We Keep Coding

Inserting values into multi-dimentional javascript array

I need to dynamically create a multidimensional javascript array that matches this layout:
array_answers[0][1]:"yes"
array_answers[1][2]:"no"
array_answers[2][2-subquestion]:"text input"
array_answers[3][8]:"yes"
array_answers[4][8-subquestion]:"text input"
The first "[ ]" defines what question it is on the page (out of totalInputs)
The second "[ ]" defines what question from the database this is (questions already in order to match the corresponding input)
and the information following is the input I am trying to add
I have attempted to the following with no luck.
for(var i = 0; i < totalInputs; i++) {
array_answers.push([i]);
array_answers[i].push([questions[i]]);
array_answers[i][0] = "yes, no, or other text";
}
The last line is where it falls apart. It would make sense to me that I should be able to use [0] to indicate that I want the first array to be given this value but with no avail.
I have also tried:
for(var i = 0; i < totalInputs; i++) {
array_answers.push([i]);
array_answers[i].push([questions[i]]);
array_answers[i][questions[i]] = "yes, no, or other text";
}
but this gives me lots of empty arrays for all the numbers from 0 to whatever the value of questions[i] is.
What am I missing or is there a simpler way to do this in jQuery while still conforming to the target layout?

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to store questions and prompts (maybe?) together in a multi dimensional array. let me suggest a different way that should work.
const array_answers = questions.map(q => [q, "yes, no, other text"]);
This may be what you want

I am still not 100% sure of what you need, but i thought I would write an answer with my assumptions, that I can update as the information improves.
The first "[ ]" defines what question it is on the page (out of
totalInputs)
This part looks like you are correct, and need to use an array. But an array is just a list of "things", in your case, questions. So where you have this line:
array_answers.push([i]);
I'm not sure it is doing what you are expecting. This is adding a new array item, which is in itself an array, that contains a single number. So if totalInputs is 3, then that first line will result in this structure:
array_answers= [[0],[1],[2]]
I think what you actually might intend here is to simply house an array of question details. Now by the complexity of your keys listed for the second dimension, it looks like an object would be more appropriate.
The second "[ ]" defines what question from the database this is
(questions already in order to match the corresponding input)
So lets go ahead and create a single question.
var question = {
anythingYouWant: 'here',
2: 'even numeric keys'
}
// you can access the values in these ways
console.log(question.anythingYouWant)
console.log(question[2])
console.log(question['anythingYouWant'])
Now once you have a question object, you can then add it to your array_answers array with push.
array_answers.push(question).
If you have two identical questions like the one above, your array will look like this:
array_answers = [{
anythingYouWant: 'here',
2: 'even numeric keys'
},{
anythingYouWant: 'here',
2: 'even numeric keys'
}]
In order to access the questions within the array, you can simply use their index:
// access second question
var secondQuestion = array_answers[1]
You can read these links to learn more about objects & arrays

MongoDB search string in array of objects

I have a structure in MongoDB that have different amounts of items in an array called "items". To make the search, I am using the following command, which first turns the contents into a string, as in this.items there is a different structure depending on the object:
db.getCollection('docs').find.('JSON.stringify(this.items[0].value).toLowerCase().indexOf("text")!=-1')
My problem is that as I do not know the amount of items that each document has, I would have to use a wildcard as this.items[*].value, but it does not work.
Does anyone know any solution, or have another idea for this?

You can use the $elemMatch (https://docs.mongodb.com/manual/reference/operator/projection/elemMatch/)
db.docs.find({items: {$elemMatch: {value: {$regex : "text"}}}});
So this query will find all documents with an item in the items array that contain the string "text" in the value property, after this operation you can count how much items the document has.

You can use dot notation of items.value to target the value field of all items elements, and a regular expression to perform the case-insensitive sub-string match:
db.getCollection('docs').find({ 'items.value': /text/i })

You can iterate each document and apply the indexOf, something like this..
var cursor = db.getCollection('docs').find({}); // get all docs
var newOut = []; // new array of items if match with some condition
while ( cursor.hasNext() ){ // iterate all docs
var doc = cursor.next(); // get the document in focus
doc.items.forEach(function(item){ // iterate the items of doc.items
if ( item.toLowerCase().indexOf("text") !== -1 ) // check if text exists in array
newOut.push(item); // add to new array
});
};
printjson(newOut);

Is there a way to map a value in an object to the index of an array in javascript?

