Related
I am currently working on a challenge where the guidelines are as follows:
You have been asked to help study the population of birds migrating across the continent. Each type of bird you are interested in will be identified by an integer value. Each time a particular kind of bird is spotted, its id number will be added to your array of sightings. You would like to be able to find out which type of bird is most common given a list of sightings. Your task is to print the type number of that bird and if two or more types of birds are equally common, choose the type with the smallest ID number.
For example, assume your bird sightings are of types arr = [1, 1, 2, 2, 3]. There are two each of types 1 and 2, and one sighting of type 3. Pick the lower of the two types seen twice: type 1.
I have written code that passes most of the tests but times out on the exceedingly large inputs, I would like your advice on how to optimize it.
My code is as follows:
def migratoryBirds(arr)
sorted = Hash[arr.map { |x| [x, arr.select { |y| y==x }.count] }]
return sorted.max_by { |k,v| v }[0]
end
Your sorted hash can be written a bit more concise as:
sorted = arr.map { |x| [x, arr.count(x)] }.to_h
For the example array [1, 1, 2, 2, 3] this is equivalent to:
[
[1, arr.count(1)], # counts all 1's in arr
[1, arr.count(1)], # counts all 1's in arr (again)
[2, arr.count(2)], # counts all 2's in arr
[2, arr.count(2)], # counts all 2's in arr (again)
[3, arr.count(3)] # counts all 3's in arr
].to_h
Not only does it count 1 and 2 twice. It also has to traverse the entire array again for each count call (or select in your code).
A better approach is to traverse the array once and use a hash for counting the occurrences:
arr = [1, 1, 2, 2, 3]
sorted = Hash.new(0)
arr.each { |x| sorted[x] += 1 }
sorted #=> {1=>2, 2=>2, 3=>1}
This can also be written in a single line via each_with_object:
sorted = arr.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |x, h| h[x] += 1 }
#=> {1=>2, 2=>2, 3=>1}
Ruby 2.7 even has a dedicated method tally to count occurrences:
sorted = arr.tally
#=> {1=>2, 2=>2, 3=>1}
I have a simple method that iterates through an array and returns a duplicate. (Or duplicates)
def find_dup(array)
duplicate = 0
array.each { |element| duplicate = element if array.count(element) > 1}
duplicate
end
It works, but I'd like to express this more elegantly.
The reason it is three lines is that the variable "duplicate", which the method must return, is not visible to the method if I introduce it inside the block, i.e,
def find_dup(array)
array.each { |element| duplicate = element if array.count(element) > 1}
duplicate
end
I've tried a few ways to define "duplicate" as the result of a block, but to no avail.
Any thoughts?
It's a little too much to do cleanly in a one-liner, but this is a more
efficient solution.
def find_dups(arr)
counts = Hash.new { |hash,key| hash[key] = 0 }
arr.each_with_object(counts) do |x, memo|
memo[x] += 1
end.select { |key,val| val > 1 }.keys
end
The Hash.new call instantiates a hash where the default value is 0.
each_with_object modifies this hash to track the count of each element in arr, then at the
end the filter is used to select only those having a count greater than one.
The benefit of this approach over a solution using Array#includes? or Array#count is that it only scans the array a single time. Thus it is a O(N) time instead of O(N^2).
Your method is only finding the last duplicate in the array. If you want all the duplicates, I would do something like this:
def find_dups(arr)
dups = Hash.new { |h, k| h[k] = 0 }
arr.each { |el| dups[el] += 1 }
dups.select { |k, v| v > 1 }.keys
end
If what you really want is a one-liner that isn't concerned with big-O complexity and only returns the last duplicate in the array, I would do this:
def find_last_dup(arr)
arr.reverse_each { |el| return el if arr.count(el) > 1 }
end
You can do this as one line and it flows a bit nicer. Though this would find the first instance of a duplicate whereas your code is returning the last instance of a duplicate, not sure if that's part of your requirement.
def find_dup(array)
array.group_by { |value| value }.find { |_, groups| groups.count > 1 }.first
end
Also, note that making things one line doesn't strictly mean is better. I'd find the code more readable split over more lines, but that's just my opinion.
def find_dup(array)
array.group_by { |value|
value
}.find { |_, groups|
groups.count > 1
}.first
end
Just want to add one more approach to the mix.
def find_last_dup(arr)
arr.reverse_each.detect { |x| arr.count(x) > 1 }
end
Alternatively, you can get linear time complexity in two lines.
