Related
I have prepared 2 Javascript functions to find matching integer pairs that add up to a sum and returns a boolean.
The first function uses a binary search like that:
function find2PairsBySumLog(arr, sum) {
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
for (var x = i + 1; x < arr.length; x++) {
if (arr[i] + arr[x] == sum) {
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
For the second function I implemented my own singly Linked List, in where I add the complementary integer to the sum and search for the value in the Linked List. If value is found in the Linked List we know there is a match.
function find2PairsBySumLin(arr, sum) {
var complementList = new LinkedList();
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (complementList.find(arr[i])) {
return true;
} else {
complementList.add(sum - arr[i]);
}
}
return false;
}
When I run both functions I clearly see that the Linked List search executes ~75% faster
var arr = [9,2,4,1,3,2,2,8,1,1,6,1,2,8,7,8,2,9];
console.time('For loop search');
console.log(find2PairsBySumLog(arr, 18));
console.timeEnd(‘For loop search’);
console.time('Linked List search');
console.log(find2PairsBySumLin(arr, 18));
console.timeEnd('Linked List search');
true
For loop search: 4.590ms
true
Linked List search: 0.709ms
Here my question: Is the Linked List approach a real linear search? After all I loop through all the nodes, while my outer loop iterates through the initial array.
Here is my LinkedList search function:
LinkedList.prototype.find = function(data) {
var headNode = this.head;
if(headNode === null) {
return false;
}
while(headNode !== null) {
if(headNode.data === data) {
return true;
} else {
headNode = headNode.next;
}
}
return false;
}
UPDATE:
It was a good idea to go back and have another think of the problem based the comments so far.
Thanks to #nem035 comment on small datasets, I ran another test but this time with 100,000 integers between 1 and 8. I assigned 9 to the first and last position and searched for 18 to make sure the entire array will be searched.
I also included the relatively new ES6 Set function for comparison thanks to #Oriol.
Btw #Oriol and #Deepak you are right. The first function is not a binary search but rather a O(n*n) search, which has no logarithmic complexity.
It turns out my Linked List implementation was the slowest of all searches. I ran 10 iterations for each function individually. Here the result:
For loop search: 24.36 ms (avg)
Linked List search: 64328.98 ms (avg)
Set search: 35.63 ms (avg)
Here the same test for a dataset of 10,000,000 integers:
For loop search: 30.78 ms (avg)
Set search: 1557.98 ms (avg)
Summary:
So it seems the Linked List is really fast for smaller dataset up to ~1,000, while ES6 Set is great for larger datasets.
Nevertheless the For loop is the clear winner in all tests.
All 3 methods will scale linearly with the amount of data.
Please note: ES6 Set is not backward compatible with old browsers in case this operation has to be done client side.
Don't use this. Use a set.
function find2PairsBySum(arr, sum) {
var set = new Set();
for(var num of arr) {
if (set.has(num)) return true;
set.add(sum - num);
}
return false;
}
That's all. Both add and has are guaranteed to be sublinear (probably constant) in average.
You can optimize this substantially, by pre-sorting the array and then using a real binary search.
// Find an element in a sorted array.
function includesBinary(arr, elt) {
if (!arr.length) return false;
const middle = Math.floor(arr.length / 2);
switch (Math.sign(elt - arr[middle])) {
case -1: return includesBinary(arr.slice(0, middle - 1), elt);
case 0: return true;
case +1: return includesBinary(arr.slice(middle + 1), elt);
}
}
// Given an array, pre-sort and return a function to detect pairs adding up to a sum.
function makeFinder(arr) {
arr = arr.slice().sort((a, b) => a - b);
return function(sum) {
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
const remaining = sum - arr[i];
if (remaining < 0) return false;
if (includesBinary(arr, remaining)) return true;
}
return false;
};
}
// Test data: 100 random elements between 0 and 99.
const arr = Array.from(Array(100), _ => Math.floor(Math.random() * 100));
const finder = makeFinder(arr);
console.time('test');
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) finder(100);
console.timeEnd('test');
According to this rough benchmark, one lookup into an array of 100 elements costs a few microseconds.
