How does one get the key from a table value using the index, like this;
local myTable = {
Mary = 1000,
Bob = 2000,
Fred = 3000}
local keyAtIndex1 = myTable[1] ??? --- should return "Mary"
local keyAtIndexTwo = myTable[2] ??? --- should return "Bob"
Is there a pre-built method or property?
I am currently doing this;
function tableGetKeyFromValue(_table, _value)
for k,v in pairs(_table) do
if v==_value then return k end
end
return nil
end
Is there a better way?
Keys in Lua tables do not have indices; they are indices. Keys in Lua tables are not ordered, so you cannot fetch them by some ordering.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism to fetch keys by their value. The map only goes one way: from keys to values. If you want to have a mapping from values to keys, you can build a separate table that stores that mapping easily enough.
However, nothing will exist to keep these two tables in sync with one another. That's fine if the table is more-or-less static.
Related
Example:
mytable = {{id=100,wordform="One Hundread"},{id=200,wordform="Two Hundread"}}
I want to be able to access the row based on the id to do something like this:
mynum = 100
print ("The value is " .. mytable[mynum].wordform)
The main point here is I want to be able to set the index value so I can predictably retrieve the associated value later as I might do with a java hashmap.
Ideally your table should just use the ID as key:
local mytable = {[100] = {wordform = "One hundred"}, [200] = {wordform = "Two hundred"}}
print("The value is " .. mytable[100].wordform)
If your table is in list form, you can convert it to ID form rather easily:
local mytable_by_id = {}
for _, item in pairs(mytable) do mytable_by_id[item.id] = item end
Using the hash part of a Lua table is definitely preferable over looping over the list entries in linear time as Renshaw's answer suggests (the fact that it's hidden behind a metatable may hide the poor performance and trick the reader into believing a hash indexing operation is taking place here though).
Furthermore, that answer won't even work correctly, as the list part uses integer keys as well; IDs that are valid list part indices would possibly return the wrong element. You'd have to use a function instead of a metatable.
you can use metatable
setmetatable(mytable, {__index = function(tbl, id)
for _, item in pairs(tbl) do
if type(item) == "table" and item.id == id then
return item
end
end
end})
then
mynum = 100
print ("The value is " .. mytable[mynum].wordform) -- The value is One Hundread
I have a key => value table I'd like to sort in Lua. The keys are all integers, but aren't consecutive (and have meaning). Lua's only sort function appears to be table.sort, which treats tables as simple arrays, discarding the original keys and their association with particular items. Instead, I'd essentially like to be able to use PHP's asort() function.
What I have:
items = {
[1004] = "foo",
[1234] = "bar",
[3188] = "baz",
[7007] = "quux",
}
What I want after the sort operation:
items = {
[1234] = "bar",
[3188] = "baz",
[1004] = "foo",
[7007] = "quux",
}
Any ideas?
Edit: Based on answers, I'm going to assume that it's simply an odd quirk of the particular embedded Lua interpreter I'm working with, but in all of my tests, pairs() always returns table items in the order in which they were added to the table. (i.e. the two above declarations would iterate differently).
Unfortunately, because that isn't normal behavior, it looks like I can't get what I need; Lua doesn't have the necessary tools built-in (of course) and the embedded environment is too limited for me to work around it.
Still, thanks for your help, all!
You seem to misunderstand something. What you have here is a associative array. Associative arrays have no explicit order on them, e.g. it's only the internal representation (usually sorted) that orders them.
In short -- in Lua, both of the arrays you posted are the same.
What you would want instead, is such a representation:
items = {
{1004, "foo"},
{1234, "bar"},
{3188, "baz"},
{7007, "quux"},
}
While you can't get them by index now (they are indexed 1, 2, 3, 4, but you can create another index array), you can sort them using table.sort.
A sorting function would be then:
function compare(a,b)
return a[1] < b[1]
end
table.sort(items, compare)
As Komel said, you're dealing with associative arrays, which have no guaranteed ordering.
If you want key ordering based on its associated value while also preserving associative array functionality, you can do something like this:
function getKeysSortedByValue(tbl, sortFunction)
local keys = {}
for key in pairs(tbl) do
table.insert(keys, key)
end
table.sort(keys, function(a, b)
return sortFunction(tbl[a], tbl[b])
end)
return keys
end
items = {
[1004] = "foo",
[1234] = "bar",
[3188] = "baz",
[7007] = "quux",
}
local sortedKeys = getKeysSortedByValue(items, function(a, b) return a < b end)
sortedKeys is {1234,3188,1004,7007}, and you can access your data like so:
for _, key in ipairs(sortedKeys) do
print(key, items[key])
end
result:
1234 bar
3188 baz
1004 foo
7007 quux
hmm, missed the part about not being able to control the iteration. there
But in lua there is usually always a way.
http://lua-users.org/wiki/OrderedAssociativeTable
Thats a start. Now you would need to replace the pairs() that the library uses. That could be a simples as pairs=my_pairs. You could then use the solution in the link above
PHP arrays are different from Lua tables.
