So, a table constructor has two components, list-like and record-like. Do list-like entries always take precedence over record-like ones? I mean, consider the following scenario:
a = {[1]=1, [2]=2, 3}
print(a[1]) -- 3
a = {1, [2]=2, [1]=3}
print(a[1]) -- 1
Is the index 1 always associated with the first list-like entry, 2 with the second, and so on? Or is there something else?
There are two types of tables in Lua, arrays and dictionaries, these are what you call "lists" and "records". An array, contains values in an order, this gives you a few advantages, like faster iteration or inserting/removing values. Dictionaries work like a giant lookup table, it has no order, it's advantages are how you can use any value as a key, and you are not as restricted.
When you construct a table, you have 2 syntaxes, you can seperate the values with commas, e.g. {2,4,6,8} thereby creating an array with keys 1 through n, or you can define key-value pairs, e.g. {[1]=2,[58]=4,[368]=6,[48983]=8} creating a dictionary, you can often mix these syntaxes and you won't run into any problems, but this is not the case in your scenario.
What you are doing is defining the same key twice during the table's initial construction. This is most generally impractical and as such hasn't really had any serious thought put into it during the language's development. This means that what happens is essentially unspecified behaviour. It is not completely understood what effect this will have, and may be inconsistent across different platforms or implementations.
As such, you should not use this in any commercial projects, or any code you'll be sharing with other people. When in doubt, construct an empty table and define the key-value pairs afterward.
Related
I'm writing a replay module for a game. The whole logic is written with lua. I hope just record the inputs from player and hope the same result will be calculated with the same inputs. I wonder if the order is fixed when iterate the 'same' lua table with 'pairs' at any time any machine. Or it's depend on the key type of the table, say is the table with the table keys OK?
Nope. There is no guarantee on the order of pairs. Use an array (table with sequential integer keys) and ipairs if you need to guarantee a specific order.
If you're concerned about replays, it shouldn't matter as long as the behavior doesn't change with the order of the items.
Is there any way to add parameters in tuple after initialisation?
Like :
var tupleX = ("Hi", "Rachit")
Now I want to add a parameter to tuple after which tupleX will have 3 or more parameters
Is it possible?
No. A tuple has a set number of elements. You may want to use an Array or some other class instead.
The difference between a tuple and a list (or other collections) is precisely the fixed amount of elements it contains.
From a type system perspective (1, 2) and (1, 2, 3) are of two distinct types, so of course you cannot alter the number of elements since you would be changing the type.
It's probably also important to notice that, as explained here,
Tuples are useful for temporary groups of related values. They are not suited to the creation of complex data structures. If your data structure is likely to persist beyond a temporary scope, model it as a class or structure, rather than as a tuple.
So if you need to alter a tuple overtime, you probably don't want to use a tuple, but rather a class, a struct or even a dictionary.
Mnesia has four methods of reading from database: read, match_object, select, qlc. Besides their dirty counterparts of course. Each of them is more expressive than previous ones.
Which of them use indices?
Given the query in one of this methods will the same queries in more expressive methods be less efficient by time/memory usage? How much?
UPD.
As I GIVE CRAP ANSWERS mentioned, read is just a key-value lookup, but after a while of exploration I found also functions index_read and index_write, which work in the same manner but use indices instead of primary key.
One at a time, though from memory:
read always uses a Key-lookup on the keypos. It is basically the key-value lookup.
match_object and select will optimize the query if it can on the keypos key. That is, it only uses that key for optimization. It never utilizes further index types.
qlc has a query-compiler and will attempt to use additional indexes if possible, but it all depends on the query planner and if it triggers. erl -man qlc has the details and you can ask it to output its plan.
Mnesia tables are basically key-value maps from terms to terms. Usually, this means that if the key part is something the query can latch onto and use, then it is used. Otherwise, you will be looking at a full-table scan. This may be expensive, but do note that the scan is in-memory and thus usually fairly fast.
