I recently started learning Lua and I have a question about tables :
local mytable = {10,11,12}
I would add another table in mytable[3] , if I do this :
table.insert(mytable[3], {[15] = {}})
Will it works ?
And if it works, what will be the "final" result ?
mytable[3][15] = {}
or
mytable[3][1][15] = {}
?
It's probably a basic question but it will help me :p
The first argument of table.insert should be the table being inserted, so the correct syntax is:
table.insert(mytable, {[15] = {}})
After this, the value of mytable[4] (note that Lua table index starts from 1) is the table {[15] = {}}, and the value of mytable[4][15] is therefore an empty table.
To make mytable[3] a table {[15] = {}}, use assignment instead:
mytable[3] = {[15] = {}}
Related
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
Thanks in advance for any help on this one.
I have a model in rails that includes a postgresql text column.
I want to append (i.e. mycolumn = mycolumn || newdata) data to the existing column. The sql I want to generate would look like:
update MyOjbs set mycolumn = mycolumn || newdata where id = 12;
I would rather not select the data, update the attribute and then write the new data back to the database. The text column could grow relatively large and I'd rather not read that data if I don't need to.
I DO NOT want to do this:
#myinstvar = MyObj.select(:mycolumn).find(12)
newdata = #myinstvar.mycolumn.to_s + newdata
#myinstvar.update_attribute(:mycolumn, newdata)
Do I need to do a raw sql transaction to accomplish this?
I think you could solve this problem directly writing your query using the arel gem, that's already provided with rails.
Given that you have these values:
column_id = 12
newdata = "a custom string"
you can update the table this way:
# Initialize the Table and UpdateManager objects
table = MyOjbs.arel_table
update_manager = Arel::UpdateManager.new Arel::Table.engine
update_manager.table(table)
# Compose the concat() function
concat = Arel::Nodes::NamedFunction.new 'concat', [table[:mycolumn], new_data]
concat_sql = Arel::Nodes::SqlLiteral.new concat.to_sql
# Set up the update manager
update_manager.set(
[[table[:mycolumn], concat_sql]]
).where(
table[:id].eq(column_id)
)
# Execute the update
ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute update_manager.to_sql
This will generate a SQL string like this one:
UPDATE "MyObjs" SET "mycolumn" = concat("MyObjs"."mycolumn", 'a custom string') WHERE "MyObjs"."id" = 12"
I am creating a result object from my query, something like this:
var result = from m in MyTable
join r in some_more_tables
select new ResultSummmary
{
Description = m.Description,
start_date = r.start_dat
};
But based on some condition before I get to this query and SELECT NEW, I want to be able to flex what I put in its Description filed, currently it is always m.Description but sometimes I want it to be a static text like "Hospital" and the rest of the times I want it to be m.Description as it is now.
How can we write it that way to be flexible?
Let's pretend the condition is stored in a variable called condition. This would allow you to write the following
var result = from m in MyTable
join r in some_more_tables
select new ResultSummmary
{
Description = condition ? m.Description : "Hospital",
start_date = r.start_dat
};
select new ResultSummmary
{
Description = someBool ? m.Description : "Hospital",
start_date = r.start_dat
};
I want to query a datatable (dt) and load a 2nd dt with the resultant collection of datarows. Fine - we have the CopyToDataTable() extn mthd for exactly that purpose. However it is constrained to enumerate only over DataRows, which means that I cannot return anything else e.g. a collection of anonymous types. So - how can I modify the values in the datarows?
Eg I have a dt with 3 columns: MyPK, VARCHAR01, VARCHAR02.
Foreach row, if VARCHAR01 or VARCHAR02 has the value "" (i.e. String.Empty) I want to replace that with NULL (which the underlying type allows).
I would do this as follows:
var MyCleanedDatarows =
from o in ds.Tables["dt"].AsEnumerable()
select new {
MyPK = o.Field<string>("MyPK"),
VARCHAR01 = (o.Field<string?>("VARCHAR01") == "" ? NULL : o.Field<string?>("VARCHAR01") ),
VARCHAR02 = (o.Field<string?>("VARCHAR02") == "" ? NULL : o.Field<string?>("VARCHAR02") )
};
...but then I cant use CopyToDataTable() to get back to a dt. I'm thinking I need to modify the datarows before invoking select operator, but I dont know how to achieve that. Any help/thoughts would be v.greatfully recieved.
Thanks in advance,
Tamim.
Take a look at this approach, in MSDN documentation.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb669096.aspx
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...