Firebase Database sorts results lexicographically, and I have found no way to preserve this sort in Dart.
How would one sort lexicographically in Dart, or preserve the order provided by Firebase Database?
Take a look here: Sort List by alphabetical order
List<String> input = ["b", "a", "c", "aa"];
print(input.toString());
input.sort((a, b) {
return a.toLowerCase().compareTo(b.toLowerCase());
});
print(input.toString()); // [a, aa, b, c]
Related
I am browsing through the ruby Array iterators. And I can't find what I am looking for and I think it already exists:
I have two arrays:
["a", "b", "c"]
[0,1,2]
And I want to merge as so:
[ [0, "a"], [1, "b"], [2, "c"] ]
I think the iterator exists in the standard library (I used it before) but I am having trouble finding its name.
This should work:
[0,1,2].zip(["a", "b", "c"]) # => [[0, "a"], [1, "b"], [2, "c"]]
From the official documentation of the Array#zip function:
Converts any arguments to arrays, then merges elements of self with corresponding elements from each argument.
This generates a sequence of ary.size n-element arrays, where n is one more than the count of arguments.
For more info and some other examples, refer to:
https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.4.2/Array.html#method-i-zip
You are looking for the zip function
https://apidock.com/ruby/Array/zip
I think you could use https://apidock.com/ruby/Enumerator/each_with_index
See this post difference between each.with_index and each_with_index in Ruby?
or if you have specific values and you want to map them you would use map or zip. It explains it well in this post
Combine two Arrays into Hash
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)
I have a full set of items - ["A", "B", "C", "D", "E"] and for a certain entity I need to select only e subset of those. I keep this information as array for each entity items = ["A", "C", "D"].
Each item is a column in a table. What I want is by using the array to select only those columns which are in the array for the given entity.
For example if I have
object.items = ["A", "C", "D"]
I want to have this SQL query executed
SELECT A, C, D FROM table WHERE...
But I need this done with ActiveRecords. So something like:
Entity.select(columns: items)..
Of course this is just a pseudocode. I don't know how to actually do it with AR, but I think that there is a good chance to have something build in which allows to perform such a select?
You can do as below,
Entity.select(*items)
As below,
array = ['id', 'client_name']
Event.select(*array)
Event Load (1.6ms) SELECT `events`.`id`, `events`.`client_name` FROM `events`
You can do this
Entity.select(items.map(&:to_sym))
But make sure items get all correct column names.
I want to use the FOREACH like:
a:{a_attr:chararray}
b:{b_attr:int}
FOREACH a {
res = CROSS a, b;
-- some processing
GENERATE res;
}
By this I mean to make for each element of a a cross-product with all the elements of b, then perform some custom filtering and return tuples.
==EDIT==
Custom filetering = res_filtered = FILTER res BY ...;
GENERATE res_filtered.
==EDIT-2==
How to do it with a nested CROSS no more no less inside a FOR loop without prior GROUP or COGROUP?
Depending on the specifics of your filtering, you may be able to design a limited set of disjoint classes of elements in a and b, and then JOIN on those. For example:
If your filtering rules are
if a_attr starts with "Foo" and b is 4, accept
if a_attr starts with "Bar" and b is greater than 17, accept
if a_attr begins with a letter in [m-z] and b is less than 0, accept
otherwise, reject
Then you can write a UDF that will return 1 for items satisfying the first rule, 2 for the second, 3 for the third, and NULL otherwise. Your CROSS/FILTER then becomes
res = JOIN a BY myUDF(a), b BY myUDF(b);
Pig drops null values in JOINs, so only pairs satisfying your filtering criteria will be passed.
CROSS generates a cross-product of all the tuples in each relation. So there is no need to have a nested FOREACH. Just do the CROSS and then FILTER:
a: {a_attr: chararray}
b: {b_attr: int}
crossed = CROSS a, b;
crossed: {a::a_attr: chararray,b::b_attr: int}
res = FILTER crossed BY ... -- your custom filtering
If you have the FILTER immediately after the CROSS, you should not have (unnecessary) excessive IO trouble from the CROSS writing the entire cross-product to disk before filtering. Records that get filtered will never be written at all.
I have a nested array in Ruby:
array = [["a", "b"], ["c", "d"]]
What command can I use to remove the nested array that contains "a" from the array?
Thanks for any help.
array.delete_if{|ary| ary.kind_of?(Array) and ary.include?('a') }
Deletes all arrays which include "a"
Do you specifically want to remove ["a", "b"], knowing that's exactly what it is, or do you want to remove any and all arrays that contain "a", no matter their remaining values? It's not clear whether you meant 'the nested array that contains "a"' as part of the problem specification, or just a way of indicating which of the elements in your specific example you wanted the answer to target.
For the first one, you can use DigitalRoss's answer.
For the second, you can use Huluk's, but it's overly specific in another way; I would avoid the kind_of? Array test. If you know the elements are all arrays, then just assume it and move on, relying on exceptions to catch any, well, exceptions:
array.delete_if { |sub| sub.include? 'a' }
If you do need to test, I would use duck-typing instead of an explicit class check:
array.delete_if { |item| item.respond_to? :include? and item.include? 'a' }
> [["a", "b"], ["c", "d"]] - [["a", "b"]]
=> [["c", "d"]]
If you don't already have a handle on the element other than knowing it contains an "a", you can do:
array - [array.find { |x| x.include? "a" }]
Try this:
array.delete_if { |x| x.include? "a" }