I have entered 10 integer values in hashset in JAVA. I want to increase just the 4th integer in the set. How would i accomplish this?
Sets aren't ordered, so you don't have the concept of a 4th element. Use a list instead.
Note that you can use a LinkedHashSet instead, which maintains insertion order. That may work for you, but if you really want an ordering then a list is the way to go.
'Iterate a single value' is a contradiction in terms, and '4th Integer in the set' doesn't even have a well-defined meaning. You're using the wrong data structure if you need ordinality. Use an ArrayList.
Related
Looking for an elegant way (or a construct with which I am unfamiliar) that allows me to do the equivalent of 'reverse referencing' an array. That is, say I have an integer array
handle[number] = nameNumber
Sometimes I know the number and need the nameNumber, but sometimes I only know the nameNumber and need the matching [number] in the array.
The integer nameNumber values are each unique, that is, no two nameNumbers that are the same, so every [number] and nameNumber pair are also unique.
Is there a good way to 'reverse reference' an array value (or some other construct) without having to sweep the entire array looking for the matching value, (or having to update and keep track of two different arrays with reverse value sets)?
If the array is sorted and you know the length of it, you could binary search for the element in the array. This would be an O(n log(n)) search instead of you doing O(n) search through the array. Divide the array in half and check if the element at the center is greater or less than what you're looking for, grab the half of the array your element is in, and divide in half again. Each decision you make will eliminate half of the elements in the array. Keep this process going and you'll eventually land on the element you're looking for.
I don't know whether it's acceptable for you to use C++ and boost libraries. If yes you can use boost::bimap<X, Y>.
Boost.Bimap is a bidirectional maps library for C++. With Boost.Bimap you can create associative containers in which both types can be used as key. A bimap can be thought of as a combination of a std::map and a std::map.
I have an array of integers storing some userIDs. I basically want to prevent a user from performing an action twice, so the moment he has done it his userID enters this array.
I wonder whether it is a good idea to sort or not this array. If it is sorted, then you have A={min, ..., max}. Then, if I'm not wrong, checking if an ID is in the array will take log2(|A|) 'steps'. On the other hand, if the array was not sorted then you will need |A|/2 (in average) steps.
So sorting seems better to check if an element exists in the array (log(|A|) vs |A|), but what about 'adding' a new value? Calculating the position of where the new userID should be can be done at the same time you're checking, but then you will have to displace all the elements from that position by 1... or at least that's how I'd do it on C, truth is this is going to be an array in a MongoDB document, so perhaps this is handled in some other most-effective way.
Of course if the array is unsorted then adding a new value will just take one step ("pushing" it to the end).
To me, an adding operation (with previous checking) will take:
If sorted: log2(|A|) + |A|/2. The log2 part to check and find the place and the |A|/2 as an average of the displacements needed.
If not sorted: |A|/2 + 1. The |A|/2 to check and the +1 to push the new element.
Given that for adding you'll always first check, then the not sorted version appears to have less steps, but truth is I'm not very confident on the +|A|/2 of the sorted version. That's how I would do it in C, but maybe it can work another way...
O(Log(A)) is definitely better than O(A), but this can be done in O(1). The data structure you are looking for is HashMap, if you are going to do this in C. I haven't worked in C in a very long time so I don't know if it is natively available now. It surely is available in C++. Also there are some libraries which you can use in the worst case.
For MongoDB, my solution may not be the best, but I think that you can create another collection of just the userIDs and index the collection keyed on userIDs. This way when someone tries to do that action, you can query the user status quickest.
Also in MongoDB you can try adding another key called UserDidTheAction to your User's collection. This key's value may be true or false. Index the collection based on userID and probably you will have similar performance as the other solution, but at the cost of modifying your original collection's design (though it's not required to be fixed in MongoDB).
I read over the docs for PostgreSQL v 9.3 arrays (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/arrays.html), but I don't see the question of ordering covered. Can someone confirm that Postgres preserves the insertion order/original order of an array when it's inserted into an array column? This seems to be the case but I would like absolute confirmation.
Thank you.
The documentation is entirely clear that arrays are useful in scenarios where order is important, inasmuch as it explicitly documents querying against specific positions within an array. If those positions were not reliable, these queries would have no meaning. (Using the word "array" is also clear on this point, being as it is a term of the art: An array is an ordered datatype by its nature; an unordered collection allowed to contain duplicates would be a bag, not an array, just as an unordered collection in which duplicates were not allowed would be a set).
See the examples given in section 8.1.4.3, of "pay by quarter", with index position within the array indicating which quarter is being queried against.
Cannot find in documentation, but I'm pretty sure. Yes, order is preserved. And [2,4,5] is different from [5,2,4].
In case I'm wrong, indexes cannot work.
I'm calling a method which takes an array of integers representing IDs of records to be deleted:
service.Delete(IDArray)
However I only want to delete a single record so I only have a single value. Obviously I could do something like this:
Dim IDArray(0) as Integer
IDArray(0) = ID
service.Delete(IDArray)
However it looks quite kludgy. Is there a neat way to do this in a single line with some sort of clever array construction syntax?
This is pretty neat:
service.Delete(New integer(0){ID})
and, as Dominc suggests, this is even neater (although I like being explicit):
service.Delete({ID})
Check the documentation.
I have been given an assignment to write a program that reads in a number of assignment marks from a text file into an array, and then counts how many marks there are within particular brackets, i.e. 40-49, 50-59 etc. A value of -1 in the text file means that the assignment was not handed in, and a value of 0 means that the assignment was so bad that it was ungraded.
I could do this easily using a couple of for loops, and then using if statements to check the values whilst incrementing appropriate integers to count the number of occurences, but in order to get higher marks I need to implement the program in a "better" way. What would be a better, more efficient way to do this? I'm not looking for code right now, just simply "This is what you should do". I've tried to think of different ways to do it, but none of them seem to be better, and I feel as if I'm just trying to make it complicated for the sake of it.
I tried using the 2D array that the values are stored in as a parameter of a function, and then using the function to print out the number of occurences of the particular values, but I couldn't get this to compile as my syntax was wrong for using a 2D array as a parameter, and I'm not too sure about how to do this.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
Why do you need a couple for loops? one is enough.
Create an array of size 10 where array[0] is marks between 0-9, array[1] is marks between 10-19, etc. When you see a number, put it in the appropriate array bucket using integer division, e.g. array[(int)mark/10]++. when you finish the array will contain the count of the number of marks in each bucket.
As food for thought, if this is a school assignment, you might want to apply other things you have learned in the course.
Did you learn sorting yet? Maybe you could sort the list first so that you are not iterating over the array several times. You can just go over it once, grab all the -1's, and spit out how many you have, then grab all the ones in the next bracket and so on.
edit: that is of course, assuming that you are using a 1d array.