h = { a: 1 }
h2 = { b: 2 }
h3 = { c: 3 }
Hash#merge works for 2 hashes: h.merge(h2)
How to merge 3 hashes?
h.merge(h2).merge(h3) works but is there a better way?
You could do it like this:
h, h2, h3 = { a: 1 }, { b: 2 }, { c: 3 }
a = [h, h2, h3]
p Hash[*a.map(&:to_a).flatten] #= > {:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>3}
Edit: This is probably the correct way to do it if you have many hashes:
a.inject{|tot, new| tot.merge(new)}
# or just
a.inject(&:merge)
Since Ruby 2.0 on that can be accomplished more graciously:
h.merge **h1, **h2
And in case of overlapping keys - the latter ones, of course, take precedence:
h = {}
h1 = { a: 1, b: 2 }
h2 = { a: 0, c: 3 }
h.merge **h1, **h2
# => {:a=>0, :b=>2, :c=>3}
h.merge **h2, **h1
# => {:a=>1, :c=>3, :b=>2}
You can just do
[*h,*h2,*h3].to_h
# => {:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>3}
This works whether or not the keys are Symbols.
Ruby 2.6 allows merge to take multiple arguments:
h = { a: 1 }
h2 = { b: 2 }
h3 = { c: 3 }
h4 = { 'c' => 4 }
h5 = {}
h.merge(h2, h3, h4, h5) # => {:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>3, "c"=>4}
This works with Hash.merge! and Hash.update too. Docs for this here.
Also takes empty hashes and keys as symbols or strings.
Much simpler :)
Answer using reduce (same as inject)
hash_arr = [{foo: "bar"}, {foo2: "bar2"}, {foo2: "bar2b", foo3: "bar3"}]
hash_arr.reduce { |acc, h| (acc || {}).merge h }
# => {:foo2=>"bar2", :foo3=>"bar3", :foo=>"bar"}
Explanation
For those beginning with Ruby or functional programming, I hope this brief explanation might help understand what's happening here.
The reduce method when called on an Array object (hash_arr) will iterate through each element of the array with the returned value of the block being stored in an accumulator (acc). Effectively, the h parameter of my block will take on the value of each hash in the array, and the acc parameter will take on the value that is returned by the block through each iteration.
We use (acc || {}) to handle the initial condition where acc is nil. Note that the merge method gives priority to keys/values in the original hash. This is why the value of "bar2b" doesn't appear in my final hash.
Hope that helps!
To build upon #Oleg Afanasyev's answer, you can also do this neat trick:
h = { a: 1 }
h2 = { b: 2 }
h3 = { c: 3 }
z = { **h, **h2, **h3 } # => {:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>3}
Cheers!
class Hash
def multi_merge(*args)
args.unshift(self)
args.inject { |accum, ele| accum.merge(ele) }
end
end
That should do it. You could easily monkeypatch that into Hash as I have shown.
newHash = [h, h2, h3].each_with_object({}) { |oh, nh| nh.merge!(oh)}
# => {:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>3}
Here are the 2 monkeypatched ::Hash instance methods we use in our app. Backed by Minitest specs. They use merge! instead of merge internally, for performance reasons.
class ::Hash
# Merges multiple Hashes together. Similar to JS Object.assign.
# Returns merged hash without modifying the receiver.
#
# #param *other_hashes [Hash]
#
# #return [Hash]
def merge_multiple(*other_hashes)
other_hashes.each_with_object(self.dup) do |other_hash, new_hash|
new_hash.merge!(other_hash)
end
end
# Merges multiple Hashes together. Similar to JS Object.assign.
# Modifies the receiving hash.
# Returns self.
#
# #param *other_hashes [Hash]
#
# #return [Hash]
def merge_multiple!(*other_hashes)
other_hashes.each(&method(:merge!))
