I'm trying to sort a Backbone.js collection in reverse order. There are previous replies on how to do this with integers, but none with strings.
var Chapter = Backbone.Model;
var chapters = new Backbone.Collection;
chapters.comparator = function(chapter) {
return chapter.get("title");
};
chapters.add(new Chapter({page: 9, title: "The End"}));
chapters.add(new Chapter({page: 5, title: "The Middle"}));
chapters.add(new Chapter({page: 1, title: "The Beginning"}));
alert(chapters.pluck('title'));
The above code sorts the chapters from A -> Z, but how do I write a comparator that sorts it from Z -> A?
You could:
grab the char code for each character in the string,
subtract each value from 0xffff (the maximum return value of string.charCodeAt),
use String.fromCharCode to turn that back into string of "negated" characters
and that will be your sorting key.
chapters.comparator = function(chapter) {
return String.fromCharCode.apply(String,
_.map(chapter.get("title").split(""), function (c) {
return 0xffff - c.charCodeAt();
})
);
}
And voila:
> console.log(chapters.pluck('title'));
["The Middle", "The End", "The Beginning"]
Note: if your comparison strings are long (as in 65 kb or more), you may run into trouble (see Matt's comment below). To avoid this, and speed up comparisons a bit, just use a shorter slice of your comparison string. (In the above example, you could go for chapter.get("title").slice(0, 100).split("") instead.) How long a slice you need will depend on your application.
There are two versions of the comparator function that you can use, either the sortBy version - which was shown in the example, which takes one parameter, or sort - which you can return a more standard sort function, which the documentation says:
"sortBy" comparator functions take a model and return a numeric or string value by which the model should be ordered relative to others. "sort" comparator functions take two models, and return -1 if the first model should come before the second, 0 if they are of the same rank and 1 if the first model should come after.
So in this case, we can write a different comparator function:
var Chapter = Backbone.Model;
var chapters = new Backbone.Collection;
chapters.comparator = function(chapterA, chapterB) {
if (chapterA.get('title') > chapterB.get('title')) return -1; // before
if (chapterB.get('title') > chapterA.get('title')) return 1; // after
return 0; // equal
};
chapters.add(new Chapter({page: 9, title: "The End"}));
chapters.add(new Chapter({page: 5, title: "The Middle"}));
chapters.add(new Chapter({page: 1, title: "The Beginning"}));
alert(chapters.pluck('title'));
So you should get as a response:
"The Middle", "The End", "The Beginning"
If you're working with non-numerical values, there is no obvious way to do a reverse sort. Backbone makes use of the _.sortBy() and _.sortedIndex() methods from Underscore to order the models based on the comparator, and these methods automatically sort in ascending order. The naive way to do this would be to use chapters.pluck('title').reverse(), as the result of pluck will be an array. But calling reverse on some Collection methods will reverse the Collection models in place, so next time you call it, the models will be back in ascending order. You could always do something like:
var results = [],
titles = chapters.pluck('title');
for(var i=0, len=titles.length; i<len; i++) {
results.push(titles[i]);
}
results.reverse();
This would not affect the models array in your Backbone collection, as it would create a completely new results array in memory, but retain references to the original models, so calling things like save would still update the Collection state.
But that's not very elegant, and creates a lot of extra coding throughout your project any time you want to reverse the results. I think we can do better.
In order to make this work, you'll need to perform a bit of unwieldy JavaScript ninjary in your comparator method to make this work - note this is untested:
chapters.comparator = function(chapter) {
var alphabet = '0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz',
title = chapter.get('title').toLowerCase(),
inverse_title = '',
index;
for(var i=0, len=title.length; i<len; i++) {
index = alphabet.indexOf(title.charAt(i));
if(index === -1) {
inverse_title += title.charAt(i);
continue;
}
inverse_title += alphabet.charAt(alphabet.length - index - 1);
}
return inverse_title;
};
This concept probably needs improving to take into account symbols, etc., but essentially it inverts the comparator string in such a way that "Z" becomes "0", "Y" becomes "1", etc., which should produce the reverse sort you're after.
