What are some good examples of an application of a linked list? I know that it's a good idea to implement queues and stacks as linked lists, but is there a practical and direct example of a linked list solving a problem that specifically takes advantage of fast insert time? Not just other data structures based on linked lists.
Hoping for answers similar to this question about priority queues: Priority Queue applications
I have found one myself: A LRU (least recently used) cache implemented with a hash table and a linked list.
There's also the example of the Exception class having an InnerExeption
What else is there?
I work as a developer at a "large stock market" in the US. Part of what makes us operate at very fast speed is we don't do any heap allocation/de-allocation after initialization (before the start of the day on the market). This technique isn't unique to exchanges, it's also common in most real time systems.
First of all, for us, Linked lists are preferred to array based lists because they do not require heap allocation when the list grows or shrinks. We use linked lists in multiple applications on the exchange.
One application is to pre-allocate all objects into pools (which are linked lists) during initialization; so whenever we need a new object we can just remove the head of the list.
Another application is in order processing; every Order object implements a linked list entry interface (has a previous and next reference), so when we receive an order from a customer, we can remove an Order object from the pool and put it into a "to process" list. Since every Order object implements a Linked List entry, adding at any point in the list is as easy as populating a previous and next references.
Example off the top of my head:
Interface IMultiListEntry {
public IMultiListEntry getPrev(MultiList list);
public void setPrev(MultiList list, IMultiListEntry entry);
public IMultiListEntry getNext(MultiList list);
public void setNext(MultiList list, IMultiListEntry entry);
}
Class MultiListEntry implements IMultiListEntry {
private MultiListEntry[] prev = new MultiListEntry[MultiList.MAX_LISTS];
private MultiListEntry[] next = new MultiListEntry[MultiList.MAX_LISTS];
public MultiListEntry getPrev(MultiList list) {
return prev[list.number];
}
public void setPrev(MultiList list, IMultiListEntry entry) {
prev[list.number] = entry;
}
public IMultiListEntry getNext(MultiList list) {
return next[list.number];
}
public void setNext(MultiList list, IMultiListEntry entry) {
next[list.number] = entry;
}
}
Class MultiList {
private static int MAX_LISTS = 3;
private static int LISTS = 0;
public final int number = LISTS++;
private IMultiListEntry head = null;
private IMultiListEntry tail = null;
public IMultiListEntry getHead() {
return head;
}
public void add(IMultiListEntry entry) {
if (head==null) {
head = entry;
} else {
entry.setPrevious(this, tail);
tail.setNext(this, entry);
}
tail = entry;
}
public IMultiListEntry getPrev(IMultiListEntry entry) {
return entry.getPrev(this);
}
public IMultiListEntry getNext(IMultiListEntry entry) {
return entry.getNext(this);
}
}
Now all you have to do is either extend MultiListEntry or implement IMultiListEntry and delegate the interface methods to an internal reference to a MultiListEntry object.
The answer could be infinitely many and "good example" is a subjective term, so the answer to your question is highly debatable. Of course there are examples. You just have to think about the possible needs of fast insertion.
For example you have a task list and you have to solve all the tasks. When you go through the list, when a task is solved you realize that a new task has to be solved urgently so you insert the task after the task you just solved. It is not a queue, because the list might be needed in the future for reviewing, so you need to keep your list intact, no pop method is allowed in this case.
To give you another example: You have a set of names ordered in alphabetical order. Let's suppose that somehow you can determine quickly the object which has its next pointing to the object where a particular name is stored. If you want to quickly delete a name, you just go to the previous item of the object to be deleted. Deletion is also quicker than in the case of stacks or queues.
Finally, imagine a very big set of items which needs to be stored even after your insertion or deletion. In this case it is far more quicker to just search for the item to be deleted or the item before the position where your item should be inserted and then do your operation than copy your whole large set.
hashmaps in java uses link list representation.
When more than one key hashes on the same place it results in collision and at that time keys are chained like link list.
Related
I'm working towards writing a script to take a "snapshot" of the initial attributes of all children of a GameObject. Namely at startup I want to save the position, orientation & color of all these objects in a Hashtable. The user has the ability to move & modify these objects during runtime, and I want to update the Hashtable to keep track of this. This will allow me to create an Undo last action button.