Rewriting includesBinary to avoid recursion would probably provide a further performance win.
first of all find2PairsBySumLog function is not a binary search, it's a kind of brute force method which parses all the elements of array and it's worst case time complexity should be O(n*n), and the second function is a linear search that' why you are getting the second method to run fastly, for the first function i.e. find2PairsBySumLog what you can do is initialize binary HashMap and check for every pair of integers in array kind of like you are doing in the second function probably like
bool isPairsPresent(int arr[], int arr_size, int sum)
{
int i, temp;
bool binMap[MAX] = {0};
for (i = 0; i < arr_size; i++)
{
temp = sum - arr[i];
if (temp >= 0 && binMap[temp] == 1)
return true;
binMap[arr[i]] = 1;
}
}
I'm working on my first javascript canvas game, and I wonder is there a better way for comparing collisons between objects in 2 arrays. For example i have an array with rockets, and array with enemies, the code is working, but i think when arrays length becomes much larger it will have effect on the performance. Example 100 rockets through 100 enemies is 10000 iterations per frame
for (i in rockets){
rockets[i].x+=projectile_speed;
for (j in enemies){
if(collision(rockets[i], enemies[j])){
enemies[j].health-=5;
sound_hit[hit_counter-1].play();
hit_counter--;
if (hit_counter==0){
hit_counter=5;
}
rockets.splice(i,1);
if (enemies[j].health <= 0) {
score += enemies[j].score;
sound_explode[Math.floor(Math.random()*25)].play();
enemies[j].isDead = true;
}
} else if(rockets[i].x >= width){
rockets.splice(i,1);
}
}
}
If you want to test every rocket on every player its not really possible to do differently, without knowing more about position of players and rockets.
If you keep the collision function fast, this should though be no problem at all.
I can only think of two easy improvements on this:
when a collision is found use continue since looping over the rest of players should not be necessary (unless players is allowed to collide)
instead of splice'ing the rockets array multiple times, build a new one, excluding all "dead" rockets.
You should also consider using forEach, map and filter to make the code a bit easier to read:
rockets = rockets.filter(function(rocket) {
rocket.x+=projectile_speed;
if(rocket.x >= width) {
return false;
}
var enemy = enemies.find(function(enemy) { return collision(rocket, enemy) });
if(enemy) {
enemy.health-=5;
sound_hit[--hit_counter].play();
if (hit_counter==0){
hit_counter=5;
}
if (enemy.health <= 0) {
score += enemy.score;
sound_explode[Math.floor(Math.random()*25)].play();
enemy.isDead = true;
}
return false;
}
return true;
});
What you could try to do is to reduce the number of tests by grouping the enemies and rockets, so that you only have to test the elements in the same group.
Here is a simple implementation to show what I mean, this only partitions in X-direction, because your rockets only seem to travel horizontally:
var groupWidth = 100; // do some experiments to find a suitable value
var rocketGroups = [];
var enemyGroups = [];
// initalize groups, not shown (array of array of rocket/enemy),
// but here are some other function examples...
function addToGroups(element, groups) {
groups[element.x / groupWidth].push(element);
}
function move(element, groups, distance) {
if (element.x / groupWidth != (element.x + distance) / groupWidth) {
// remove element from the old group and put it in the new one
}
element.x += distance;
}
// Note: this is only to show the idea, see comments about length
function checkCollisions() {
var i,j,k;
for (i = 0; i < rocketGroups.length; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < rocketGroups[i].length; j++) {
for (k = 0; k < enemyGroups[i].length; k++) {
// only compares elements in the same group
checkPossibleCollision(rocketGroups[i], enemyGroups[i], j, k);
}
}
}
}
In Javascript, I don't see any tutorials clearly explain how to create like
MyItems[Row][Index][categories]
so that
MyItems[0][0][0]=1
MyItems[1][0][0]='stock'
MyItems[5][1][0]='pending'
My use case is each Index will contain different value which is integer or string.
What is the best way to avoid error when accessing MyItems[0][1][0] that has no value?