As Backbone merely uses the .sortBy method, simply proxy in your own logic:
collectionInQuestion.sortBy = function () {
var models = _.sortBy(this.models, this.comparator);
if (forSomeReason) {
models.reverse();
}
return models;
};
..or add it somewhere else..
TweakedCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({ sortBy: [...] })
I just solved a similar problem with table sorting and I wanted to share the code since I didn't find much help in these answers:
events: {
'click th.sortable': function(e) {
var $this = $(e.target),
order = $this.hasClass('asc') ? 'desc' : 'asc',
field = $this.data('field'); /* this is a string */
$this.siblings().addBack().removeClass('asc desc');
$this.addClass( order );
this.bodyView.collection.comparator = field;
this.bodyView.collection.sort();
if ( order === 'desc' ) this.bodyView.collection.models.reverse();
this.bodyView.render();
}
},
in this case I simply set comparator to string instead of a function; the string has to be the name of the property you want to sort by.
Then I just call reverse on the models if the order has to be inverse.
Just add minus before chapter.get
chapters.comparator = function(chapter) {
return -chapter.get("title");
};
Related
I need some help with a small thing I am struggeling with. I have to create a general search input that searches though a json of music numbers. The user has to be able to type an album/track or artist in the searchbar and then he'll get the result. Like any other search bar does. Only this one searches based on keypresses instead of a submit button.
The part where I'm stuck is that I've received a large JSON file with more than 5000 entries. And my search bar has to be able to identify entries based on partially typed "keywords". So for instance if I want to search for madonna and I type in "mado" I should already get some madonna in my results ( of course its possible to get other entries that have mado in their title or someting! ).
Sorry for my lack of good grammar but I try my best to explain the situation as good as possible!
Now for the question! The thing I'm struggeling with is how I loop through a json file to search for these keywords. This is a small portion of the json I receive:
{
"1": {
"track": "Dani California",
"artist": "Red Hot Chili Peppers",
"album": "Stadium Arcadium"
},
"2": {
"track": "Tell me baby",
"artist": "Red Hot Chili Peppers",
"album": "Stadium Arcadium"
},
"3": {
"track": "Snow (Hey Oh)",
"artist": "Red Hot Chili Peppers",
"album": "Stadium Arcadium"
}}
Normally I would create a function that is something like this:
for(var i = 0; i < data.length; i++){
if(data[i].album == 'red hot'){
console.log(data[i].album)
}}
But in this case I want to loop through the json, looking for enties that contain the search value an save it to an object for later usage
Is it possible to do this all at once? So to check the artist/title/album at once, or would it be better to create a small filter?
If something is not clear about my explanation please met me know I tried my best to be as clear as I could be!
I dont think searching 5000 entries should cause performance issues.
Check out this code which should return the desired entries when you call search('text')
var data = JSON.parse('JSON DATA HERE') // dataset
var search_fields = ['track','artist','album'] //key fields to search for in dataset
function search(keyword){
if(keyword.length<1) // skip if input is empty
return
var results = []
for(var i in data){ // iterate through dataset
for(var u=0;u<search_fields.length;u++){ // iterate through each key in dataset
var rel = getRelevance(data[i][search_fields[u]],keyword) // check if there are matches
if(rel==0) // no matches...
continue // ...skip
results.push({relevance:rel,entry:data[i]}) // matches found, add to results and store relevance
}
}
results.sort(compareRelevance) // sort by relevance
for(i=0;i<results.length;i++){
results[i] = results[i].entry // remove relevance since it is no longer needed
}
return results
}
function getRelevance(value,keyword){
value = value.toLowerCase() // lowercase to make search not case sensitive
keyword = keyword.toLowerCase()
var index = value.indexOf(keyword) // index of the keyword
var word_index = value.indexOf(' '+keyword) // index of the keyword if it is not on the first index, but a word
if(index==0) // value starts with keyword (eg. for 'Dani California' -> searched 'Dan')
return 3 // highest relevance
else if(word_index!=-1) // value doesnt start with keyword, but has the same word somewhere else (eg. 'Dani California' -> searched 'Cali')
return 2 // medium relevance
else if(index!=-1) // value contains keyword somewhere (eg. 'Dani California' -> searched 'forn')
return 1 // low relevance
else
return 0 // no matches, no relevance
}
function compareRelevance(a, b) {
return b.relevance - a.relevance
}
Since it's not an array you can't use Array.prototype.filter() unless you turn your object into an array. You could do this every time you get a new Json, no need to do this with every search.