Prepending that a solution only needs to work in the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari as a bonus.
-
I am trying to use an associative array for a large data set with knockout. My first try made it a true associative array:
[1: {Object}, 3: {Object},...,n:{Object}]
but knockout was not happy with looping over that. So I tried a cheating way, hoping that:
[undefined, {Object}, undefined, {Object},...,{Object}]
where the location in the array is the PK ID from the database table. This array is about 3.2k items large, and would be iterated over around every 10 seconds, hence the need for speed. I tried doing this with a splice, e.g.
$.each(data, function (index, item) {
self.myArray.splice(item.PKID, 0, new Object(item));
}
but splice does not create indices, so since my first PKID is 1, it is still inserted at myArray[0] regardless. If my first PK was 500, it would start at 0 still.
My second thought is to initialize the array with var myArray = new Array(maxSize) but that seems heavy handed. I would love to be able to use some sort of map function to do this, but I'm not really sure how to make the key value translate into an index value in javascript.
My third thought was to keep two arrays, one for easy look up and the other to store the actual values. So it combines the first two solutions, almost, by finding the index of the object in the first example and doing a lookup with that in the second example. This seems to be how many people manage associative arrays in knockout, but with the array size and the fact that it's a live updating app with a growing data set seems memory intensive and not easily manageable when new information is added.
Also, maybe I'm hitting the mark wrong here? We're putting these into the DOM via knockout and managing with a library called isotope, and as I mentioned it updates about every 10 seconds. That's why I need the fast look up but knockout doesn't want to play with my hash table attempts.
--
clarity edits:
so on initial load the whole array is loaded up (which is where the new Array(maxLength) would go, then every 10 seconds anything that has changed is loaded back. That is the information I'm trying to quickly update.
--
knockout code:
<!-- ko foreach: {data: myArray(), afterRender: setInitialTileColor } -->
<div class="tile" data-bind="attr: {id: 'tileID' + $data.PKID()}">
<div class="content">
</div>
</div>
<!-- /ko -->
Then on updates the hope is:
$.each(data.Updated, function (index, item) {
var obj = myModel.myArray()[item.PKID];
//do updates here - need to check what kind of change, how long it's been since a change, etc
}

Here is a solution how to populate array items with correct indexes, so it doesn't start from the first one (0 (zero) I meant)
just use in loop
arr[obj.PKID] = obj;
and if your framework is smart (to use forEach but not for) it will start from your index (like 500 in case below)
http://jsfiddle.net/0axo9Lgp/
var data = [], new_data = [];
// Generate sample array of objects with index field
for (var i = 500; i < 3700; i++) {
data.push({
PKID: i,
value: '1'
});
}
data.forEach(function(item) {
new_data[item.PKID] = item;
});
console.log(new_data);
console.log(new_data.length); // 3700 but real length is 3200 other items are undefined

It's not an easy problem to solve. I'm assuming you've tried (or can't try) the obvious stuff like reducing the number of items per page and possibly using a different framework like React or Mithril.
There are a couple of basic optimizations I can suggest.
Don't use the framework's each. It's either slower than or same as the native Array method forEach, either way it's slower than a basic for loop.
Don't loop over the array over and over again looking for every item whose data has been updated. When you send your response of data updates, send along an array of the PKIds of the updated item. Then, do a single loop:
.
var indexes = []
var updated = JSON.parse(response).updated; // example array of updated pkids.
for(var i=0;i<allElements.length;i++){
if(updated.indexOf(allElements[i].pkid)>-1)
indexes.push(i);
}
So, basically the above assumes you have a simple array of objects, where each object has a property called pkid that stores its ID. When you get a response, you loop over this array once, storing the indexes of all items that match a pk-id in the array of updated pk-ids.
Then you only have to loop over the indexes array and use its elements as indexes on the allElements array to apply the direct updates.

If your indexes are integers in a reasonable range, you can just use an array. It does not have to be completely populated, you can use the if binding to filter out unused entries.
Applying updates is just a matter of indexing the array.
http://jsfiddle.net/0axo9Lgp/2/

You may want to consider using the publish-subscribe pattern. Have each item subscribe to its unique ID. When an item needs updating it will get the event and update itself. This library may be helpful for this. It doesn't depend upon browser events, just arrays so it should be fairly fast.

