While developing BigZ, mostly used for number theoretical experiments, I've discovered the need of orthogonality in the word-set that create, filter or transform sets. I want a few words that logically combinated cover a wide range of commands, without the need to memorize a large number of words and ways to combinate them.
1 100 condition isprime create-set
put the set of all prime numbers between 1 and 100 on a set stack, while
function 1+ transform-set
transform this set to the set of all numbers p+1, where p is a prime less than 100.
Further,
condition sqr filter-set
leaves the set of all perfect squares on the form p+1 on the stack.
This works rather nice for sets of natural numbers, but to be able to create, filter and transform sets of n-tuples I need to be able to count locals in unnamed words. I have redesigned words to shortly denote compound conditions and functions:
: ~ :noname ;
: :| postpone locals| ; immediate
1 100 ~ :| p | p is prime p 2 + isprime p 2 - isprime or and ;
1 100 ~ :| a b | a dup * b dup * + isprime ;
Executing this two examples gives the parameter stack ( 1 100 xt ) but to be able to handle this right, in the first case a set of numbers and in the second case a set of pairs should be produced, I'll have to complement the word :| to get ( 1 100 xt n ) where n is the numbet of locals used. I think one could use >IN and PARSE to do this, but it was a long time ago I did such things, so I doubt I can do it properly nowadays.
I didn't understand (LOCALS) but with patience and luck I managed to do it with my original idea:
: bl# \ ad n -- m
over + swap 0 -rot
do i c# bl = +
loop negate ;
\ count the number of blanks in the string ad n
variable loc#
: locals# \ --
>in # >r
[char] | parse bl# loc# !
r> >in ! ; immediate
\ count the number of locals while loading
: -| \ --
postpone locals#
postpone locals| ; immediate
\ replace LOCALS|
Now
: test -| a b | a b + ;
works as LOCALS| but leave the number of locals in the global variable loc#.
Maybe you should drop LOCALS| and parse the local variables yourself. For each one, call (LOCAL) with its name, and end with passing an empty string.
See http://lars.nocrew.org/dpans/dpans13.htm#13.6.1.0086 for details.
I posed the question generically, because maybe it is a generic answer. But a specific example is comparing 2 BigQuery tables with the same schema, but potentially different data. I want a diff, i.e. what was added, deleted, modified, with respect to a composite key, e.g. the first 2 columns.
Table A
C1 C2 C3
-----------
a a 1
a b 1
a c 1
Table B
C1 C2 C3 # Notes if comparing B to A
-------------------------------------
a a 1 # No Change to the key a + a
a b 2 # Key a + b Changed from 1 to 2
# Deleted key a + c with value 1
a d 1 # Added key a + d
I basically want to be able to make/report the comparison notes.
Or from a Beam perspective I may want to Just output up to 4 labeled PCollections: Unchanged, Changed, Added, Deleted. How do I do this and what would the PCollections look like?
What you want to do here, basically, is join two tables and compare the result of that, right? You can look at my answer to this question, to see the two ways in which you can join two tables (Side inputs, or CoGroupByKey).
I'll also code a solution for your problem using CoGroupByKey. I'm writing the code in Python because I'm more familiar with the Python SDK, but you'd implement similar logic in Java:
def make_kv_pair(x):
""" Output the record with the x[0]+x[1] key added."""
return ((x[0], x[1]), x)
table_a = (p | 'ReadTableA' >> beam.Read(beam.io.BigQuerySource(....))
| 'SetKeysA' >> beam.Map(make_kv_pair)
table_b = (p | 'ReadTableB' >> beam.Read(beam.io.BigQuerySource(....))
| 'SetKeysB' >> beam.Map(make_kv_pair))
joined_tables = ({'table_a': table_a, 'table_b': table_b}
| beam.CoGroupByKey())
output_types = ['changed', 'added', 'deleted', 'unchanged']
class FilterDoFn(beam.DoFn):
def process((key, values)):
table_a_value = list(values['table_a'])
table_b_value = list(values['table_b'])
if table_a_value == table_b_value:
yield pvalue.TaggedOutput('unchanged', key)
elif len(table_a_value) < len(table_b_value):
yield pvalue.TaggedOutput('added', key)
elif len(table_a_value) > len(table_b_value):
yield pvalue.TaggedOutput('removed', key)
elif table_a_value != table_b_value:
yield pvalue.TaggedOutput('changed', key)
key_collections = (joined_tables
| beam.ParDo(FilterDoFn()).with_outputs(*output_types))
# Now you can handle each output
key_collections.unchanged | WriteToText(...)
key_collections.changed | WriteToText(...)
key_collections.added | WriteToText(...)
key_collections.removed | WriteToText(...)
