We Keep Coding

Fast Unique Team Selection from a group

I have a situation in which I have a list of 150 players(Names, id(uuid),team names etc.).
The user can make a team of 10 players and he can create as many teams as possible.
I need to make sure that the user does not try to save the same team twice i.e. same set of players in different order.
I want to achieve it in the most efficient way possible. I was thinking about a hashing function that could solve my problem. I haven't figured it out yet but I just wanted to know what do you guys think? I have to implement this in nodejs if it helps anyway.

When the user makes a team, sort the list of names and join them together with list.join().
Use the resulting string as a key to detect duplicate teams, like this:
var check={};
function submit(team /*array*/) {
var key = team.sort().join();
if (check[key]) {
//... error, duplicate ...
}
check[key]=true;
//... continue with submission...
This is probably the fastest way in JavaScript

Use _.filter on object created by _.indexBy

I started off with an array of objects and used _.filter to filter down on some search criteria and _.findWhere to select out asingle object based on ID.
Unfortunately the amount of data has increased so much so that it's much more efficient to use _.indexBy to index by ID so I can just do data[ID] = id for the _.findWhere's.
However I am stumped on how to replace the _.filter method without looping through all the keys in data.
Is there a better way?!
Edit
The IDs are always unique.
I can't show any real data as it is sensitive but the structure is
data = {
1: {id: 1, name: 'data1', date: 20/1/2016}
2: {id: 2, name: 'data2', date: 21/1/2016},
3: {....
}
and I need to something like:
var recentData = _.filter(data, function(d){d.date > 1/1/2016});
To get an array of data or ids.
(n.b. the dates are all in epoch times)

This is really an optimization question, rather than simply which function to use.
One thing to go about this would be if we could rely on sort order of the whole collection. If it's already sorted, you go with something like binary search to find the border elements of your date range and then splice everything from this point. (side note: array would probably work better for this).
If the array is not sorted you could also consider sorting it first on your end - but that makes sense only if you need to retrieve such information several times from the same dataset.
But if all you got is just the data, unsorted and you need to pick all elements starting from a certain date - no other way that iterate through it all with something like _.filter().
Alternatively you could revert back to the source of your data and check whether you can improve the results that way - if you're using some kind of API, maybe there are extra params for sorting or narrowing down the date selection (generally speaking database engines are really efficient at what you're trying to do)? Or if you're using a huge static JSON as the source - maybe consider improving that source object with sort order?
Just some ideas. Hard to give you the best resolution without knowing all the story behind what you're trying to do.

Parse.com relations count

I want to query object from Parse DB through javascript, that has only 1 of some specific relation object. How can this criteria be achieved?
So I tried something like this, the equalTo() acts as a "contains" and it's not what I'm looking for, my code so far, which doesn't work:
var query = new Parse.Query("Item");
query.equalTo("relatedItems", someItem);
query.lessThan("relatedItems", 2);

It seems Parse do not provide a easy way to do this.
Without any other fields, if you know all the items then you could do the following:
var innerQuery = new Parse.Query('Item');
innerQuery.containedIn('relatedItems', [all items except someItem]);
var query = new Parse.Query('Item');
query.equalTo('relatedItems', someItem);
query.doesNotMatchKeyInQuery('objectId', 'objectId', innerQuery);
...
Otherwise, you might need to get all records and do filtering.
Update
Because of the data type relation, there are no ways to include the relation content into the results, you need to do another query to get the relation content.
The workaround might add a itemCount column and keep it updated whenever the item relation is modified and do:
query.equalTo('relatedItems', someItem);
query.equalTo('itemCount', 1);