Because JS doesn't have actual multidimensional arrays, but instead merely have nested arrays that don't necessarily form a rectangular structure, you'd need to check for each nested array first. A simple "truthy" test would be fine.
if (myItems[0] && myItems[0][0])
myItems[0][0].push(1);
If you wanted to create the arrays that aren't there, then you can do that like this:
if (!myItems[0])
myItems[0] = [];
if (!myItems[0][0])
myItems[0][0] = [];
myItems[0][0].push(1);
Of course this assumes that the first and second levels should always be arrays, and only the third level will hold the actual values. You'll need to adjust it if that's not the case.
Also, a function would be a good idea to get rid of the repetition.
function addNested(outer, idx1, idx2, idx3, value) {
if (!outer[idx1])
outer[idx1] = [];
if (!outer[idx1][idx2])
outer[idx1][idx2] = [];
outer[idx1][idx2][idx3] = value;
}
addNested(myItems, 1, 0, 0, 'stock');
This is how you'd make a 3D array, but I'd recommend against mixing data types in your array, that's not exactly a common or standard practice.
// just filler stuff, ignore the body of this function
function getStringOrNumber(row, col, cat) {
var thing = row * cols * cats + col * cats + cat;
return Math.random() < .5 ? thing : thing.toString();
}
// something to deal with each value
function doSomething(value) {
switch (typeof value) {
case 'string':
// logic for string type
break;
case 'number':
// logic for number type
break;
default:
// unexpected?
break;
}
}
// here's how you make your 3D array
var rows = 10,
cols = 10,
cats = 10,
array3d = new Array(rows),
i, j, k;
for (i = 0; i < rows; i++) {
array3d[i] = new Array(cols);
for (j = 0; j < cols; j++) {
array3d[i][j] = new Array(cats);
for (k = 0; k < cats; k++) {
array3d[i][j][k] = getStringOrNumber(i, j, k);
doSomething(array3d[i][j][k]);
}
}
}
If you want to check whether an index exists on the 3d array, try a function like this:
function setValue(array3d, row, col, cat, value) {
if (array3d[row] && array3d[row][col] && array3d[row][col][cat]) {
array3d[row][col][cat] = value;
} else {
throw new RangeError("Indices out of range");
}
}
If you were to allocate each array at each index in a breadth-first pattern before accessing any of it, then this would work without any special handling.
However, as you've correctly recognized, if you want to be able to access indexes that may not have been allocated yet, this won't work.
Actually, to be more specific, you are allowed to attempt to read an index outside the length of an array, in which case you'll get undefined. The problem is that if you get undefined for the first or second depth, then an attempt to index that undefined value will fail.
Thus, to prevent this error, you must guard against undefined first- or second-depth indexes.
The best way to do this is to write a class that provides a getter and setter that automatically take care of the special handling requirements. Here's an example of such a class, defined using the prototype pattern:
(function() {
var Array3D = function() {
this.data = [];
};
Array3D.prototype.get = function(r,c,z) {
if (this.data.length <= r) return undefined;
if (this.data[r].length <= c) return undefined;
return this.data[r][c][z];
};
Array3D.prototype.set = function(r,c,z,v) {
if (this.data.length <= r) this.data[r] = [];
if (this.data[r].length <= c) this.data[r][c] = [];
this.data[r][c][z] = v;
return this;
};
window.Array3D = Array3D;
})();
var a = new Array3D();
alert(a.get(0,0,0)); // undefined, no error
a.set(0,0,0,'x');
alert(a.get(0,0,0)); // 'x'
a.set(234,1234,342,'y');
alert(a.get(234,1234,342)); // 'y'
alert(a.get(0,1,0)); // undefined, no error
alert(a.get(12341234,243787,234234)); // undefined, no error
Since this completely differs from my other answer, I thought it would be helpful to suggest another approach using nested sparse arrays which could be implemented using associative arrays or objects. Try this:
// N-dimensional array
function ArrayND() {
// nothing to do here, seriously
}
ArrayND.prototype.setValue = function (value) {
var indices = arguments,
nest = this,
index, i;
// note the range of values since the last recursion is being set to a value
for (i = 1; i < indices.length - 2; i++) {
index = indices[i];
if (nest[index] instanceof ArrayND) {
nest = nest[index];
} else if (typeof nest[index] === "undefined") {
// recursive functionality!
nest = nest[index] = new ArrayND();
} else {
// we don't want to get rid of this value by accident!