I have 2 variables, one for raw p-values and another for adjusted p-values. I need to compute a new variable based on the values of these two variables. What I need to do isn't too complicated, but I have a hard time doing it in SPSS because I can't figure out how I can reference a particular row for an existing variable in SPSS syntax.
The first column lists raw p-values in ascending order. The next column lists adjusted p-values, but these adjusted p-values are still incomplete. I need to compare two adjacent p-values in the adjusted p-values column (e.g., row 1 and 2, row 2 and 3, row 3 and 4, and so forth), and take the p-values whichever is smaller in each of these comparisons and enter those p-values into the following column as values for a new variable.
However, that's not the end of the story. One more condition has to be met. That is, the new p-values have to be in the same order as the raw p-values. However, I cannot ensure this if I start the comparisons from the top row. You can see that (i') is greater than (h') and (g'), and (d') is greater than (c'), (b'), and (a') in the example below (picture).
In order to solve this issue, I would need to start the comparison of the adjusted p-values from the bottom. In addition, I would need to compare the adjusted p-values to the new p-values of one row below. One exception is that I can simply use the value of (a) as the value of (a') since the value of (a) should always be the greatest of all the p-values as a rule. Then, for (b') , I need to compare (b) and (a') and enter whichever is smaller as (b'). For (c'), I need to compare (c) and (b') and enter whichever is smaller as (c'), and so forth. By doing this way, (d') would be 0.911 and (i') would be 0.017.
Sorry for this long post, but I would really appreciate if I can get some help to do this task in SPSS.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Raw p-values | Adjusted p-values (Temporal)| New p-values (Final)
-------------|-----------------------------|---------------------
0.002 | 0.030 (i) | 0.025 (i')
0.003 | 0.025 (h) | 0.017 (h')
0.004 | 0.017 (g) | 0.017 (g')
0.005 | 0.028 (f) | 0.028 (f')
0.023 | 0.068 (e) | 0.068 (e')
0.450 | 1.061 (d) | 1.061 (d')
0.544 | 1.145 (c) | 0.911 (c')
0.850 | 0.911 (b) | 0.911 (b')
0.974 | 0.974 (a) | 0.974 (a')
Another tool that may be convenient is the SHIFT VALUES command. It can move one or more columns of data either forward or backward.
I wonder whether the purpose of this has to do with adjusting p values for multiple testing corrections as with Benjamin-Hochberg FDR or others similar. If that is the case, you might find the STATS PADJUST (Analyze > Descriptives > Calculate adjusted p values) extension command useful. It offers six adjustment methods. You can install it from the Utilities (pre-V24) or Extensions (V24+) menu.
To get you started, here are a few tools that can help you with this task:
The LAG function
you can compare values in this line and the previous one, for example, the following will compare the Pval in each line to the one in the previous one, and put the smaller of the two in the NewPval:
compute NewPVal=min(Pval, lag(Pval)).
If you want to do the same process only start from the bottom, you can easily sort your data in reverse order and do the same.
CREATE + LEAD
if you want to make comparisons to the next line instead of the previous line, you should first create a "lead" variable and then compare to it.
for example, the following syntax will create a new variable that for each line contains the value of Pval in the next line, and then chooses the smaller of the two for the NewPval:
create /LeadPval=LEAD(Pval 1).
compute NewPVal=min(Pval, LeadPval).
Using case numbers
You can use case numbers (line numbers) in calculations and in conditions. For example, the following syntax will let you make different calculations in the first line and the following ones:
if $casenum=1 NewPval=Pval.
if $casenum>1 NewPVal=min(Pval, lag(Pval)).
Using Google Sheets, I want to automatically number rows like so:
The key is that I want this to use built-in functions only.