self
end
end
Tests:
describe "#merge_multiple and #merge_multiple!" do
let(:hash1) {{
:a => "a",
:b => "b"
}}
let(:hash2) {{
:b => "y",
:c => "c"
}}
let(:hash3) {{
:d => "d"
}}
let(:merged) {{
:a => "a",
:b => "y",
:c => "c",
:d => "d"
}}
describe "#merge_multiple" do
subject { hash1.merge_multiple(hash2, hash3) }
it "should merge three hashes properly" do
assert_equal(merged, subject)
end
it "shouldn't modify the receiver" do
refute_changes(->{ hash1 }) do
subject
end
end
end
describe "#merge_multiple!" do
subject { hash1.merge_multiple!(hash2, hash3) }
it "should merge three hashes properly" do
assert_equal(merged, subject)
end
it "shouldn't modify the receiver" do
assert_changes(->{ hash1 }, :to => merged) do
subject
end
end
end
end
Just for fun, you can do it also this way:
a = { a: 1 }, { b: 2 }, { c: 3 }
{}.tap { |h| a.each &h.method( :update ) }
#=> {:a=>1, :b=>2, :c=>3}
With modern Ruby, you wont even have to use merge unless you need to change the variable in place using the ! variant, you can just double splat (**) your way through.
h = { a: 1 }
h2 = { b: 2 }
h3 = { c: 3 }
merged_hash = { **h, **h2, **h3 }
=> { a: 1, b: 2, c:3 }
Related
Is this possible to achieve with selected keys:
Eg
h = [
{a: 1, b: "Hello", c: "Test1"},
{a: 2, b: "Hey", c: "Test1"},
{a: 3, b: "Hi", c: "Test2"}
]
Expected Output
[
{a: 1, b: "Hello, Hey", c: "Test1"}, # See here, I don't want key 'a' to be merged
{a: 3, b: "Hi", c: "Test2"}
]
My Try
g = h.group_by{|k| k[:c]}.values
OUTPUT =>
[
[
{:a=>1, :b=>"Hello", :c=>"Test1"},
{:a=>2, :b=>"Hey", :c=>"Test1"}
], [
{:a=>3, :b=>"Hi", :c=>"Test2"}
]
]
g.each do |v|
if v.length > 1
c = v.reduce({}) do |s, l|
s.merge(l) { |_, a, b| [a, b].uniq.join(", ") }
end
end
p c #{:a=>"1, 2", :b=>"Hello, Hey", :c=>"Test1"}
end
So, the output I get is
{:a=>"1, 2", :b=>"Hello, Hey", :c=>"Test1"}
But, I needed
{a: 1, b: "Hello, Hey", c: "Test1"}
NOTE: This is just a test array of HASH I have taken to put my question. But, the actual hash has a lots of keys. So, please don't reply with key comparison answers
I need a less complex solution
I can't see a simpler version of your code. To make it fully work, you can use the first argument in the merge block instead of dismissing it to differentiate when you need to merge a and b or when you just use a. Your line becomes:
s.merge(l) { |key, a, b| key == :a ? a : [a, b].uniq.join(", ") }
Maybe you can consider this option, but I don't know if it is less complex:
h.group_by { |h| h[:c] }.values.map { |tmp| tmp[0].merge(*tmp[1..]) { |key, oldval, newval| key == :b ? [oldval, newval].join(' ') : oldval } }
#=> [{:a=>1, :b=>"Hello Hey", :c=>"Test1"}, {:a=>3, :b=>"Hi", :c=>"Test2"}]
The first part groups the hashes by :c
h.group_by { |h| h[:c] }.values #=> [[{:a=>1, :b=>"Hello", :c=>"Test1"}, {:a=>2, :b=>"Hey", :c=>"Test1"}], [{:a=>3, :b=>"Hi", :c=>"Test2"}]]
Then it maps to merge the first elements with others using Hash#merge
h.each_with_object({}) do |g,h|
h.update(g[:c]=>g) { |_,o,n| o.merge(b: "#{o[:b]}, #{n[:b]}") }
end.values
#=> [{:a=>1, :b=>"Hello, Hey", :c=>"Test1"},
# {:a=>3, :b=>"Hi", :c=>"Test2"}]
This uses the form of Hash#update that employs a block (here { |_,o,n| o.merge(b: "#{o[:b]}, #{n[:b]}") }) to determine the values of keys that are present in both hashes being merged. The first block variable holds the common key. I’ve used an underscore for that variable mainly to signal to the reader that it is not used in the block calculation. See the doc for definitions of the other two block variables.