I found that gameObject.name isn't a good Key for my Hashtable entries because sometimes multiple game objects have the same name (like "cube"). So what would make a better Key? It's clear that Unity differentiate between two identical game objects with the same name, but how? I don't want to have to manually Tag every game object. I want to eventually bring in a large CAD file with hundreds of parts, and automatically record them all in a Hashtable.
For example, the code below works fine, unless I have multiple game objects with the same name. Then I get this error ArgumentException: Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: 'Cube' Key being added: 'Cube'
public class GetAllObjects : MonoBehaviour
{
public Hashtable allObjectsHT = new();
void Start()
{
Debug.Log("--Environment: GetAllObjects.cs <<<<<<<<<<");
foreach (Transform child in transform)
{
allObjectsHT.Add(child.gameObject.name, child);
}
}
}
Thanks Chuck this is what I want, and you solved my problem:
public class GetAllObjects : MonoBehaviour
{
UnityEngine.Vector3 startPosition;
UnityEngine.Quaternion startRotation;
public Hashtable allObjectsHT = new();
void Start()
{
Debug.Log("--Environment: GetAllObjects.cs <<<<<<<<<<");
foreach (Transform child in transform)
{
startPosition = child.position;
startRotation = child.rotation;
Hashtable objHT = new();
objHT.Add("position", startPosition);
objHT.Add("rotation", startRotation);
allObjectsHT.Add(child, objHT);
}
}
}
It's good to use meaningful keys you can refer to, otherwise you'd just use a collection without keys like a List. You could use an editor script to name all of the objects you import and use the names as keys. e.g.
int i = 0;
foreach(GameObject g in Selection.gameObjects)
{
g.name = "Object_" + i.ToString();
i++;
}
You could make the naming more sophisticated and meaningful of course, this is just an example.
I'm struggling to find a proper solution for generating a flat file.
Here are some criteria I need to take care of:
The file has a header with summary of its following records
there could be multiple Collection Header Records with multiple Batch Header Records which contain multiple records of different types.
All records within a Batch have a checksum which has to be added to a batch checksum. This one has to be added to the collection Header checksum and that again to the file checksum. Also each entry in the file has a counter value.
So my plan was to create a class for each record. but what now? I have the records and the "summary records", the next step would be to bring them all in order, count the sums and then set the counters.
How should I proceed from here, should I put everything in a big SortedList? If so, how do I know where to add the latest record (It has to be added to its representing batch summary)?
My first idea was to do something like this:
SortedList<HeaderSummary, SortedList<BatchSummary, SortedList<string, object>>>();
But it is hard to navigate through the HeaderSummaries and BatchSummaries to add a object in the inner Sorted list, bearing in mind that I may have to create and add a HeaderSummary / BachtSummary.
Having several different ArrayLists like one for Header, one for Batch and one for the rest gives me problems when combining them to a flat file because of the order and the - yet to set - counters, while keeping the order etc.
Do you have any clever solution for such a flat file?
Consider using classes to represent levels of your tree structure.
interface iBatch {
public int checksum { get; set; }
}
class BatchSummary {
int batchChecksum;
List<iBatch> records;
public void WriteBatch() {
WriteBatchHeader();
foreach (var record in records)
batch.WriteRecord();
}
public void Add(iBatch rec) {
records.Add(rec); // or however you find the appropriate batch
}
}
class CollectionSummary {
int collectionChecksum;
List<BatchSummary> batches;
public void WriteCollection() {
WriteCollectionHeader();
foreach (var batch in batches)
batch.WriteBatch();
}
public void Add(int WhichBatch, iBatch rec) {
batches[whichBatch].Add(rec); // or however you find the appropriate batch
}
}
class FileSummary {
// ... file summary info
int fileChecksum;
List<CollectionSummary> collections;
public void WriteFile() {
WriteFileHeader();
foreach (var collection in collections)
collection.WriteCollection();
}
public void Add(int whichCollection, int WhichBatch, iBatch rec) {
collections[whichCollection].Add(whichBatch, rec); // or however you find the appropriate collection
}
}
Of course, you could use a common Summary class to be more DRY, if not necessarily more clear.