var myArray = [];
for(var elementName in data) //We iterate over the Object to get the names of the nested objects
myArray.push(data[elementName]); //We get the objects of the json and push them inside our array.
Then you can use .filter to filter your data, I recommend using regex:
var userQuery = 'Mado' //user input
var myRegex = new RegExp('.*' + userQuery + '.*','gi'); //We create a new regular expression, this one tests if the text is contained within a string.
var filteredArray = myArray.filter(function(item){
//We test each element of the object to see if one string matches the regexp.
return (myRegex.test(item.track) || myRegex.test(item.artist) || myRegex.test(item.album))
});
filteredArray should be the elements of the json you need.
Array.prototype.filter MDN
RegeExp MDN
Here's a pattern I often use for filter functionalities. Some key points are:
Always build an index property that contains the appended string of the filterable values. For example, if the values of 'track','artist' and 'album' can be filtered on, then join their values into a string, and add that string as one of the properties to the original object.
This helps quickly search using indexOf, rather than having to iterate through each object when filtering. It significantly improves the performance as those iterations and additional number of properties*number of objects comparisons are no longer required. In your case, you'd be saving roughly 10k comparisons and 15k iterations with every filter operation.
If the filter operation is case-insensitive, use toLowerCase while appending the values to build indexes. It also saves you from performing those many toLowerCase operations every time filter is called.
Always create an array of objects, rather than an object with object properties. I don't have specific stats on whether this improves performance or not, but it provides you some array methods such as array.filter or array.sort that you could utilize to improve UX. I haven't done that in the snippet, but you can do that quite easily while preparing the data.
var data = {
"1": {
"track": "Dani California",
"artist": "Red Hot Chili Peppers",
"album": "Stadium Arcadium"
},
"2": {
"track": "Tell me baby",
"artist": "Red Hot Chili Peppers",
"album": "Stadium Arcadium"
},
"3": {
"track": "Snow (Hey Oh)",
"artist": "Red Hot Chili Peppers",
"album": "Stadium Arcadium"
}};
// One time activity!
// Build search indexes, for every object.
for(var prop in data) {
if(data.hasOwnProperty(prop)) {
var index = "";
var item = data[prop];
// Iterate over each object and build the index by appending the values of each property.
for(var attr in item) {
if(item.hasOwnProperty(attr)) {
// Note: Different values are separated by a hash as hash # is unlikely to come into the search query.
index = index + item[attr] + "#";
}
}
// Insert the index property into the object.
// Also notice the toLowerCase that allows for case insenstive searches later on.
item.index = index.toLowerCase();
}
}
console.log("Prepared data:" ,data);
// Filter process.
var key = "Sn";
var keyLowerCase = key.toLowerCase();
// Iterate over the objects and compare the index prpoerty to match with the search string.
var filteredData = [];
for(var prop in data) {
if(data.hasOwnProperty(prop)) {
var item = data[prop];
if(item.index.indexOf(keyLowerCase) >= 0 ){
filteredData.push(item);
}
}
}
console.log("Filtered data:", filteredData);
I'm working with a large dataset that needs to be efficient with its Mongo queries. The application uses the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm to calculate recommendations and runs in polynomial time, so efficiency is extremely important. The syntax is ES6, but everything is basically the same.