Note that the receiver of values equals the following.
h.each_with_object({}) do |g,h|
h.update(g[:c]=>g) { |_,o,n| o.merge(b: "#{o[:b]}, #{n[:b]}") }
end
#=> { “Test1”=>{:a=>1, :b=>"Hello, Hey", :c=>"Test1"},
# “Test2=>{:a=>3, :b=>"Hi", :c=>"Test2"} }
i create a hash:
a = {}
=> {}
then:
a.store(:b, {})
=> {}
and:
a.merge!(c: {})
=> {:b=>{}, :c=>{}}
what are differences actually?
store is an assignment method.
a = {}
# => {}
a.store(:b, {})
a
# => {:b=>{}}
# Here you are assigning a key :b with empty hash {}
Another example to make it clearer:
a = {}
# => {}
a.store("key", "value")
a
# => {"key"=>"value"}
merge on the other hand manipulates your existing hash by merging with a different hash.
Example:
a = {}
# => {}
a.merge({"key" => "value"})
# => {"key"=>"value"}
a
# => {} # original value still unchanged
a.merge!({"key" => "value"})
# => {"key"=>"value"}
a
# => {"key"=>"value"} # original value updated
However unless you use merge! a's value will not get changed i.e. merge will occur only for return.
what are differences actually?
I think the main difference is merge! will let you decide which value to keep when duplicate key is provided, since it expects a block as well.
On the other hand, when you use store, the previous value will be replaced by the latest value when duplicate key is provided.
store
h1 = { "a" => 100, "b" => 200 }
h1.store("b", 254)
#=> {"a"=>100, "b"=>254}
merge!
h1 = { "a" => 100, "b" => 200 }
h2 = { "b" => 254, "c" => 300 }
h1.merge!(h2) { |key, v1, v2| v1 }
#=> {"a"=>100, "b"=>200, "c"=>300}
store takes just one key/value tuple as input and returns the stored value.
h1 = { foo: 'bar' }
h1.store(:baz, 1) #=> 1
h1 #=> { foo: 'bar', baz: 1 }
Whereas merge! accepts a hash as input and returns the updated hash:
h2 = { foo: 'bar' }
h2.merge!(baz: 1, buz: 2) #=> { foo: 'bar', baz: 1, buz: 2 }
h2 #=> { foo: 'bar', baz: 1, buz: 2 }
merge! takes one argument, which is hash to merge into original. store takes two arguments, which is key and value to store. Therefore, with merge!, you can add multiple keys to original hash, like this:
a = {}
a.merge!(a: 'a', b: 'b')
a
# => {:a => "a", :b => "b"}
For a hash h, Hash#store has the same effect as Hash#[]=: they both either add one key-value pair k=>v to h (if h does not have a key k) or modify the value of key k (if the hash already contains the key). Also, they both return v.
Hash#merge! (aka update) has two forms. The first does the same thing as store, except it does it for each key-value pair in another hash. The second form uses a block to determine the values of keys that are present in both hashes being merged. Please refer to the docs for details on that form of the method. Both forms of merge! return the "merged" hash.
Hash#merge is not a relevant comparison as it does not mutate the hash.
I wrote a method to split a hash into two hashes based on a criteria (a particular hash value). My question is different from another question on Hash. Here is an example of what I expect:
h={
:a => "FOO",
:b => "FOO",
:c => "BAR",
:d => "BAR",
:e => "FOO"
}
h_foo, h_bar = partition(h)
I need h_foo and h_bar to be like:
h_foo={
:a => "FOO",
:b => "FOO",
:e => "FOO"
}
h_bar={
:c => "BAR",
:d => "BAR"
}
My solution is:
def partition h
h.group_by{|k,v| v=="FOO"}.values.collect{|ary| Hash[*ary.flatten]}
end
Is there a clever solution?
There's Enumerable#partition:
h.partition { |k, v| v == "FOO" }.map(&:to_h)
#=> [{:a=>"FOO", :b=>"FOO", :e=>"FOO"}, {:c=>"BAR", :d=>"BAR"}]
Or you could use Enumerable#each_with_object to avoid the intermediate arrays:
h.each_with_object([{}, {}]) { |(k, v), (h_foo, h_bar)|
v == "FOO" ? h_foo[k] = v : h_bar[k] = v
}
#=> [{:a=>"FOO", :b=>"FOO", :e=>"FOO"}, {:c=>"BAR", :d=>"BAR"}]
I don't think there is a clever one liner, but you can make it slightly more generic by doing something like:
def transpose(h,k,v)
h[v] ||= []
h[v] << k
end
def partition(h)
n = {}
h.map{|k,v| transpose(n,k,v)}
result = n.map{|k,v| Hash[v.map{|e| [e, k]}] }
end
which will yield
[{:a=>"FOO", :b=>"FOO", :e=>"FOO"}, {:c=>"BAR", :d=>"BAR"}]
when run against your initial hash h
Edit - TIL about partition. Wicked.