return false;
}
}
// now "nest" is equal to the ArrayND you want to set the value inside of
index = indices[i];
nest[index] = value;
// we set the value successfully!
return true;
}
ArrayND.prototype.getValue = function () {
var indices = arguments,
nest = this,
index, i;
// note the range because we're getting the last value
for (i = 0; i < indices.length; i++) {
index = indices[i];
// for last recursion, just has to exist, not be ArrayND
if (nest[index]) {
nest = nest[index];
} else {
// nothing is defined where you're trying to access
return undefined;
}
}
return nest;
}
var arrayND = new ArrayND();
arrayND.setValue(1, 0, 0, 0);
arrayND.setValue("stock", 1, 0, 0);
arrayND.setValue("pending", 5, 1, 0);
// you can treat it like a normal 3D array if you want
console.log(arrayND[0][0][0]); // 1
console.log(arrayND[1][0][0]); // "stock"
console.log(arrayND[5][1][0]); // "pending"
// or use a nicer way to get the values
console.log(arrayND.getValue(1, 0, 0)); // "stock"
// phew, no errors!
console.log(arrayND.getValue(3, 1, 0)); // undefined
// some awesome recursive functionality!
console.log(arrayND.getValue(5).getValue(1).getValue(0)); // "pending"
Let's say I have a simple array like this:
var myArr = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
I'd like to extract a number of elements, starting from a specific index, like this:
myArr.getElementsFromIndex(index, numberOfElements)
where, unlike .slice(), if we hit the last index, elements from the start of the array should be returned instead (so that the total number of elements returned will always be respected). Either pure javascript or a library like underscore/lodash can be used.
Examples:
myArr.getElementsFromIndex(3, 5)
should return[3,4,5,6,7]
and
myArr.getElementsFromIndex(8, 5)
should return [8,9,0,1,2]
Use the below code
var myArr = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
function getElementsFromIndex(startIndex, num) {
var elems = [];
for(var iter = 0; iter<num; iter++) {
if(startIndex >= myArr.length) {
while(startIndex >= myArr.length) {
startIndex -= myArr.length;
}
}
elems.push(myArr[startIndex]);
startIndex++;
}
return(elems);
}
Array#slice takes a start and end index (not a start index and a number of elements).
Array#splice does what you want, except for the wrapping around (but also modifies the original array).
You can write a wrapper function using slice (which will not modify the original array):
function getElementsFromIndex(arr, start, numElements) {
if(start + numElements > arr.length) {
var endOfArr = arr.slice(start, arr.length);
var elementsFound = arr.length - start;
var restElements = getElementsFromIndex(arr, 0, numElements - elementsFound);
return endOfArr.concat(restElements);
}
return arr.slice(start, start + numElements);
}
This function returns what you require (see example), and even wraps around multiple times, if needed.
If you want to tie the function to arrays, in order to use it as you propose (ie. myArr.getElementsFromIndex(start, numElements)), you can add it to Array's prototype. You might want to look up arguments for/against modifying prototypes of built-in types, though.
Array.prototype.getElementsFromIndex = function(start, numElements) {
if(start + numElements > this.length) {
var endOfArr = this.slice(start, this.length);
var elementsFound = this.length - start;
return endOfArr.concat(this.getElementsFromIndex(0, numElements - elementsFound));
}
return this.slice(start, start + numElements);
};
See example of the last one here.
Add this to your js code:
Array.prototype.getElementsFromIndex = function (start, len) {
var newArray = [],
origArray = this,
i = start;
while (newArray.length < len) {
newArray.push(origArray[i++]);
if (i >= origArray.length)
i = 0;
}
return newArray;
}
You can use it exactly the way you wanted:
var myArr = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
alert(myArr.getElementsFromIndex(8, 5));
JSFIDDLE DEMO: http://jsfiddle.net/x6oy0krL/1
Maybe some people will say that it is not right to extend objects like Array, documentElement and so on, but the result here is as the OP wanted.
I want to say that the original array will not be modified, too.