I red a lot about sorting a CellTable. I also went trough the ColumnSorting with AsyncDataProvider. But my CellTable does not sort.
Here is my code:
public class EventTable extends CellTable<Event> {
public EventTable() {
EventsDataProvider dataProvider = new EventsDataProvider(this);
dataProvider.addDataDisplay(this);
SimplePager.Resources pagerResources = GWT.create(SimplePager.Resources.class);
SimplePager pager = new SimplePager(TextLocation.CENTER, pagerResources, false, 5, true);
pager.setDisplay(this);
[...]
TextColumn<Event> nameCol = new TextColumn<Event>() {
#Override
public String getValue(Event event) {
return event.getName();
}
};
nameCol.setSortable(true);
AsyncHandler columnSortHandler = new AsyncHandler(this);
addColumnSortHandler(columnSortHandler);
addColumn(nameCol, "Name");
getColumnSortList().push(endCol);
}
}
public class EventsDataProvider extends AsyncDataProvider<Event> {
private final EventTable eventTable;
public EventsDataProvider(EventTable eventTable) {
this.eventTable = eventTable;
}
#Override
protected void onRangeChanged(HasData<Event> display) {
int start = display.getVisibleRange().getStart();
int length = display.getVisibleRange().getLength();
// check false values
if (start < 0 || length < 0) return;
// check Cache before making a rpc
if (pageCached(start, length)) return;
// get Events async
getEvents(start, length);
}
}
I do now know, if all the methods are need here. If so, I will add them. But in short:
pageCached calls a method in my PageCache Class which holds a map and a list. Before making a rpc call, the cache is checked if the events where already taken and then displayed.
getEvents just makes an rpc call via asynccallback which updates the rowdata via updateRowData() on success.
My Table is displayed fast with currently around 500 entries (could be more, depends on the customer). No missing data and the paging works fine.
I just cannot get the sorting work. As far as I know, AsyncHandler will fire a setVisibleRangeAndClearData() and then an onRangeChanged(). onRangeChanged is never fired. As for the setVisibleRangeAndClearData() I do not know. But the sortindicator (arrow next to the columnname) does change on every click.
I do not want to let the server sort the list. I have my own Comparators. It is enough, if the current visible page of the table is sorted. I do now want to sort the whole list.
Edit:
I changed following code in the EventTable constructor:
public EventTable() {
[...]
addColumnSortHandler(new ColumnSortEvent.AsyncHandler(this) {
public void onColumnSort(ColumnSortEvent event) {
super.onColumnSort(event);
MyTextColumn<Event> myTextColumn;
if (event.getColumn() instanceof MyTextColumn) {
// Compiler Warning here: Safetytype unchecked cast
myTextColumn = (MyTextColumn<Event>) event.getColumn();
MyLogger.log(this.getClass().getName(), "asc " + event.isSortAscending() + " " + myTextColumn.getName(), Level.INFO);
}
List<Event> list = dataProvider.getCurrentEventList();
if (list == null) return;
if (event.isSortAscending()) Collections.sort(list, EventsComparator.getComparator(EventsComparator.NAME_SORT));
else Collections.sort(list, EventsComparator.descending(EventsComparator.getComparator(EventsComparator.NAME_SORT)));
}
});
addColumn(nameCol, "Name");
getColumnSortList().push(endCol);
}
I had to write my own TextColumn to determine the Name of the column. Otherwise how should I know, which column was clicked? The page gets sorted now but I have to click twice on the column. After then, the sorting is done with every click but in the wrong order.
This solution does need polishing and it seems kinda hacky to me. Any better ideas?
The tutorial, that you linked to, states:
This sorting code is here so the example works. In practice, you would
sort on the server.
Async provider is used to display data that is too big to be loaded in a single call. When a user clicks on any column to sort it, there is simply not enough objects on the client side to display "first 20 evens by name" or whatever sorting was applied. You have to go back to your server and request these first 20 events sorted by name in ascending order. And when a user reverses sorting, you have to go to the server again to get first 20 events sorted by name in a descending order, etc.