There are a couple of ways you could do this.
I'm working on a project now where I have cells composed of users.
I currently have an afterSave trigger that does this:
const count = await cell.relation("members").query().count();
cell.put("memberCount",count);
This works pretty well.
There are other ways that I've considered in theory, but I've not used
them yet.
The right way would be to hack the ability to use select with dot
notation to grab a virtual field called relatedItems.length in the
query, but that would probably only work for me because I use PostGres
... mongo seems to be extremely limited in its ability to do this sort
of thing, which is why I would never make a database out of blobs of
json in the first place.
You could do a similar thing with an afterFind trigger. I'm experimenting with that now. I'm not sure if it will confuse
parse to get an attribute back which does not exist in its schema, but
I'll find out, by the end of today. I have found that if I jam an artificial attribute into the objects in the trigger, they are returned
along with the other data. What I'm not sure about is whether Parse will decide that the object is dirty, or, worse, decide that I'm creating a new attribute and store it to the database ... which could be filtered out with a beforeSave trigger, but not until after the data had all been sent to the cloud.
There is also a place where i had to do several queries from several
tables, and would have ended up with a lot of redundant data. So I wrote a cloud function which did the queries, and then returned a couple of lists of objects, and a few lists of objectId strings which
served as indexes. This worked pretty well for me. And tracking the
last load time and sending it back when I needed up update my data allowed me to limit myself to objects which had changed since my last query.

javascript: array of object for simple localization

I need to implement a simple way to handle localization about weekdays' names, and I came up with the following structure:
var weekdaysLegend=new Array(
{'it-it':'Lunedì', 'en-us':'Monday'},
{'it-it':'Martedì', 'en-us':'Tuesday'},
{'it-it':'Mercoledì', 'en-us':'Wednesday'},
{'it-it':'Giovedì', 'en-us':'Thursday'},
{'it-it':'Venerdì', 'en-us':'Friday'},
{'it-it':'Sabato', 'en-us':'Saturday'},
{'it-it':'Domenica', 'en-us':'Sunday'}
);
I know I could implement something like an associative array (given the fact that I know that javascript does not provide associative arrays but objects with similar structure), but i need to iterate through the array using numeric indexes instead of labels.
So, I would like to handle this in a for cycle with particular values (like j-1 or indexes like that).
Is my structure correct? Provided a variable "lang" as one of the value between "it-it" or "en-us", I tried to print weekdaysLegend[j-1][lang] (or weekdaysLegend[j-1].lang, I think I tried everything!) but the results is [object Object]. Obviously I'm missing something..
Any idea?

The structure looks fine. You should be able to access values by:
weekdaysLegend[0]["en-us"]; // returns Monday
Of course this will also work for values in variables such as:
weekdaysLegend[i][lang];
for (var i = 0; i < weekdaysLegend.length; i++) {
alert(weekdaysLegend[i]["en-us"]);
}
This will alert the days of the week.
Sounds like you're doing everything correctly and the structure works for me as well.

Just a small note (I see the answer is already marked) as I am currently designing on a large application where I want to put locals into a javascript array.
Assumption: 1000 words x4 languages generates 'xx-xx' + the word itself...
Thats 1000 rows pr. language + the same 7 chars used for language alone = wasted bandwitdh...
the client/browser will have to PARSE THEM ALL before it can do any lookup in the arrays at all.
here is my approach:
Why not generate the javascript for one language at a time, if the user selects another language, just respond(send) the right javascript to the browser to include?
Either store a separate javascript with large array for each language OR use the language as parametre to the server-side script aka:
If the language file changes a lot or you need to minimize it per user/module, then its quite archivable with this approach as you can just add an extra parametre for "which part/module" to generate or a timestamp so the cache of the javascript file will work until changes occures.
if the dynamic approach is too performance heavy for the webserver, then publish/generate the files everytime there is a change/added a new locale - all you'll need is the "language linker" check in the top of the page, to check which language file to server the browser.
Conclusion
This approach will remove the overhead of a LOT of repeating "language" ID's if the locales list grows large.

You have to access an index from the array, and then a value by specifying a key from the object.
This works just fine for me: http://jsfiddle.net/98Sda/.
var day = 2;
var lang = 'en-us';
var weekdaysLegend = [
{'it-it':'Lunedì', 'en-us':'Monday'},
{'it-it':'Martedì', 'en-us':'Tuesday'},
{'it-it':'Mercoledì', 'en-us':'Wednesday'},
{'it-it':'Giovedì', 'en-us':'Thursday'},
{'it-it':'Venerdì', 'en-us':'Friday'},
{'it-it':'Sabato', 'en-us':'Saturday'},
{'it-it':'Domenica', 'en-us':'Sunday'}
];
alert(weekdaysLegend[day][lang]);