This is an approximation of the data I'm working with. An array of items and one item being matched up against the other items:
let items = ["pen", "marker", "crayon", "pencil"];
let match = "sharpie";
Eventually, we will iterate over match and increase the weight of the pairing by 1. So, after going through the function, my ideal data looks like this:
{
sharpie: {
pen: 1,
marker: 1,
crayon: 1,
pencil: 1
}
}
To further elaborate, the value next to each key is the weight of that relationship, which is to say, the number of times those items have been paired together. What I would like to have happen is something like this:
// For each in the items array, check to see if the pairing already
// exists. If it does, increment. If it does not, create it.
_.each(items, function(item, i) {
Database.upsert({ match: { $exist: true }}, { match: { $inc: { item: 1 } } });
})
The problem, of course, is that Mongo does not allow bracket notation, nor does it allow for variable names as keys (match). The other problem, as I've learned, is that Mongo also has problems with deeply nested $inc operators ('The dollar ($) prefixed field \'$inc\' in \'3LhmpJMe9Es6r5HLs.$inc\' is not valid for storage.' }).
Is there anything I can do to make this in as few queries as possible? I'm open to suggestions.
EDIT
I attempted to create objects to pass into the Mongo query:
_.each(items, function(item, i) {
let selector = {};
selector[match] = {};
selector[match][item] = {};
let modifier = {};
modifier[match] = {};
modifier[match]["$inc"] = {};
modifier[match]["$inc"][item] = 1
Database.upsert(selector, modifier);
Unfortunately, it still doesn't work. The $inc breaks the query and it won't let me go more than 1 level deep to change anything.
Solution
This is the function I ended up implementing. It works like a charm! Thanks Matt.
_.each(items, function(item, i) {
let incMod = {$inc:{}};
let matchMod = {$inc:{}};
matchMod.$inc[match] = 1;
incMod.$inc[item] = 1;
Database.upsert({node: item}, matchMod);
Database.upsert({node: match}, incMod);
});
I think the trouble comes from your ER model. a sharpie isn't a standalone entity, a sharpie is an item. The relationship between 1 item and other items is such that 1 item has many items (1:M recursive) and each item-pairing has a weight.
Fully normalized, you'd have an items table & a weights table. The items table would have the items. The weights table would have something like item1, item2, weight (in doing so, you can have asymmetrical weighting, e.g. sharpie:pencil = 1, pencil:sharpie = .5, which is useful when calculating pushback in the FFA, but I don't think that applies in your case.
Great, now let's mongotize it.
When we say 1 item has many items, that "many" is probably not going to exceed a few thousand (think 16MB document cap). That means it's actually 1-to-few, which means we can nest the data, either using subdocs or fields.
So, let's check out that schema!
doc =
{
_id: "sharpie",
crayon: 1,
pencil: 1
}
What do we see? sharpie isn't a key, it's a value. This makes everything easy. We leave the items as fields. The reason we don't use an array of objects is because this is faster & cleaner (no need to iterate over the array to find the matching _id).
var match = "sharpie";
var items = ["pen", "marker", "crayon", "pencil"];
var incMod = {$inc:{}};
var matchMod = {$inc:{}};
matchMod.$inc[match] = 1;
for (var i = 0; i < items.length; i++) {
Collection.upsert({_id: items[i]}, matchMod);
incMod.$inc[items[i]] = 1;
}
Collection.upsert({_id: match}, incMod);
That's the easy part. The hard part is figuring out why you want to use an FFA for a suggestion engine :-P.
I've got a simple array that I'd like to reorder. This array could contain just numbers, or just words, or a combination like when describing currency. The following code works beautifully if it's either words or just numbers but doesn't order the currency the way a human would expect. It orders currency lexicographically ($100 is before $3), whereas I'd like to order it by number ignoring any other characters in the value.
howmuchdata = ["$85", "88 dollars", "$9.35", "$95", "96", "126", "5.95", "$36", "€124"];
howmuchdata = howmuchdata.sort();
howmuchdata = howmuchdata.sort(function(a,b){return a-b});
console.log(howmuchdata);
Is it just a matter of removing everything but the number, sorting based on the number left behind and adding whatever else was removed back in? Whatever is removed and put back may be different for each value too, so I can't just blanket take it out and put it back, it has to be done on a per value basis. I'd like the array returned as such:
howmuchdata = ["5.95", "$9.35", "$36", "$85", "88 dollars", "$95", "96", "€124", "126"];
Thanks very much for your help!