If you can load all data in a single call, then you can use regular DataProvider, and all sorting can happen on the client side.
EDIT:
The problem in the posted code was in the constructor of EventsDataProvider. Now it calls onRangeChanged, and the app can load a new sorted list of events from the server.
I have to implement a set ADT for a pair of strings. The interface I want is (in Java):
public interface StringSet {
void add(String a, String b);
boolean contains(String a, String b);
void remove(String a, String b);
}
The data access pattern has the following properties:
The contains operation is far more frequent that the add and remove ones.
More often that not, contains returns true i.e. the search is successful
A simple implementation I can think of is to use a two-level hashtable, i.e. HashMap<String, HashMap<String, Boolean>>. But this datastructure makes no use of the two peculiarities of the access pattern. I am wondering if there is something more efficient than the hashtable, maybe by leveraging the access pattern peculiarities.
Personally, I would design this in terms of a standard Set<> interface:
public class StringPair {
public StringPair(String a, String b) {
a_ = a;
b_ = b;
hash_ = (a_ + b_).hashCode();
}
public boolean equals(StringPair pair) {
return (a_.equals(pair.a_) && b_.equals(pair.b_));
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (obj instanceof StringPair) {
return equals((StringPair) obj);
}
return false;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
return hash_;
}
private String a_;
private String b_;
private int hash_;
}
public class StringSetImpl implements StringSet {
public StringSetImpl(SetFactory factory) {
pair_set_ = factory.createSet<StringPair>();
}
// ...
private Set<StringPair> pair_set_ = null;
}
Then you could leave it up to the user of StringSetImpl to use the preferred Set type. If you are attempting to optimize access, though, it's hard to do better than a HashSet<> (at least with respect to runtime complexity), given that access is O(1), whereas tree-based sets have O(log N) access times.
That contains() usually returns true may make it worth considering a Bloom filter, although this would require that some number of false positives for contains() are allowed (don't know if that is the case).
Edit
To avoid the extra allocation, you can do something like this, which is similar to your two-level approach, except using a set rather than a map for the second level:
public class StringSetImpl implements StringSet {
public StringSetImpl() {
elements_ = new HashMap<String, Set<String>>();
}
public boolean contains(String a, String b) {
if (!elements_.containsKey(a)) {
return false;
}
Set<String> set = elements_.get(a);
if (set == null) {
return false;
}
return set.contains(b);
}
public void add(String a, String b) {
if (!elements_.containsKey(a) || elements_.get(a) == null) {
elements_.put(a, new HashSet<String>());
}
elements_.get(a).add(b);
}
public void remove(String a, String b) {
if (!elements_.containsKey(a)) {
return;
}
HashSet<String> set = elements_.get(a);
if (set == null) {
elements_.remove(a);
return a;
}
set.remove(b);
if (set.empty()) {
elements_.remove(a);
}
}
private Map<String, Set<String>> elements_ = null;
}
Since it's 4:20 AM where I'm located, the above is definitely not my best work (too tired to refresh myself on the treatment of null by these different collections types), but it sketches the approach.
Do not use normal trees (most standard library data structures) for this. There is one simple assumption, which will hurt you in this case:
The normal O(log(n)) calculation of operations on trees assume that comparisons are in O(1). This is true for integers and most other keys, but not for strings. In case of strings each comparison is on O(k) where k is the length of the string. This makes all operations dependent on the length, which will most likely hurt you if you need to be fast and is easily overlooked.
Especially if you most often return true there will be k comparisons for each string at each level, so with this access pattern you will experience the full drawback of strings in trees.
Your access pattern is easily handled by a Trie. Testing if a string is contained is in O(k) worst case (not average case as in a hash map). Adding a string is is also in O(k). Since you are storing two strings I would suggest, you don't index your trie by characters, but rather by some larger type, so you can add two special index values. One value for the end of the first string, and one value for the end of both strings.
In your case using these two extra symbols would also allow for simple removal: Just delete the final node containing the end symbol and your string will not be found anymore. You will waste some memory, because you still have the strings in your structure that have been deleted. In case this is a problem you could keep track of the number of deleted strings and rebuild your trie in case this get's to bad.