Why not use builtin partition, which is doing almost exactly what you are looking for?
h_foo, h_bar = h.partition { |key, value| value == 'FOO' }
The only downside is that you will get arrays instead of hashes (but you already know how to convert that). In ruby 2.1+ you could simply call .map(&:to_h) at the end of call chain.
While working in Ruby I often find myself in a conflict between using methods with a ! or using a normal method as assign the value back. I am not sure when to use what.
For example,
I have 2 hashes (h1 and h2) and I want to merge them and store the value back in hash h1, now should I be using
h1.merge!(h2)
or
h1 = h1.merge(h2)?
Is there any difference between the two?
Most of the time there is very little difference between h1.merge!(h2) and h1 = h1.merge(h2).
However, note that:
Since merge! modifies the old hash, you might be unintentionally affecting some other object in your program that holds a reference to that same hash. It is bad practice to modify a hash that you received as a method parameter because the caller usually does not expect it.
Using merge! is not functional programming, if you are a fan of that.
Using merge! is probably more efficient since it does not create a new hash, especially for large hashes.
I would use merge most of the time and only use merge! if I determine that it is safe and better.
Is there any difference between the two?
Yes,of-course there is.
You should use !(bang) version of Hash#merge,when you want to change the receiver itself.
Example
h1 = {a: 1}
h2 = {b: 2}
h3 = h1.merge(h2) # => {:a=>1, :b=>2}
h1 # => {:a=>1}
Now see :
h1 = {a: 1}
h2 = {b: 2}
h1.merge!(h2) # => {:a=>1, :b=>2}
h1 # => {:a=>1, :b=>2}
h1 = h1.merge(h2) gives the same answer
Humm,that is because,you are assinging the new hash to h1 after applying the Hash#merge method:
h1 = {a: 1}
h2 = {b: 2}
h1.object_id # => 69435570
h1 = h1.merge(h2) # => {:a=>1, :b=>2}
h1 # => {:a=>1, :b=>2}
h1.object_id # => 69434820
As you said I want to merge them and store the value back in hash h1,Then I would recommend to use Hash#merge!.Because h1 = h1.merge(h2) is same as h1.merge!(h2)(will save the new hash creation,and assign back it to the h1).
While working in Ruby I often find myself in a conflict between using
methods with a ! or using a normal method.
You should be thinking about more important things, so just adopt the rule: I will never use bang methods. Now be free and soar...
require 'benchmark'
n = 1_000_000
h1 = {a: 1, b: 2}
h2 = {b: 3, c: 4}
Benchmark.bm(20) do |b|
b.report("no-bang-hash-merge") do
n.times { h1 = h1.merge h2 }
end
b.report("bang-hash-merge") do
n.times { h1.merge! h2 }
end
end
--output:--
user system total real
no-bang-hash-merge 2.750000 0.050000 2.800000 ( 2.817345)
bang-hash-merge 0.400000 0.000000 0.400000 ( 0.406870)
.
require 'benchmark'
hash_size = 10_000
#Keys overlap:
key1 = 'a'
key2 = nil
h1 = {}
hash_size.times do |i|
h1[key1] = i
key2 = key1.dup if i == hash_size/2
key1.succ!
end
h2 = {}
hash_size.times do |i|
h2[key2] = i
key2.succ!
end
=begin
#No overlap:
key = 'a'
h1 = {}
hash_size.times do |i|
h1[key] = i
key.succ!
end
h2 = {}
hash_size.times do |i|
h2[key] = i
key.succ!
end
=end
n = 100_000
puts "50% of keys overlap, hash size #{hash_size}:"
Benchmark.bm(20) do |b|
b.report("no-bang-hash-merge") do
n.times { h1 = h1.merge h2 }
end
b.report("bang-hash-merge") do
n.times { h1.merge! h2 }
end
end
--some test runs:---
50% of keys overlap, hash size 10000:
user system total real
no-bang-hash-merge 1500.570000 74.520000 1575.090000 (1695.523240)
bang-hash-merge 255.910000 0.940000 256.850000 (269.957178)
No keys overlap, hash size 10000:
user system total real
no-bang-hash-merge 1906.070000 109.340000 2015.410000 (2151.865636)
bang-hash-merge 162.680000 0.190000 162.870000 (163.369607)
So if you need the speed, bang away. Otherwise, don't risk it.