Also, take note of the table type: set is a hash-table and can't utilize a partial key match. ordered_set is a tree and can do a partial match:
Example - if we have a key {Id, Timestamp}, querying on {Id, '_'} as the key is reasonably fast on an ordered_set because the lexicographic ordering means we can utilize the tree for a fast walk. This is equivalent of specifying a composite INDEX/PRIMARY KEY in a traditional RDBMS.
If you can arrange data such that you can do simple queries without additional indexes, then that representation is preferred. Also note that additional indexes are implemented as bags, so if you have many matches for an index, then it is very inefficient. In other words, you should probably not index on a position in the tuples where there are few distinct values. It is better to index on things with many different (mostly) distinct values, like an e-mail address for a user-column for instance.
I'm simply curious as lately I have been seeing the use of Hashmaps in Java and wonder if Delphi's Sorted String list is similar at all.
Does the TStringList object generate a Hash to use as an index for each item? And how does the search string get checked against the list of strings via the Find function?
I make use of Sorted TStringLists very often and I would just like to understand what is going on a little bit more.
Please assume I don't know how a hash map works, because I don't :)
Thanks
I'm interpreting this question, quite generally, as a request for an overview of lists and dictionaries.
A list, as almost everyone knows, is a container that is indexed by contiguous integers.
A hash map, dictionary or associative array is a container whose index can be of any type. Very commonly, a dictionary is indexed with strings.
For sake of argument let us call our lists L and our dictionaries D.
Lists have true random access. An item can be looked-up in constant time if you know its index. This is not the case for dictionaries and they usually resort to hash-based algorithms to achieve efficient random access.
A sorted list can perform binary search when you attempt to find a value. Finding a value, V, is the act of obtaining the index, I, such that L[I]=V. Binary search is very efficient. If the list is not sorted then it must perform linear search which is much less efficient. A sorted list can use insertion sort to maintain the order of the list – when a new item is added, it is inserted at the correct location.
You can think of a dictionary as a list of <Key,Value> pairs. You can iterate over all pairs, but more commonly you use index notation to look-up a value for a given key: D[Key]. Note that this is not the same operation as finding a value in a list – it is the analogue of reading L[I] when you know the index I.
In older versions of Delphi it was common to coax dictionary behaviour out of string lists. The performance was terrible. There was little flexibility in the contents.
With modern Delphi, there is TDictionary, a generic class that can hold anything. The implementation uses a hash and although I have not personally tested its performance I understand it to be respectable.
There are commonly used algorithms that optimally use all of these containers: unsorted lists, sorted lists, dictionaries. You just need to use the right one for the problem at hand.
TStringList holds the strings in an array.
If you call Sort on an otherwise unsorted (Sorted property = false) string list then a QuickSort is performed to sort the items.
The same happens if you set Sorted to true.
If you call Find (or IndexOf which calls find) on an unsorted string list (Sorted property = false, even if you explicitly called Sort the list is considered unsorted if the Sorted property isn't true) then a linear search is performed comparing all strings from the start till a match is found.
If you call Find on a sorted string list (Sorted property = true) then a binary search is performed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_search for details).
If you add a string to a sorted string list, a binary search is performed to determine the correct insertion position, all following elements in the array are shifted by one and the new string is inserted.
Because of this insertion performance gets a lot worse the larger the string list is. If you want to insert a large number of entries into a sorted string list, it's usually better to turn sorting off, insert the strings, then set Sorted back to true which performs a quick sort.
The disadvantage of that approach is that you will not be able to prevent the insertion of duplicates.
EDIT: If you want a hash map, use TDictionary from unit Generics.Collections
You could look at the source code, since that comes with Delphi. Ctrl-Click on the "sort" call in your code.