def find_last_dup(arr)
freq = arr.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |x, obj| obj[x] += 1 }
arr.reverse_each.detect { |x| freq[x] > 1 }
end
For the sake of argument, the latter approach can be reduced to one line as well, but this would be unidiomatic and confusing.
def find_last_dup(arr)
arr.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |x, obj| obj[x] += 1 }
.tap do |freq| return arr.reverse_each.detect { |x| freq[x] > 1 } end
end
Given:
> a
=> [8, 5, 6, 6, 5, 8, 6, 1, 9, 7, 2, 10, 7, 7, 3, 4]
You can group the dups together:
> a.uniq.each_with_object(Hash.new(0)) {|e, h| c=a.count(e); h[e]=c if c>1}
=> {8=>2, 5=>2, 6=>3, 7=>3}
Or,
> a.group_by{ |e| e}.select{|k,v| v if v.length>1}
=> {8=>[8, 8], 5=>[5, 5], 6=>[6, 6, 6], 7=>[7, 7, 7]}
In each case, the order of the result is based on the order of the elements in a that have dups. If you just want the first:
> a.group_by{ |e| e}.select{|k,v| v if v.length>1}.first
=> [8, [8, 8]]
Or last:
> a.group_by{ |e| e}.select{|k,v| v if v.length>1}.to_a.last
=> [7, [7, 7, 7]]
If you want to 'fast forward' to the first value that has a dup, you can use drop_while:
> b=[1,2,3,4,5,4,5,6]
> b.drop_while {|e| b.count(e)==1 }[0]
=> 4
Or the last:
> b.reverse.drop_while {|e| b.count(e)==1 }[0]
=> 5
def find_duplicates(array)
array.dup.uniq.each { |element| array.delete_at(array.index(element)) }.uniq
end
The above method find_duplicates duplicated the input array and deletes the first occurrence of all the elements, leaving the array with only remaining occurrences of the duplicate elements.
Example:
array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3]
=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3]
find_duplicates(array)
=> [3, 4]
What is the clearest and most efficient way to add all the elements in 2D array by their position in Ruby. Example:
2darray = [[1,2,3],[1,2,3]]
result = [2,4,6]
I have the following code
def sum_elements_by_position(array)
total_elements = array.length
result = []
for i in 0...array.first.length
n = 0
array.each { |subarray| n += subarray[i] }
result << n
end
result
end
Assumptions: All primary elements are of the same length
For bonus points it would be great to see a solution that works primary elements of an arbitrary length
You can zip the first row with the rest of them and then do the sum:
def sum_elements_by_position(array)
array[0].zip(*array[1..-1]).map do |col|
col.inject(:+)
end
end
Here's a solution addressing when the rows aren't the same length.
def sum_cols arr
arr.reduce( [] ) do |res,row|
row.each_with_index { |e,i| res[i] ||= 0; res[i] += e }
res
end
end
irb> sum_cols [ [0,1,2], [3,4], [5,6,7,8] ]
=> [8, 11, 9, 8]
#oldergod suggested using zip based on the longest row, but finding the longest row and rejecting nils has a cost. I benchmarked the following against the above method using the example array above and found the reduce+each_with_index method more than 30% faster:
def sum_cols_using_zip arr
max_len = arr.map(&:size).max
([0] * max_len).zip(*arr).map do |col|
col.compact.inject(:+)
end
end
I'd do this:
a.transpose.map {|x| x.reduce(:+)}
Clean, simple, flexible. The .transpose turns this
[[1,2,3,4],[2,3,4,5],[3,4,5,6]]
into this
[[1, 2, 3], [2, 3, 4], [3, 4, 5], [4, 5, 6]]
and then .map applies .reduce to each subarray. And .reduce, in turn, aggregates the subvalues by adding them. Or, more precisely, by applying the + method to them.
I highly recommend reading the doc for these functions until you fully understand this example, as it's a pretty good succinct demonstration of how to think in a Rubyish way!
I have a map which either changes a value or sets it to nil. I then want to remove the nil entries from the list. The list doesn't need to be kept.
This is what I currently have:
# A simple example function, which returns a value or nil
def transform(n)
rand > 0.5 ? n * 10 : nil }
end
items.map! { |x| transform(x) } # [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] => [10, nil, 30, 40, nil]
items.reject! { |x| x.nil? } # [10, nil, 30, 40, nil] => [10, 30, 40]
I'm aware I could just do a loop and conditionally collect in another array like this:
new_items = []
items.each do |x|
x = transform(x)
new_items.append(x) unless x.nil?
end
items = new_items
But it doesn't seem that idiomatic. Is there a nice way to map a function over a list, removing/excluding the nils as you go?