P.s. A trie can be thought of as a combination of a tree and several hashtables, so this gives you the best of both data structures.
I'd second the approach of Michael Aaron Safyan to use a StringPair type. Perhaps with a more specific name, or as a generic tuple type: Tuple<A,B> instantiated to Tuple<String,String>. But I would strongly suggest to use one of the provided set implementations, either a HashSet or a TreeSet.
Red-Black Tree implementation of the set would be a good option. C++ STL is implemented in Red-Black Tree
I'd like to create an IList<Child> that maintains its Child objects in a default/implicit sort order at all times (i.e. regardless of additions/removals to the underlying list).
What I'm specifically trying to avoid is the need for all consumers of said IList<Child> to explicitly invoke IEnumerable<T>.OrderBy() every time they want to enumerate it. Apart from violating DRY, such an approach would also break encapsulation as consumers would have to know that my list is even sorted, which is really none of their business :)
The solution that seemed most logical/efficient was to expose IList<Child> as IEnumerable<Child> (to prevent List mutations) and add explicit Add/Remove methods to the containing Parent. This way, I can intercept changes to the List that necessitate a re-sort, and apply one via Linq:
public class Child {
public string StringProperty;
public int IntProperty;
}
public class Parent{
private IList<Child> _children = new List<Child>();
public IEnumerable<Child> Children{
get
{
return _children;
}
}
private void ReSortChildren(){
_children = new List<Child>(child.OrderBy(c=>c.StringProperty));
}
public void AddChild(Child c){
_children.Add();
ReSortChildren()
}
public void RemoveChild(Child c){
_children.Remove(c);
ReSortChildren()
}
}
Still, this approach doesn't intercept changes made to the underlying Child.StringProperty (which in this case is the property driving the sort). There must be a more elegant solution to such a basic problem, but I haven't been able to find one.
EDIT:
I wasn't clear in that I would preferable a LINQ compatible solution. I'd rather not resort to using .NET 2.0 constructs (i.e. SortedList)
What about using a SortedList<>?
One way you could go about it is to have Child publish an event OnStringPropertyChanged which passes along the previous value of StringProperty. Then create a derivation of SortedList that overrides the Add method to hookup a handler to that event. Whenever the event fires, remove the item from the list and re-add it with the new value of StringProperty. If you can't change Child, then I would make a proxy class that either derives from or wraps Child to implement the event.
If you don't want to do that, I would still use a SortedList, but internally manage the above sorting logic anytime the StringProperty needs to be changed. To be DRY, it's preferable to route all updates to StringProperty through a common method that correctly manages the sorting, rather than accessing the list directly from various places within the class and duplicating the sort management logic.
I would also caution against allowing the controller to pass in a reference to Child, which allows him to manipulate StringProperty after it's added to the list.
public class Parent{
private SortedList<string, Child> _children = new SortedList<string, Child>();
public ReadOnlyCollection<Child> Children{
get { return new ReadOnlyCollection<Child>(_children.Values); }
}
public void AddChild(string stringProperty, int data, Salamandar sal){
_children.Add(stringProperty, new Child(stringProperty, data, sal));
}
public void RemoveChild(string stringProperty){
_children.Remove(stringProperty);
}
private void UpdateChildStringProperty(Child c, string newStringProperty) {
if (c == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("c");
RemoveChild(c);
c.StringProperty = newStringProperty;
AddChild(c);
}
public void CheckSalamandar(string s) {
if (_children.ContainsKey(s))
var c = _children[s];
if (c.Salamandar.IsActive) {
// update StringProperty through our method
UpdateChildStringProperty(c, c.StringProperty.Reverse());
// update other properties directly
c.Number++;
}
}
}
I think that if you derive from KeyedCollection, you'll get what you need. That is only based on reading the documentation, though.
EDIT:
If this works, it won't be easy, unfortunately. Neither the underlying lookup dictionary nor the underlying List in this guy is sorted, nor are they exposed enough such that you'd be able to replace them. It might, however, provide a pattern for you to follow in your own implementation.