I have an implementation working where child items are in separate columns (e.g. "Foo" is in column B, "Bar" is in column C, and "Baz" is in column D). However, it uses a custom JavaScript function, and the slow way that custom JavaScript functions are evaluated, combined with the dependencies, possibly combined with a slow Internet connection, means that my solution can take over one second per row (!) to calculate.
For reference, here's my custom function (that I want to abandon in favor of native code):
/**
* Calculate the Work Breakdown Structure id for this row.
*
* #param {range} priorIds IDs that precede this one.
* #param {range} names The names for this row.
* #return A WBS string id (e.g. "2.1.5") or an empty string if there are no names.
* #customfunction
*/
function WBS_ID(priorIds,names){
if (Array.isArray(names[0])) names = names[0];
if (!names.join("")) return "";
var lastId,pieces=[];
for (var i=priorIds.length;i-- && !lastId;) lastId=priorIds[i][0];
if (lastId) pieces = (lastId+"").split('.').map(function(s){ return s*1 });
for (var i=0;i<names.length;i++){
if (names[i]){
var s = pieces.concat();
pieces.length=i+1;
pieces[i] = (pieces[i]||0) + 1;
return pieces.join(".");
}
}
}
For example, cell A7 would use the formula:
=WBS_ID(A$2:A6,B7:D7)
...to produce the result "1.3.2"
Note that in the above example blank rows are skipped during numbering. An answer that does not honor this—where the ID is calculated determinstically from the ROW())—is acceptable (and possibly even desirable).
Edit: Yes, I've tried to do this myself. I have a solution that uses three extra columns which I chose not to include in the question. I have been writing equations in Excel for at least 25 years (and Google Spreadsheets for 1 year). I have looked through the list of functions for Google Spreadsheets and none of them jumps out to me as making possible something that I didn't think of before.
When the question is a programming problem and the problem is an inability to see how to get from point A to point B, I don't know that it's useful to "show what I've done". I've considered splitting by periods. I've looked for a map equivalent function. I know how to use isblank() and counta().
Lol this is hilariously the longest (and very likely the most unnecessarily complicated way to combine formulas) but because I thought it was interesting that it does in fact work, so long as you just add a 1 in the first row then in the second row you add:
=if(row()=1,1,if(and(istext(D2),counta(split(A1,"."))=3),left(A1,4)&n(right(A1,1)+1),if(and(isblank(B2),isblank(C2),isblank(D2)),"",if(and(isblank(B2),isblank(C2),isnumber(indirect(address(row()-1,column())))),indirect(address(row()-1,column()))&"."&if(istext(D2),round(max(indirect(address(1,column())&":"&address(row()-1,column())))+0.1,)),if(and(isblank(B2),istext(C2)),round(max(indirect(address(1,column())&":"&address(row()-1,column())))+0.1,2),if(istext(B2),round(max(indirect(address(1,column())&":"&address(row()-1,column())))+1,),))))))
in my defense ive had a very long day at work - complicating what should be a simple thing seems to be my thing today :)
Foreword
Spreadsheet built-in functions doesn't include an equivalent to JavaScript .map. The alternative is to use the spreadsheets array handling features and iteration patterns.
A "complete solution" could include the use of built-in functions to automatically transform the user input into a simple table and returning the Work Breakdown Structure number (WBS) . Some people refer to transforming the user input into a simple table as "normalization" but including this will make this post to be too long for the Stack Overflow format, so it will be focused in presenting a short formula to obtain the WBS.
It's worth to say that using formulas for doing the transformation of large data sets into a simple table as part of the continuous spreadsheet calculations, in this case, of WBS, will make the spreadsheet to slow to refresh.
Short answer
To keep the WBS formula short and simple, first transform the user input into a simple table including task name, id and parent id columns, then use a formula like the following:
=ArrayFormula(
IFERROR(
INDEX($D$2:$D,MATCH($C2,$B$2:$B,0))
&"."
&COUNTIF($C$2:$C2,C2),
RANK($B2,FILTER($B$2:B,LEN($C$2:$C)=0),TRUE)&"")
)
Explanation
First, prepare your data
Put each task in one row. Include a General task / project to be used as the parent of all the root level tasks.
Add an ID to each task.
Add a reference to the ID of the parent task for each task. Left blank for the General task / project.