A PHP array may have an ordered list of key-value pairs.
A Lua table always contains an unordered set of key-value pairs.
A Lua table acts as an array when a programmer chooses to use integers 1, 2, 3, ... as keys. The language syntax and standard library functions, like table.sort offer special support for tables with consecutive-integer keys.
So, if you want to emulate a PHP array, you'll have to represent it using list of key-value pairs, which is really a table of tables, but it's more helpful to think of it as a list of key-value pairs. Pass a custom "less-than" function to table.sort and you'll be all set.
N.B. Lua allows you to mix consecutive-integer keys with any other kinds of keys in the same table—and the representation is efficient. I use this feature sometimes, usually to tag an array with a few pieces of metadata.
Coming to this a few months later, with the same query. The recommended answer seemed to pinpoint the gap between what was required and how this looks in LUA, but it didn't get me what I was after exactly :- which was a Hash sorted by Key.
The first three functions on this page DID however : http://lua-users.org/wiki/SortedIteration
I did a brief bit of Lua coding a couple of years ago but I'm no longer fluent in it.
When faced with a similar problem, I copied my array to another array with keys and values reversed, then used sort on the new array.
I wasn't aware of a possibility to sort the array using the method Kornel Kisielewicz recommends.
The proposed compare function works but only if the values in the first column are unique.
Here is a bit enhanced compare function to ensure, if the values of a actual column equals, it takes values from next column to evaluate...
With {1234, "baam"} < {1234, "bar"} to be true the items the array containing "baam" will be inserted before the array containing the "bar".
local items = {
{1004, "foo"},
{1234, "bar"},
{1234, "baam"},
{3188, "baz"},
{7007, "quux"},
}
local function compare(a, b)
for inx = 1, #a do
-- print("A " .. inx .. " " .. a[inx])
-- print("B " .. inx .. " " .. b[inx])
if a[inx] == b[inx] and a[inx + 1] < b[inx + 1] then
return true
elseif a[inx] ~= b[inx] and a[inx] < b[inx] == true then
return true
else
return false
end
end
return false
end
table.sort(items,compare)
Reading the injected comments in the Code Snippet should give enough context.
--| Table |--
QuestData = {
["QuestName"]={
["Quest Descrip"]={8,1686192712},
["Quest Descrip"]={32,1686193248},
["Quest Descrip"]={0,2965579272},
},
}
--| Code Snippet |--
--| gets QuestName then does below |--
if QuestName then
-- (K = QuestName) and (V = the 3 entries below it in the table)
for k,v in pairs(QuestData) do
-- Checks to make sure the external function that obtained the QuestName matches what is in the table before cont
if strlower(k) == strlower(QuestName) then
local index = 0
-- Iterates over the first two pairs - Quest Descrip key and values
for kk,vv in pairs(v) do
index = index + 1
end
-- Iterates over the second two pairs of values
if index == 1 then
for kk,vv in pairs(v) do
-- Sends the 10 digit hash number to the function
Quest:Function(vv[2])
end
end
end
end
end
The issue I'm running into is that Lua will only pick up one of the numbers and ignore the rest. I need all the possible hash numbers regardless of duplicates. The QuestData table ("database") has well over 10,000 entries. I'm not going to go through all of them and remove the duplicates. Besides, the duplicates are there because the same quest can be picked up in more than one location in the game. It's not a duplicate quest but it has a different hash number.
Key is always unique. It is the point of the key, that the key is pointing to unique value and you can't have more keys with same name to point different values. It is by definition by Lua tables.
It is like if you would want to have two variables with same name and different content. It does not make sense ...
The table type implements associative arrays. [...]
Like global variables, table fields evaluate to nil if they are not initialized. Also like global variables, you can assign nil to a table field to delete it. That is not a coincidence: Lua stores global variables in ordinary tables.
Quote from Lua Tables
Hashing in Lua
Based on comments, I update the answer to give some idea about hashing.
You are using hashing usually in low-level languages like C. In Lua, the associative arrays are already hashed somehow in the background, so it will be overkill (especially using SHA or so).
Instead of linked lists commonly used in C, you should just construct more levels of tables to handle collisions (there is nothing "better" in Lua).
And if you want to have it fancy set up some metatables to make it somehow transparent. But from your question, it is really not clear how your data look like and what you really want.
Basically you don't need more than this:
QuestData = {
["QuestName"]={
["Quest Descrip"]={
{8,1686192712},
{32,1686193248},
{0,2965579272},
},
},
}
As Jakuje already mentioned table keys are unique.