you can use RegEx in the sorting callback, just like that:
howmuchdata = ["$85", "88 dollars", "$9.35", "$95", "96", "126", "5.95", "$36", "€124"];
howmuchdata = howmuchdata.sort();
howmuchdata = howmuchdata.sort(function(a,b){
a = parseFloat(a.replace(/[^\d\.]/,''));
b = parseFloat(b.replace(/[^\d\.]/,''));
return a-b;
});
console.log(howmuchdata);
Good luck!
First off, you are sorting twice.
Second, sort sorts your array in-place. You don't need to "assign" its result to another variable again.
Third: you want to sort numeric data; but you feed it strings. So you need to somehow convert the string data to numerics.
Try this (untested):
howmuchdata.sort(function(a,b){return Number(a.match(/\d+(\.\d*)?/)) - Number(b.match(/\d+(\.\d*)?/)) } );
There are millions of ways how to define "order" on your Array of Strings. But there aren't millions of sort functions in Javascript.
I recommend to do it in 3 steps:
Convert your array into some more usual form, e.g. numbers (for-loop and parse).
Use standard Array.sort to sort your numbers.
Transform the sorted Array of numbers back to previous format (you can store information about pairs String-Number before sorting and use it at the end).
In those cases I use the following sort function:
function sort(arr, f, isNum) {
var l = arr.length;
for(var i=0; i<l; ++i)
arr[i] = [f(arr[i]), arr[i]];
arr.sort(isNum
? function(a,b){ return a[0]-b[0]; }
: function(a,b){ return a[0]<b[0] ? -1 : a[0]>b[0] ? 1 : 0; }
);
for(var i=0; i<l; ++i)
arr[i] = arr[i][1];
return arr;
}
Use it like this:
sort(howmuchdata, function(i){ return i.match(/[\d.]+/)[0]; }, true);
/* or */
sort(howmuchdata, function(i){ return +i.match(/[\d.]+/)[0]; });
In ES6 it will be better:
sort(howmuchdata, i => +i.match(/[\d.]+/)[0]);
I'm using Backbone.js/Underscore.js to render a HTML table which filters as you type into a textbox. In this case it's a basic telephone directory.
The content for the table comes from a Collection populated by a JSON file.
A basic example of the JSON file is below:
[{
"Name":"Sales and Services",
"Department":"Small Business",
"Extension":"45446",
},
{
"Name":"Technical Support",
"Department":"Small Business",
"Extension":"18800",
},
{
"Name":"Research and Development",
"Department":"Mid Market",
"Extension":"75752",
}]
I convert the text box value to lower case and then pass it's value along with the Collection to this function, I then assign the returned value to a new Collection and use that to re-render the page.
filterTable = function(collection, filterValue) {
var filteredCollection;
if (filterValue === "") {
return collection.toJSON();
}
return filteredCollection = collection.filter(function(data) {
return _.some(_.values(data.toJSON()), function(value) {
value = (!isNaN(value) ? value.toString() : value.toLowerCase());
return value.indexOf(filterValue) >= 0;
});
});
};
The trouble is that the function is literal. To find the "Sales and Services" department from my example I'd have to type exactly that, or maybe just "Sales" or "Services". I couldn't type "sal serv" and still find it which is what I want to be able to do.
I've already written some javascript that seems pretty reliable at dividing up the text into an array of Words (now updated to code in use).
toWords = function(text) {
text = text.toLowerCase();
text = text.replace(/[^A-Za-z_0-9#.]/g, ' ');
text = text.replace(/[\s]+/g, ' ').replace(/\s\s*$/, '');
text = text.split(new RegExp("\\s+"));
var newsplit = [];
for (var index in text) {
if (text[index]) {
newsplit.push(text[index]);
};
};
text = newsplit;
return text;
};
I want to loop through each word in the "split" array and check to see if each word exists in one of the key/values. As long as all words exist then it would pass the truth iterator and get added to the Collection and rendered in the table.