You could use compact:
[1, nil, 3, nil, nil].compact
=> [1, 3]
I'd like to remind people that if you're getting an array containing nils as the output of a map block, and that block tries to conditionally return values, then you've got code smell and need to rethink your logic.
For instance, if you're doing something that does this:
[1,2,3].map{ |i|
if i % 2 == 0
i
end
}
# => [nil, 2, nil]
Then don't. Instead, prior to the map, reject the stuff you don't want or select what you do want:
[1,2,3].select{ |i| i % 2 == 0 }.map{ |i|
i
}
# => [2]
I consider using compact to clean up a mess as a last-ditch effort to get rid of things we didn't handle correctly, usually because we didn't know what was coming at us. We should always know what sort of data is being thrown around in our program; Unexpected/unknown data is bad. Anytime I see nils in an array I'm working on, I dig into why they exist, and see if I can improve the code generating the array, rather than allow Ruby to waste time and memory generating nils then sifting through the array to remove them later.
'Just my $%0.2f.' % [2.to_f/100]
Try using reduce or inject.
[1, 2, 3].reduce([]) { |memo, i|
if i % 2 == 0
memo << i
end
memo
}
I agree with the accepted answer that we shouldn't map and compact, but not for the same reasons.
I feel deep inside that map then compact is equivalent to select then map. Consider: map is a one-to-one function. If you are mapping from some set of values, and you map, then you want one value in the output set for each value in the input set. If you are having to select before-hand, then you probably don't want a map on the set. If you are having to select afterwards (or compact) then you probably don't want a map on the set. In either case you are iterating twice over the entire set, when a reduce only needs to go once.
Also, in English, you are trying to "reduce a set of integers into a set of even integers".
Ruby 2.7+
There is now!
Ruby 2.7 is introducing filter_map for this exact purpose. It's idiomatic and performant, and I'd expect it to become the norm very soon.
For example:
numbers = [1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 13]
enum.filter_map { |i| i * 2 if i.even? }
# => [4, 16, 20]
In your case, as the block evaluates to falsey, simply:
items.filter_map { |x| process_x url }
"Ruby 2.7 adds Enumerable#filter_map" is a good read on the subject, with some performance benchmarks against some of the earlier approaches to this problem:
N = 100_000
enum = 1.upto(1_000)
Benchmark.bmbm do |x|
x.report("select + map") { N.times { enum.select { |i| i.even? }.map{ |i| i + 1 } } }
x.report("map + compact") { N.times { enum.map { |i| i + 1 if i.even? }.compact } }
x.report("filter_map") { N.times { enum.filter_map { |i| i + 1 if i.even? } } }
end
# Rehearsal -------------------------------------------------
# select + map 8.569651 0.051319 8.620970 ( 8.632449)
# map + compact 7.392666 0.133964 7.526630 ( 7.538013)
# filter_map 6.923772 0.022314 6.946086 ( 6.956135)
# --------------------------------------- total: 23.093686sec
#
# user system total real
# select + map 8.550637 0.033190 8.583827 ( 8.597627)
# map + compact 7.263667 0.131180 7.394847 ( 7.405570)
# filter_map 6.761388 0.018223 6.779611 ( 6.790559)
Definitely compact is the best approach for solving this task. However, we can achieve the same result just with a simple subtraction:
[1, nil, 3, nil, nil] - [nil]
=> [1, 3]
In your example:
items.map! { |x| process_x url } # [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] => [1, nil, 3, nil, nil]
it does not look like the values have changed other than being replaced with nil. If that is the case, then:
items.select{|x| process_x url}
will suffice.
If you wanted a looser criterion for rejection, for example, to reject empty strings as well as nil, you could use:
[1, nil, 3, 0, ''].reject(&:blank?)
=> [1, 3, 0]
If you wanted to go further and reject zero values (or apply more complex logic to the process), you could pass a block to reject:
[1, nil, 3, 0, ''].reject do |value| value.blank? || value==0 end
=> [1, 3]
[1, nil, 3, 0, '', 1000].reject do |value| value.blank? || value==0 || value>10 end
=> [1, 3]
You can use #compact method on the resulting array.
[10, nil, 30, 40, nil].compact => [10, 30, 40]
each_with_object is probably the cleanest way to go here:
new_items = items.each_with_object([]) do |x, memo|
ret = process_x(x)
memo << ret unless ret.nil?
end
In my opinion, each_with_object is better than inject/reduce in conditional cases because you don't have to worry about the return value of the block.