But you can store both as a table member like:
QuestData = {
-- "QuestName" must be unique! Of course you can put it into a table member as well
["QuestName"]={
{hash = "Quest Descrip", values = {8,1686192712} },
{hash = "Quest Descrip", values = {32,1686193248} },
{hash = "Quest Descrip", values = {0,2965579272} }
}
}
I'm sure you can organize this in a better way. It looks like a rather confusing concept to me.
You've said you can't "rewrite the database", but the problem is the QuestData table doesn't hold what you think it holds.
Here's your table:
QuestData = {
["QuestName"]={
["Quest Descrip"]={8,1686192712},
["Quest Descrip"]={32,1686193248},
["Quest Descrip"]={0,2965579272},
},
}
But, this is actually like writing...
QuestData["Quest Descrip"] = {8,1686192712}
QuestData["Quest Descrip"] = {32,1686193248}
QuestData["Quest Descrip"] = {0,2965579272}
So the second (and then, third) values overwrite the first. The problem is not that you can't access the table, but that the table doesn't contain the values any more.
You need to find a different way of representing your data.
In the past I found myself using a table as index and value of
a table when the order was irrelevant.
Since every table returns a unique value they are save to use as
index and with that I already got all the information I want to
use later on in the program. Now I did not see any similar lua code
jet and didn't use it in a non test-program. So I'm worrying that I
might get some unforeseen/unexpected problems when using this method.
example:
a = {1,2,3,4,5} --some testing values
b = {2,nil,4,nil,1}
c = {3,nil,nil,nil,2}
d = {4,nil,1,nil,3}
e = {5,1,2,3,4}
tab = {a,b,c,d,e}
t = {}
for i, v in pairs(tab) do
t[v] = 0
end
for iv in pairs(t) do --is almost every time outputting it in a different order
print(iv[1],iv[2],iv[3],iv[4],iv[5]) --could be a list of data where you have to go through all of it anyway
end
io.read()
Now I can store some additional information in t[v] but if I don't have
any is there maybe some lua-type that is smaller?
Edit:
Does this go well with the use of weak-tables?
Note:
Standard 2d table: table[key1] = table
table[key1][key2] <-- contains stuff
this version: table[table] = anything but nil <-- not accessible over table[key1][key2]
key1[key2] <-- contains stuff
It's fine to use a table as a key in another table.
However, note that different tables will be different keys, even of the tables have the same contents.
Is there a method for checking if a table contains a value ? I have my own (naive) function, but I was wondering if something "official" exists for that ? Or something more efficient...
function table.contains(table, element)
for _, value in pairs(table) do
if value == element then
return true
end
end
return false
end
By the way, the main reason I'm using this functions is to use tables as sets, ie with no duplicate elements. Is there something else I could use ?
You can put the values as the table's keys. For example:
function addToSet(set, key)
set[key] = true
end
function removeFromSet(set, key)
set[key] = nil
end
function setContains(set, key)
return set[key] ~= nil
end
There's a more fully-featured example here.
Given your representation, your function is as efficient as can be done. Of course, as noted by others (and as practiced in languages older than Lua), the solution to your real problem is to change representation. When you have tables and you want sets, you turn tables into sets by using the set element as the key and true as the value. +1 to interjay.
I know this is an old post, but I wanted to add something for posterity.
The simple way of handling the issue that you have is to make another table, of value to key.
ie. you have 2 tables that have the same value, one pointing one direction, one pointing the other.
function addValue(key, value)
if (value == nil) then
removeKey(key)
return
end
_primaryTable[key] = value
_secodaryTable[value] = key
end
function removeKey(key)
local value = _primaryTable[key]
if (value == nil) then
return
end
_primaryTable[key] = nil
_secondaryTable[value] = nil
end
function getValue(key)
return _primaryTable[key]
end
function containsValue(value)
return _secondaryTable[value] ~= nil
end
You can then query the new table to see if it has the key 'element'. This prevents the need to iterate through every value of the other table.
If it turns out that you can't actually use the 'element' as a key, because it's not a string for example, then add a checksum or tostring on it for example, and then use that as the key.
Why do you want to do this? If your tables are very large, the amount of time to iterate through every element will be significant, preventing you from doing it very often. The additional memory overhead will be relatively small, as it will be storing 2 pointers to the same object, rather than 2 copies of the same object.
If your tables are very small, then it will matter much less, infact it may even be faster to iterate than to have another map lookup.
The wording of the question however strongly suggests that you have a large number of items to deal with.
I can't think of another way to compare values, but if you use the element of the set as the key, you can set the value to anything other than nil. Then you get fast lookups without having to search the entire table.
-- in some helper module
function utils_Set(list)
local set = {}
for _, l in ipairs(list) do set[l] = true end
return set
end
-- your table here
long_table = { "v1", "v2", "v1000"}
-- Consult some value
_set = utils_Set(long_table)
if _set["v1"] then print("yes!") end