type (D1E=DS1 EEL, D1U=DS1 UNE, etc.)
C = 6 Digit Customer ID
1 = The customer's first location
A = The first circuit (A=1, B=2, etc) at this location
N = Order type (N=New, X=Disconnect, etc)
1 = The first order of this kind for this circuit
We have an auto-complete list that's populated when an you send an email to someone, which is all well and good until the list gets really big you need to type more and more of an address to get to the one you want, which goes against the purpose of auto-complete
I was thinking that some logic should be added so that the auto-complete results should be sorted by some function of most recently contacted or most often contacted rather than just alphabetical order.
What I want to know is if there's any known good algorithms for this kind of search, or if anyone has any suggestions.
I was thinking just a point system thing, with something like same day is 5 points, last three days is 4 points, last week is 3 points, last month is 2 points and last 6 months is 1 point. Then for most often, 25+ is 5 points, 15+ is 4, 10+ is 3, 5+ is 2, 2+ is 1. No real logic other than those numbers "feel" about right.
Other than just arbitrarily picked numbers does anyone have any input? Other numbers also welcome if you can give a reason why you think they're better than mine
Edit: This would be primarily in a business environment where recentness (yay for making up words) is often just as important as frequency. Also, past a certain point there really isn't much difference between say someone you talked to 80 times vs say 30 times.
Take a look at Self organizing lists.
A quick and dirty look:
Move to Front Heuristic:
A linked list, Such that whenever a node is selected, it is moved to the front of the list.
Frequency Heuristic:
A linked list, such that whenever a node is selected, its frequency count is incremented, and then the node is bubbled towards the front of the list, so that the most frequently accessed is at the head of the list.
It looks like the move to front implementation would best suit your needs.
EDIT: When an address is selected, add one to its frequency, and move to the front of the group of nodes with the same weight (or (weight div x) for courser groupings). I see aging as a real problem with your proposed implementation, in that it requires calculating a weight on each and every item. A self organizing list is a good way to go, but the algorithm needs a bit of tweaking to do what you want.
Further Edit:
Aging refers to the fact that weights decrease over time, which means you need to know each and every time an address was used. Which means, that you have to have the entire email history available to you when you construct your list.
The issue is that we want to perform calculations (other than search) on a node only when it is actually accessed -- This gives us our statistical good performance.
This kind of thing seems similar to what is done by firefox when hinting what is the site you are typing for.
Unfortunately I don't know exactly how firefox does it, point system seems good as well, maybe you'll need to balance your points :)
I'd go for something similar to:
NoM = Number of Mail
(NoM sent to X today) + 1/2 * (NoM sent to X during the last week)/7 + 1/3 * (NoM sent to X during the last month)/30
Contacts you did not write during the last month (it could be changed) will have 0 points. You could start sorting them for NoM sent in total (since it is on the contact list :). These will be showed after contacts with points > 0
It's just an idea, anyway it is to give different importance to the most and just mailed contacts.
If you want to get crazy, mark the most 'active' emails in one of several ways:
Last access
Frequency of use
Contacts with pending sales
Direct bosses
Etc
Then, present the active emails at the top of the list. Pay attention to which "group" your user uses most. Switch to that sorting strategy exclusively after enough data is collected.
It's a lot of work but kind of fun...
Maybe count the number of emails sent to each address. Then:
ORDER BY EmailCount DESC, LastName, FirstName
That way, your most-often-used addresses come first, even if they haven't been used in a few days.
I like the idea of a point-based system, with points for recent use, frequency of use, and potentially other factors (prefer contacts in the local domain?).
I've worked on a few systems like this, and neither "most recently used" nor "most commonly used" work very well. The "most recent" can be a real pain if you accidentally mis-type something once. Alternatively, "most used" doesn't evolve much over time, if you had a lot of contact with somebody last year, but now your job has changed, for example.
Once you have the set of measurements you want to use, you could create an interactive apoplication to test out different weights, and see which ones give you the best results for some sample data.
This paper describes a single-parameter family of cache eviction policies that includes least recently used and least frequently used policies as special cases.
The parameter, lambda, ranges from 0 to 1. When lambda is 0 it performs exactly like an LFU cache, when lambda is 1 it performs exactly like an LRU cache. In between 0 and 1 it combines both recency and frequency information in a natural way.
In spite of an answer having been chosen, I want to submit my approach for consideration, and feedback.
I would account for frequency by incrementing a counter each use, but by some larger-than-one value, like 10 (To add precision to the second point).
I would account for recency by multiplying all counters at regular intervals (say, 24 hours) by some diminisher (say, 0.9).
Each use:
UPDATE `addresslist` SET `favor` = `favor` + 10 WHERE `address` = 'foo#bar.com'
Each interval:
UPDATE `addresslist` SET `favor` = FLOOR(`favor` * 0.9)
In this way I collapse both frequency and recency to one field, avoid the need for keeping a detailed history to derive {last day, last week, last month} and keep the math (mostly) integer.
The increment and diminisher would have to be adjusted to preference, of course.