One more way to accomplish it will be as shown below. Here, we use Enumerable#each_with_object to collect values, and make use of Object#tap to get rid of temporary variable that is otherwise needed for nil check on result of process_x method.
items.each_with_object([]) {|x, obj| (process x).tap {|r| obj << r unless r.nil?}}
Complete example for illustration:
items = [1,2,3,4,5]
def process x
rand(10) > 5 ? nil : x
end
items.each_with_object([]) {|x, obj| (process x).tap {|r| obj << r unless r.nil?}}
Alternate approach:
By looking at the method you are calling process_x url, it is not clear what is the purpose of input x in that method. If I assume that you are going to process the value of x by passing it some url and determine which of the xs really get processed into valid non-nil results - then, may be Enumerabble.group_by is a better option than Enumerable#map.
h = items.group_by {|x| (process x).nil? ? "Bad" : "Good"}
#=> {"Bad"=>[1, 2], "Good"=>[3, 4, 5]}
h["Good"]
#=> [3,4,5]
I wonder if there's a possibility to create a two dimensional array and to quickly access any horizontal or vertical sub array in it?
I believe we can access a horizontal sub array in the following case:
x = Array.new(10) { Array.new(20) }
x[6][3..8] = 'something'
But as far as I understand, we cannot access it like this:
x[3..8][6]
How can I avoid or hack this limit?
There are some problems with 2 dimensional Arrays the way you implement them.
a= [[1,2],[3,4]]
a[0][2]= 5 # works
a[2][0]= 6 # error
Hash as Array
I prefer to use Hashes for multi dimensional Arrays
a= Hash.new
a[[1,2]]= 23
a[[5,6]]= 42
This has the advantage, that you don't have to manually create columns or rows. Inserting into hashes is almost O(1), so there is no drawback here, as long as your Hash does not become too big.
You can even set a default value for all not specified elements
a= Hash.new(0)
So now about how to get subarrays
(3..5).to_a.product([2]).collect { |index| a[index] }
[2].product((3..5).to_a).collect { |index| a[index] }
(a..b).to_a runs in O(n). Retrieving an element from an Hash is almost O(1), so the collect runs in almost O(n). There is no way to make it faster than O(n), as copying n elements always is O(n).
Hashes can have problems when they are getting too big. So I would think twice about implementing a multidimensional Array like this, if I knew my amount of data is getting big.
rows, cols = x,y # your values
grid = Array.new(rows) { Array.new(cols) }
As for accessing elements, this article is pretty good for step by step way to encapsulate an array in the way you want:
How to ruby array
You didn't state your actual goal, but maybe this can help:
require 'matrix' # bundled with Ruby
m = Matrix[
[1, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6]
]
m.column(0) # ==> Vector[1, 4]
(and Vectors acts like arrays)
or, using a similar notation as you desire:
m.minor(0..1, 2..2) # => Matrix[[3], [6]]
Here's a 3D array case
class Array3D
def initialize(d1,d2,d3)
#data = Array.new(d1) { Array.new(d2) { Array.new(d3) } }
end
def [](x, y, z)
#data[x][y][z]
end
def []=(x, y, z, value)
#data[x][y][z] = value
end
end
You can access subsections of each array just like any other Ruby array.
#data[0..2][3..5][8..10] = 0
etc
x.transpose[6][3..8] or x[3..8].map {|r| r [6]} would give what you want.
Example:
a = [ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5],
[6, 7, 8, 9, 10],
[11, 12, 13, 14, 15],
[21, 22, 23, 24, 25]
]
#a[1..2][2] -> [8,13]
puts a.transpose[2][1..2].inspect # [8,13]
puts a[1..2].map {|r| r[2]}.inspect # [8,13]
I'm quite sure this can be very simple
2.0.0p247 :032 > list = Array.new(5)
=> [nil, nil, nil, nil, nil]
2.0.0p247 :033 > list.map!{ |x| x = [0] }
=> [[0], [0], [0], [0], [0]]
2.0.0p247 :034 > list[0][0]
=> 0
a = Array.new(Array.new(4))
0.upto(a.length-1) do |i|
0.upto(a.length-1) do |j|
a[i[j]] = 1
end
end
0.upto(a.length-1) do |i|
0.upto(a.length-1) do |j|
print a[i[j]] = 1 #It's not a[i][j], but a[i[j]]
end
puts "\n"
end
Here is the simple version
#one
a = [[0]*10]*10
#two
row, col = 10, 10
a = [[0]*row]*col
Here is an easy way to create a "2D" array.
2.1.1 :004 > m=Array.new(3,Array.new(3,true))
=> [[true, true, true], [true, true, true], [true, true, true]]