So in my example if I typed "sal serv" it would find that both of those strings exist within the Name of the first item and it would be returned.
However if I typed "sales business" this would not be returned as although both the values do appear in that item, the same two words do not exist in the Name section.
I'm just not sure how to write this in Backbone/Underscore, or even if this is the best way to do it. I looked at the documentation and wasn't sure what function would be easiest.
I hope this makes sense. I'm a little new to Javascript and I realise I've dived into the deep-end but learning is the fun part ;-)
I can provide more code or maybe a JSFiddle if needed.
Using underscore's any and all make this relatively easy. Here's the gist of it:
var toWords = function(text) {
//Do any fancy cleanup and split to words
//I'm just doing a simple split by spaces.
return text.toLowerCase().split(/\s+/);
};
var partialMatch = function(original, fragment) {
//get the words of each input string
var origWords = toWords(original + ""), //force to string
fragWords = toWords(fragment);
//if all words in the fragment match any of the original words,
//returns true, otherwise false
return _.all(fragWords, function(frag) {
return _.any(origWords, function(orig) {
return orig && orig.indexOf(frag) >= 0;
});
});
};
//here's your original filterTable function slightly simplified
var filterTable = function(collection, filterValue) {
if (filterValue === "") {
return collection.toJSON();
}
return collection.filter(function(data) {
return _.some(_.values(data.toJSON()), function(value) {
return partialMatch(value, filterValue);
});
});
};
Note: This method is computationally pretty inefficient, as it involves first looping over all the items in the collection, then all the fields of each item, then all words in that item value. In addition there are a few nested functions declared inside loops, so the memory footprint is not optimal. If you have a small set of data, that should be OK, but if needed, there's a number of optimizations that can be done. I might come back later and edit this a bit, if I have time.
/code samples not tested
All of the MongoDB MapReduce examples I have seen have dealt with counting/adding numbers. I need to combine strings, and it looks like MapReduce is the best tool for the job. I have a large MongoDB collection in this format:
{name: userone, type: typeone}
{name: usertwo, type: typetwo}
{name: userthree, type: typeone}
Each name only has one type, but names are not necessarily unique. I want to end up with a collection that lists all names for a particular type, either in a comma separated list or an array, like this:
{type: typeone, names: userone, usertwo}
{type: typetwo, names: userthree}
I was trying to use MapReduce to accomplish this. My function works correctly when there is only one user for a type. However, when there is more than one user, 'undefined' is stored in the names field.
I'm not very good at Javascript, and I'm still learning MongoDB so it's probably a simple data type or scope error.
Here are my map and reduce functions. What's wrong with them?
map = function() {
emit(this.user,{type:this.type});
}
reduce = function(key, values) {
var all="";
for(var i in values) {
all+=values[i]['type']+",";
}
return all;
}
It looks to me like you're trying to do a group-by via type. If so, you should be emitting type first. From there, its pretty much the same as your code, but I took the liberty of cleaning it up a bit.
Beware, the reduce function could get called multiple times on smaller groups. Therefore, if you used your code in a sharded environment, you may get extra trailing commas. See Reduce Function for more information.
Map:
m = function(){ emit(this.type, {names:this.name}); }
Reduce:
r = function(key, values){
var all = [];
values.forEach(function(x){
all.push(x.names)
})
return {"names": all.join(", ")};
}
Usage:
res = db.users.mapReduce(m,r); db[res.result].find()
Alternate:
Per OP request, here is a version that returns an array for names instead of a comma separated list string:
m = function () {
emit(this.type, {names:this.name});
}
r = function (key, values) {
var all = [];
values.forEach(function (x) {all.push(x.names);});
return {type:key, names:all};
}
f = function (w, r) {
r.names = r.names[0];
return r
}
res = db.users.mapReduce(m,r, {finalize:f}); db[res.result].find()
Cheers!