We Keep Coding

How do I use Java 8 groupingBy to collect into a list of a different type?

I'm trying to take a map of type A -> A, and group it into a map of A to List<A>. (Also reversing the key-value relationship, but I don't think that is necessarily relevant).
This is what I have now:
private static Map<Thing, List<Thing>> consolidateMap(Map<Thing, Thing> releasedToDraft) {
// Map each draft Thing back to the list of released Things (embedded in entries)
Map<Thing, List<Map.Entry<Thing, Thing>>> draftToEntry = releasedToDraft.entrySet().stream()
.collect(groupingBy(
Map.Entry::getValue,
toList()
));
// Get us back to the map we want (Thing to list of Things)
return draftToEntry.entrySet().stream()
.collect(toMap(
Map.Entry::getKey,
ThingReleaseUtil::entriesToThings
));
}
private static List<Thing> entriesToThings(Map.Entry<Thing, List<Map.Entry<Thing, Thing>>> entry) {
return entry.getValue().stream()
.map(Map.Entry::getKey)
.collect(toList());
}
I'd like to do this in a single statement, and I feel like it must be possible to transform the Map<Thing, List<Map.Entry<Thing, Thing>>> to Map<Thing, List<Thing>> as part of the groupingBy operation.
I've tried using reducing(), custom collectors, everything I can find; but I'm stymied by the lack of complex examples out there, and the fact that the few similar ones I can find have List.of(), which doesn't exist in Java 8 (Collections.singletonList() does not appear to be a good replacement).
Could someone help me with what is probably the obvious?

Must be on the line of
private static Map<Thing, List<Thing>> consolidateMap(Map<Thing, Thing> releasedToDraft) {
return releasedToDraft.entrySet().stream()
.collect(groupingBy(
Map.Entry::getValue,
mapping(Map.Entry::getKey, toList())
));
}

Java 8 stream "Cannot use this in a static context"

I am new to java8 stream & sorry about the stupid question . Here is my code which i am trying to create a map of id & value, but i am getting this error, not able to fix. Can anyone help me what is the alternative?
public static Map<Integer, String> findIdMaxValue(){
Map<Integer, Map<String, Integer>> attrIdAttrValueCountMap = new HashMap<>();
Map<Integer, String> attrIdMaxValueMap = new HashMap<>();
attrIdAttrValueCountMap.forEach((attrId, attrValueCountMap) -> {
attrValueCountMap.entrySet().stream().sorted(this::compareAttrValueCountEntry).findFirst().ifPresent(e -> {
attrIdMaxValueMap.put(attrId, e.getKey());
});
});
}
and sorting method
public static int compareAttrValueCountEntry(Map.Entry<String, Integer> e1, Map.Entry<String, Integer> e2) {
int diff = e1.getValue() - e2.getValue();
if (diff != 0) {
return -diff;
}
return e1.getKey().compareTo(e2.getKey());
}
I am getting this error
"Cannot use this in a static context"