It's a simple alphabetical sort in non-Unicode Delphi, and a slightly more complex Unicode one in later versions. You can supply your own comparison for custom sort orders. Unfortunately I don't have a recent version of Delphi so can't confirm, but I expect that under the hood there's a proper Unicode-aware and locale-aware string comparison routine. Unicode sorting/string comparison is not trivial and a little web searching will point out some of the pitfalls.
Supplying your own comparison routine is often done when you have delimited text in the strings or objects attached to them (the Objects property). In those cases you often wat to sort by a property of the object or something other than the first field in the string. Or it might be as simple as wanting a numerical sort on the strings (so "2" comes after "1" rather than after "19")
There is also a THashedStringList, which could be an option (especially in older Delphi versions).
BTW, the Unicode sort routines for TStringList are quite slow. If you override the TStringList.CompareStrings method then if the strings only contain Ansi characters (which if you use English exclusively they will), you can use customised Ansi string comparisons. I use my own customised TStringList class that does this and it is 4 times faster than the TStringList class for a sorted list for both reading and writing strings from/to the list.
Delphi's dictionary type (in generics-enabled versions of Delphi) is the closest thing to a hashmap, that ships with Delphi. THashedStringList makes lookups faster than they would be in a sorted string list. you can do lookups using a binary search in a sorted stringlist, so it's faster than brute force searches, but not as fast as a hash.
The general theory of a hash is that it is unordered, but very fast on lookup and insertion. A sorted list is reasonably fast on insertion until the size of the list gets large, although it's not as efficient as a dictionary for insertion.
The big benefit of a list is that it is ordered but a hash-lookup dictionary is not.
Is the best way to sort an array in Delphi is "alphanumeric".
I found this comment in an old code of my application
" The elements of this array must be in ascending, alphanumeric
sort order."
If so ,what copuld be the reason?
-Vas
There's no "best" way as to how to sort the elements of an array (or any collection for that fact). Sort is a humanized characteristic (things are not usually sorted) so I'm guessing the comment has more to do with what your program is expecting.
More concretely, there's probably other section of code elsewhere that expect the array elements to be sorted alphanumerically. It can be something so simple as displaying it into a TreeView already ordered so that the calling code doesn't have to sort the array first.
Arrays are represented as a contiguous memory assignment so that access is fast. Internally the compiler just does a call to GetMem asking for SizeOf(Type) * array size. There's nothing in the way the elements are sorted that affects the performance or memory size of the arrays in general. It MUST be in the program logic.
Most often an array is sorted to provide faster search times. Given a list of length L, I can compare with the midpoint (L DIV 2) and quickly determine if I need to look at the greater half, or the lesser half, and recursively continue using this pattern until I either have nothing to divide by or have found my match. This is what is called a Binary search. If the list is NOT sorted, then this type of operation is not available and instead I must inspect every item in the list until I reach the end.
No, there is no "best way" of sorting. And that's one of the reasons why you have multiple sorting techniques out there.
With QuickSort, you even provide the comparison function where you determine what order you ultimately want.
Sorting an array in some way is useful when you're trying to do a binary search on the array. A binary search can be extremely fast, compared to other methods. But if the sort error is wrong, the search will be unable to find the record.
Other reasons to keep arrays sorted are almost always for cosmetic reasons, to decide how the array is sent to some output.
The best way to re-order an array depends of the length of the array and the type of data it contains. A QuickSort algorithm would give a fast result in most cases. Delphi uses it internally when you're working with string-lists and some other lists. Question is, do you really need to sort it? Does it really need to stay an array even?
But the best way to keep an array sorted is by keeping it sorted from the first element that you add to it! In general, I write a wrapper around my array types, which will take care of keeping the array ordered. The 'Add' method will search for the biggest value in the array that's less or equal to the value that I want to add. I then insert the new item right after that position. To me, that would be the best solution. (With big arrays you could use the binary search method again to find the location where you need to insert the new record. It's slower than appending records to the end but you never have to wonder if it's sorted or not, since it is...