jQuery "Autocomplete" plugin is messing up the order of my data

I'm using Jorn Zaefferer's Autocomplete plugin on a couple of different pages. In both instances, the order of displayed strings is a little bit messed up.
Example 1: array of strings: basically they are in alphabetical order except for General Knowledge which has been pushed to the top:
General Knowledge,Art and Design,Business Studies,Citizenship,Design and Technology,English,Geography,History,ICT,Mathematics,MFL French,MFL German,MFL Spanish,Music,Physical Education,PSHE,Religious Education,Science,Something Else
Displayed strings:
General Knowledge,Geography,Art and Design,Business Studies,Citizenship,Design and Technology,English,History,ICT,Mathematics,MFL French,MFL German,MFL Spanish,Music,Physical Education,PSHE,Religious Education,Science,Something Else
Note that Geography has been pushed to be the second item, after General Knowledge. The rest are all fine.
Example 2: array of strings: as above but with Cross-curricular instead of General Knowledge.
Cross-curricular,Art and Design,Business Studies,Citizenship,Design and Technology,English,Geography,History,ICT,Mathematics,MFL French,MFL German,MFL Spanish,Music,Physical Education,PSHE,Religious Education,Science,Something Else
Displayed strings:
Cross-curricular,Citizenship,Art and Design,Business Studies,Design and Technology,English,Geography,History,ICT,Mathematics,MFL French,MFL German,MFL Spanish,Music,Physical Education,PSHE,Religious Education,Science,Something Else
Here, Citizenship has been pushed to the number 2 position.
I've experimented a little, and it seems like there's a bug saying "put things that start with the same letter as the first item after the first item and leave the rest alone". Kind of mystifying. I've tried a bit of debugging by triggering alerts inside the autocomplete plugin code but everywhere i can see, it's using the correct order. it seems to be just when its rendered out that it goes wrong.
Any ideas anyone?
max
EDIT - reply to Clint
Thanks for pointing me at the relevant bit of code btw. To make diagnosis simpler i changed the array of values to ["carrot", "apple", "cherry"], which autocomplete re-orders to ["carrot", "cherry", "apple"].
Here's the array that it generates for stMatchSets:
stMatchSets = ({'':[#1={value:"carrot", data:["carrot"], result:"carrot"}, #3={value:"apple", data:["apple"], result:"apple"}, #2={value:"cherry", data:["cherry"], result:"cherry"}], c:[#1#, #2#], a:[#3#]})
So, it's collecting the first letters together into a map, which makes sense as a first-pass matching strategy. What i'd like it to do though, is to use the given array of values, rather than the map, when it comes to populating the displayed list. I can't quite get my head around what's going on with the cache inside the guts of the code (i'm not very experienced with javascript).
SOLVED - i fixed this by hacking the javascript in the plugin.
On line 549 (or 565) we return a variable csub which is an object holding the matching data. Before it's returned, I reorder this so that the order matches the original array of value we were given, ie that we used to build the index in the first place, which i had put into another variable:
csub = csub.sort(function(a,b){ return originalData.indexOf(a.value) > originalData.indexOf(b.value); })
hacky but it works. Personally i think that this behaviour (possibly coded more cleanly) should be the default behaviour of the plugin: ie, the order of results should match the original passed array of possible values. That way the user can sort their array alphabetically if they want (which is trivial) to get the results in alphabetical order, or they can preserve their own 'custom' order.

What I did instead of your solution was to add
if (!q && data[q]){return data[q];}
just above
var csub = [];
found in line ~535.
What this does, if I understood correctly, is to fetch the cached data for when the input is empty, specified in line ~472: stMatchSets[""] = []. Assuming that the cached data for when the input is empty are the first data you provided to begin with, then its all good.

I'm not sure about this autocomplete plugin in particular, but are you sure it's not just trying to give you the best match possible? My autocomplete plugin does some heuristics and does reordering of that nature.
Which brings me to my other answer: there are a million jQuery autocomplete plugins out there. If this one doesn't satisfy you, I'm sure there is another that will.
edit:
In fact, I'm completely certain that's what it's doing. Take a look around line 474:
// loop through the array and create a lookup structure
for ( var i = 0, ol = options.data.length; i < ol; i++ ) {
/* some code */
var firstChar = value.charAt(0).toLowerCase();
// if no lookup array for this character exists, look it up now
if( !stMatchSets[firstChar] )
and so on. So, it's a feature.