Working with Data Attributes - Build a List & See if One Exists

I have 2 questions based on the graphic below:
How can I tell if one of the 'data-conversationmessageuserid' data attributes with a specific value exists - say 1000000003? I believe data selectors is what I need and have tried the following but its not working yet:
if($('#conversationsInBoxMessagesWrapperDIV')['data-conversationmessageuserid=1000000003']) {
// do something
}
How could I get all the 'data-conversationmessageuserid' data attributes into an array and the loop through them? I'm still playing with this code but its far from publishable. Trying to use .map
.map(function()
thankyou so much

Try:
if($('#conversationsInBoxMessagesWrapperDIV [data-conversationmessageuserid=1000000003]').length)
or
$('#conversationsInBoxMessagesWrapperDIV').find('[data-conversationmessageuserid=1000000003]') //Or children only to look at one level.
To get all the data values you could do:
var conversationmessageuserids = $('#conversationsInBoxMessagesWrapperDIV').children().map(function(){
return $(this).data('conversationmessageuserid');
}).get();

jQuery supports data attributes: http://api.jquery.com/data/
So you could do if($('#conversationsInBoxMessagesWrapperDIV').data('conversationmessageuserid') === 1000000003)

Algorithm for data filter

Can you suggest me an algorithm for filtering out data.
I am using javascript and trying to write out a filter function which filters an array of data.I have an array of data and an array of filters, so in order to apply each filter on every data, I have written 2 for loops
foreach(data)
{
foreach(filter)
{
check data with filter
}
}
this is not the proper code, but in short that what my function does, the problem is this takes a huge amount of time, can someone suggest a better method.
I am using the Mootools library and the array of data is JSON array
Details of data and Filter
Data is JSON array of lets say user, so it will be
data = [{"name" : "first", "email" : "first#first", "age" : "20"}.
{"name" : "second", "email" : "second#second", "age" : "21"}
{"name" : "third", "email" : "third#third", "age" : "22"}]
Array of filters is basically self define class for different fields of data
alFilter[0] = filterName;
alFilter[1] = filterEmail;
alFilter[2] = filterAge;
So when I enter the first for loop, I get a single JSON opbject (first row) in the above case.
When I enter the second for loop (filters loop) I have a filter class which extracts the exact field on which the current filter would work and check the filter with the appropriate field of the data.
So in my example
foreach(data)
{
foreach(filter)
{
//loop one - filter name
// loop two - filter email
// loop three - filter age
}
}
when the second loop ends i set a flag denoting if the data has been filtered or not and depending on it the data is displayed.

You're going to have to give us some more detail about the exact structure of your data and filters to really be able to help you out. Are the filters being used to select a subset of data, or to modify the data? What are the filters doing?
That said, there are a few general suggestions:
Do less work. Is there some way you can limit the amount of data you're working on? Some pre-filter that can run quickly and cut it down before you do your main loop?
Break out of the inner loop as soon as possible. If one of the filters rejects a datum, then break out of the inner loop and move on to the next datum. If this is possible, then you should also try to make the most selective filters come first. (This is assuming that your filters are being used to reject items out of the list, rather than modify them)
Check for redundancy in the computation the filters perform. If each of them performs some complicated calculations that share some subroutines, then perhaps memoization or dynamic programming may be used to avoid redundant computation.
Really, it all boils down to the first point, do less work, at all three levels of your code. Can you do less work by limiting the items in the outer loop? Do less work by stopping after a particular filter and doing the most selective filters first? Do less work by not doing any redundant computation inside of each filter?

That's pretty much how you should do it. The trick is to optimize that "check data with filter"-part. You need to traverse all your data and check against all your filters - you'll not going to get any faster than that.
Avoid string comparisons, use data models as native as possible, try to reduce the data set on each pass with filter, etc.
Without further knowledge, it's hard to optimize this for you.

You should sort the application of your filters, so that two things are optimized: expensive checks should come last, and checks that eliminate a lot of data should come first. Then, you should make sure that checking is cut short as soon as an "out" result occurs.

If your filters are looking for specific values, a range, or start of a text then jOrder (http://github.com/danstocker/jorder) will fit your problem.
All you need to do is create a jOrder table like this:
var table = jOrder(data)
.index('name', ['name'], { grouped: true, ordered: true })
.index('email', ['email'])
.index('age', ['age'], { grouped: true, ordered: true, type: jOrder.number });
And then call table.where() to filter the table.
When you're looking for exact matches:
filtered = table.where([{name: 'first'}, {name: 'second'}]);
When you're looking for a certain range of one field:
filtered = table.where([{age: {lower: 20, upper: 21}}], {mode: jOrder.range});
Or, when you're looking for values starting with a given string:
filtered = table.where([{name: 'fir'}], {mode: jOrder.startof});
Filtering will be magnitudes faster this way than with nested loops.

Supposing that a filter removes the data if it doesn't match, I suggest, that you switch the two loops like so:
foreach(filter) {
foreach(data) {
check data with filter
}
}
By doing so, the second filter doesn't have to work all data, but only the data that passed the first filter, and so on. Of course the tips above (like doing expensive checks last) are still true and should additionally be considered.