How do I change all the keys of a hash by a new set of given keys?
Is there a way to do that elegantly?
Assuming you have a Hash which maps old keys to new keys, you could do something like
hsh.transform_keys(&key_map.method(:[]))
Ruby 2.5 has Hash#transform_keys! method. Example using a map of keys
h = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3}
key_map = {a: 'A', b: 'B', c: 'C'}
h.transform_keys! {|k| key_map[k]}
# => {"A"=>1, "B"=>2, "C"=>3}
You can also use symbol#toproc shortcut with transform_keys Eg:
h.transform_keys! &:upcase
# => {"A"=>1, "B"=>2, "C"=>3}
i assume you want to change the hash keys without changing the values:
hash = {
"nr"=>"123",
"name"=>"Herrmann Hofreiter",
"pferd"=>"010 000 777",
"land"=>"hight land"
}
header = ["aa", "bb", "cc", "dd"]
new_hash = header.zip(hash.values).to_h
Result:
{
"aa"=>"123",
"bb"=>"Herrmann Hofreiter",
"cc"=>"010 000 777",
"dd"=>"high land"
}
Another way to do it is:
hash = {
'foo' => 1,
'bar' => 2
}
new_keys = {
'foo' => 'foozle',
'bar' => 'barzle'
}
new_keys.values.zip(hash.values_at(*new_keys.keys)).to_h
# => {"foozle"=>1, "barzle"=>2}
Breaking it down:
new_keys
.values # => ["foozle", "barzle"]
.zip(
hash.values_at(*new_keys.keys) # => [1, 2]
) # => [["foozle", 1], ["barzle", 2]]
.to_h
# => {"foozle"=>1, "barzle"=>2}
It's benchmark time...
While I like the simplicity of Jörn's answer, I'm wasn't sure it was as fast as it should be, then I saw selvamani's comment:
require 'fruity'
HASH = {
'foo' => 1,
'bar' => 2
}
NEW_KEYS = {
'foo' => 'foozle',
'bar' => 'barzle'
}
compare do
mittag { HASH.dup.map {|k, v| [NEW_KEYS[k], v] }.to_h }
ttm { h = HASH.dup; NEW_KEYS.values.zip(h.values_at(*NEW_KEYS.keys)).to_h }
selvamani { h = HASH.dup; h.keys.each { |key| h[NEW_KEYS[key]] = h.delete(key)}; h }
end
# >> Running each test 2048 times. Test will take about 1 second.
# >> selvamani is faster than ttm by 39.99999999999999% ± 10.0%
# >> ttm is faster than mittag by 10.000000000000009% ± 10.0%
These are running very close together speed wise, so any will do, but 39% pays off over time so consider that. A couple answers were not included because there are potential flaws where they'd return bad results.
The exact solution would depend on the format that you have the new keys in (or if you can derive the new key from the old key.)
Assuming you have a hash h whose keys you want to modify and a hash new_keys that maps the current keys to the new keys you could do:
h.keys.each do |key|
h[new_keys[key]] = h[key] # add entry for new key
k.delete(key) # remove old key
end
If you also worry about performance, this is faster:
hsh.keys.each { |k| hsh[ key_map[k] ] = hsh.delete(k) if key_map[k] }
You don't create a new Hash and you rename only the necessary keys. That gives you better performance.
You can find more details in "How to elegantly rename all keys in a hash in Ruby?"
h = { 'foo'=>1, 'bar'=>2 }
key_map = { 'foo'=>'foozle', 'bar'=>'barzle' }
h.each_with_object({}) { |(k,v),g| g[key_map[k]]=v }
#=> {"foozle"=>1, "barzle"=>2}
or
h.reduce({}) { |g,(k,v)| g.merge(key_map[k]=>v) }
#=> {"foozle"=>1, "barzle"=>2}