After the above steps the data should look like the following:
+---+--------------+----+-----------+
| | A | B | C |
+---+--------------+----+-----------+
| 1 | Task | ID | Parent ID |
| 2 | General task | 1 | |
| 3 | Substast 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | Substast 2 | 3 | 1 |
| 5 | Subsubtask 1 | 4 | 2 |
| 6 | Subsubtask 2 | 5 | 2 |
+---+--------------+----+-----------+
Remark: This also could help to reduce of required processing time of a custom funcion.
Second, add the below formula to D2, then fill down as needed,
=ArrayFormula(
IFERROR(
INDEX($D$2:$D,MATCH($C2,$B$2:$B,0))
&"."
&COUNTIF($C$2:$C2,C2),
RANK($B2,FILTER($B$2:B,LEN($C$2:$C)=0),TRUE)&"")
)
The result should look like the following:
+---+--------------+----+-----------+----------+
| | A | B | C | D |
+---+--------------+----+-----------+----------+
| 1 | Task | ID | Parent ID | WBS |
| 2 | General task | 1 | | 1 |
| 3 | Substast 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.1 |
| 4 | Substast 2 | 3 | 1 | 1.2 |
| 5 | Subsubtask 1 | 4 | 2 | 1.1.1 |
| 6 | Subsubtask 2 | 5 | 2 | 1.1.2 |
+---+--------------+----+-----------+----------+
Here's an answer that does not allow a blank line between items, and requires that you manually type "1" into the first cell (A2). This formula is applied to cell A3, with the assumption that there are at most three levels of hierarchy in columns B, C, and D.
=IF(
COUNTA(B3), // If there is a value in the 1st column
INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),1)+1, // find the 1st part of the prior ID, plus 1
IF( // ...otherwise
COUNTA(C3), // If there's a value in the 2nd column
INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),1) // find the 1st part of the prior ID
& "." // add a period and
& IFERROR(INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),2),0)+1, // add the 2nd part of the prior ID (or 0), plus 1
INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),1) // ...otherwise find the 1st part of the prior ID
& "." // add a period and
& IFERROR(INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),2),1) // add the 2nd part of the prior ID or 1 and
& "." // add a period and
& IFERROR(INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),3)+1,1) // add the 3rd part of the prior ID (or 0), plus 1
)
) & "" // Ensure the result is a string ("1.2", not 1.2)
Without comments:
=IF(COUNTA(B3),INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),1)+1,IF(COUNTA(C3),INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),1)& "."& IFERROR(INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),2),0)+1,INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),1)& "."& IFERROR(INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),2),1)& "."& IFERROR(INDEX(SPLIT(A2,"."),3)+1,1))) & ""
I have the data in a sav file
CODE | QUANTITY
------|----------
A | 1
B | 4
C | 1
F | 3
B | 3
D | 12
D | 5
I need to obtain the quantity of codes which have a quantity <= 3 and to obtain the proportion in a percentage with respect to the total number and present a result like this
<= 3 | PERCENTAGE
------|----------
4 | 57 %
All of this using SPSS syntax.
I would first convert the quantity value to a 0-1 variable, and then aggregate by code to the mean. This produces a nice second dataset to make a table. Example below.
data list free / Code (A1) Quantity (F2.0).
begin data
A 1
B 4
C 1
F 3
B 3
D 12
D 5
end data.
*convert to 0-1.
compute QuantityB3 = (Quantity LE 3).
*Aggregate.
DATASET DECLARE AggQuant.
AGGREGATE
/OUTFILE='AggQuant'
/BREAK=Code
/QuantityB3 = MEAN(QuantityB3).
I dont know how you migrate your question here, I dont have reputation here to add screen shoots that's help you allot. Anyhow the procedure of your desire output is given below.
Goto Transform->Count Values within cases a dialogue box open, write the name of new variable say "New" in Target Variable: go to define values a new dialogue box is open then check the radio button Range, LOWEST through value: put in below box 3 and then press add and press continue and press ok. A new variable is created with the name of "New". Now go to Analyze -> Descriptive Statistics-> Frequencies, new dialogue box will be open send "New" variable into Variable(s): press Statistics in new dialogue box check Percentile(s): write 100 in box and press Add and then continue and ok. You get the desire results.