Just concatenate the array to itself, then use slice:
function sliceWrap(arr, start, num) {
return arr.concat(arr).slice(start, start+num);
}
Another approach, which wraps around:
function sliceWrap2(arr, start, num) {
var result = [], i, end = start+num, len = arr.length;
for (i=start; i<end; i++) {
result.push(arr[i % len]);
}
return result;
}
I'm trying to pick a random film from an object containing film objects. I need to be able to call the function repeatedly getting distinct results until every film has been used.
I have this function, but it doesn't work because the outer function returns with nothing even if the inner function calls itself because the result is not unique.
var watchedFilms = [];
$scope.watchedFilms = watchedFilms;
var getRandomFilm = function(movies) {
var moviesLength = Object.keys(movies).length;
function doPick() {
var pick = pickRandomProperty(movies);
var distinct = true;
for (var i = 0;i < watchedFilms.length; i += 1) {
if (watchedFilms[i]===pick.title) {
distinct = false;
if (watchedFilms.length === moviesLength) {
watchedFilms = [];
}
}
}
if (distinct === true) {
watchedFilms.push(pick.title);
return pick;
}
if (distinct === false) {
console.log(pick.title+' has already been picked');
doPick();
}
};
return doPick();
}
T.J. Crowder already gave a great answer, however I wanted to show an alternative way of solving the problem using OO.
You could create an object that wraps over an array and makes sure that a random unused item is returned everytime. The version I created is cyclic, which means that it infinitely loops over the collection, but if you want to stop the cycle, you can just track how many movies were chosen and stop once you reached the total number of movies.
function CyclicRandomIterator(list) {
this.list = list;
this.usedIndexes = {};
this.displayedCount = 0;
}
CyclicRandomIterator.prototype.next = function () {
var len = this.list.length,
usedIndexes = this.usedIndexes,
lastBatchIndex = this.lastBatchIndex,
denyLastBatchIndex = this.displayedCount !== len - 1,
index;
if (this.displayedCount === len) {
lastBatchIndex = this.lastBatchIndex = this.lastIndex;
usedIndexes = this.usedIndexes = {};
this.displayedCount = 0;
}
do index = Math.floor(Math.random() * len);
while (usedIndexes[index] || (lastBatchIndex === index && denyLastBatchIndex));
this.displayedCount++;
usedIndexes[this.lastIndex = index] = true;
return this.list[index];
};
Then you can simply do something like:
var randomMovies = new CyclicRandomIterator(Object.keys(movies));
var randomMovie = movies[randomMovies.next()];
Note that the advantage of my implementation if you are cycling through items is that the same item will never be returned twice in a row, even at the beginning of a new cycle.
Update: You've said you can modify the film objects, so that simplifies things:
var getRandomFilm = function(movies) {
var keys = Object.keys(movies);
var keyCount = keys.length;
var candidate;
var counter = keyCount * 2;
// Try a random pick
while (--counter) {
candidate = movies[keys[Math.floor(Math.random() * keyCount)]];
if (!candidate.watched) {
candidate.watched = true;
return candidate;
}
}
// We've done two full count loops and not found one, find the
// *first* one we haven't watched, or of course return null if
// they've all been watched
for (counter = 0; counter < keyCount; ++counter) {
candidate = movies[keys[counter]];
if (!candidate.watched) {
candidate.watched = true;
return candidate;
}
}
return null;
}
This has the advantage that it doesn't matter if you call it with the same movies object or not.
Note the safety valve. Basically, as the number of watched films approaches the total number of films, our odds of picking a candidate at random get smaller. So if we've failed to do that after looping for twice as many iterations as there are films, we give up and just pick the first, if any.
Original (which doesn't modify film objects)
If you can't modify the film objects, you do still need the watchedFilms array, but it's fairly simple:
var watchedFilms = [];
$scope.watchedFilms = watchedFilms;
var getRandomFilm = function(movies) {
var keys = Object.keys(movies);
var keyCount = keys.length;
var candidate;
if (watchedFilms.length >= keyCount) {
return null;
}
while (true) {
candidate = movies[keys[Math.floor(Math.random() * keyCount)]];
if (watchedFilms.indexOf(candidate) === -1) {
watchedFilms.push(candidate);
return candidate;
}
}
}
Note that like your code, this assumes getRandomFilm is called with the same movies object each time.