There are several issues with your code. While this::compareAttrValueCountEntry would be easy to
fix by changing it to ContainingClassName::compareAttrValueCountEntry, this method is unnecessary
as there are several factory methods like Map.Entry.comparingByKey, Map.Entry.comparingByValue,
Comparator.reversed and Comparator.thenComparing, which can be combined to achieve the same goal
This guards you from the errors made within compareAttrValueCountEntry. It’s tempting to compare int
values by subtracting, but this is error prone as the difference between two int values doesn’t always
fit into the int range, so overflows can occur. Also, negating the result for reversing the order is
broken, as the value might be Integer.MIN_VALUE, which has no positive counterpart, hence, negating it
will overflow back to Integer.MIN_VALUE instead of changing the sign.
Instead of looping via forEach to add to another map, you may use a cleaner stream operation producing
the map and you can simplify sorted(…).findFirst() to min(…) which in not only shorter, but a
potentially cheaper operation.
Putting it together, we get
Map<Integer, String> attrIdMaxValueMap =
attrIdAttrValueCountMap.entrySet().stream()
.filter(e -> !e.getValue().isEmpty())
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Map.Entry::getKey,
e -> e.getValue().entrySet().stream()
.min(Map.Entry.<String, Integer>comparingByValue().reversed()
.thenComparing(Map.Entry.comparingByKey())).get().getKey()));
Note that I prepended a filter operation rejecting empty maps, which ensures that there will always be
a matching element, so there is no need to deal with ifPresent or such alike. Instead, Optional.get
can be called unconditionally.
Since this method is called findIdMaxValue, there might be a desire to reflect that by calling max
on the Stream instead of min, wich is only a matter of which comparator to reverse:
Map<Integer, String> attrIdMaxValueMap =
attrIdAttrValueCountMap.entrySet().stream()
.filter(e -> !e.getValue().isEmpty())
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Map.Entry::getKey,
e -> e.getValue().entrySet().stream()
.max(Map.Entry.<String, Integer>comparingByValue()
.thenComparing(Map.Entry.comparingByKey(Comparator.reverseOrder())))
.get().getKey()));
Unfortunately, such constructs hit the limitations of the type inference, which requires us to either,
use nested constructs (like Map.Entry.comparingByKey(Comparator.reverseOrder()) instead of
Map.Entry.comparingByKey().reversed()) or to insert explicit types, like with
Map.Entry.<String, Integer>comparingByValue(). In the second variant, reversing the second comparator,
we are hitting the litimation twice…
In this specific case, there might be a point in creating the comparator only once, keeping it in a variable and reuse it within the stream operation:
Comparator<Map.Entry<String, Integer>> valueOrMinKey
= Map.Entry.<String, Integer>comparingByValue()
.thenComparing(Map.Entry.comparingByKey(Comparator.reverseOrder()));
Map<Integer, String> attrIdMaxValueMap =
attrIdAttrValueCountMap.entrySet().stream()
.filter(e -> !e.getValue().isEmpty())
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Map.Entry::getKey,
e -> e.getValue().entrySet().stream().max(valueOrMinKey).get().getKey()));

Since the method compareAttrValueCountEntry is declared static,
replace the method reference
this::compareAttrValueCountEntry
with
<Yourclass>::compareAttrValueCountEntry

Flatten a Map<Integer, List<String>> to Map<String, Integer> with stream and lambda

I would like to flatten a Map which associates an Integer key to a list of String, without losing the key mapping.
I am curious as though it is possible and useful to do so with stream and lambda.
We start with something like this:
Map<Integer, List<String>> mapFrom = new HashMap<>();
Let's assume that mapFrom is populated somewhere, and looks like:
1: a,b,c
2: d,e,f
etc.
Let's also assume that the values in the lists are unique.
Now, I want to "unfold" it to get a second map like:
a: 1
b: 1
c: 1
d: 2
e: 2
f: 2
etc.
I could do it like this (or very similarly, using foreach):
Map<String, Integer> mapTo = new HashMap<>();
for (Map.Entry<Integer, List<String>> entry: mapFrom.entrySet()) {
for (String s: entry.getValue()) {
mapTo.put(s, entry.getKey());
}
}
Now let's assume that I want to use lambda instead of nested for loops. I would probably do something like this:
Map<String, Integer> mapTo = mapFrom.entrySet().stream().map(e -> {
e.getValue().stream().?
// Here I can iterate on each List,
// but my best try would only give me a flat map for each key,
// that I wouldn't know how to flatten.
}).collect(Collectors.toMap(/*A String value*/,/*An Integer key*/))
I also gave a try to flatMap, but I don't think that it is the right way to go, because although it helps me get rid of the dimensionality issue, I lose the key in the process.
In a nutshell, my two questions are :
Is it possible to use streams and lambda to achieve this?
Is is useful (performance, readability) to do so?

You need to use flatMap to flatten the values into a new stream, but since you still need the original keys for collecting into a Map, you have to map to a temporary object holding key and value, e.g.
Map<String, Integer> mapTo = mapFrom.entrySet().stream()
.flatMap(e->e.getValue().stream()
.map(v->new AbstractMap.SimpleImmutableEntry<>(e.getKey(), v)))
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Map.Entry::getValue, Map.Entry::getKey));
The Map.Entry is a stand-in for the nonexistent tuple type, any other type capable of holding two objects of different type is sufficient.
An alternative not requiring these temporary objects, is a custom collector:
Map<String, Integer> mapTo = mapFrom.entrySet().stream().collect(
HashMap::new, (m,e)->e.getValue().forEach(v->m.put(v, e.getKey())), Map::putAll);
This differs from toMap in overwriting duplicate keys silently, whereas toMap without a merger function will throw an exception, if there is a duplicate key. Basically, this custom collector is a parallel capable variant of
Map<String, Integer> mapTo = new HashMap<>();
mapFrom.forEach((k, l) -> l.forEach(v -> mapTo.put(v, k)));
But note that this task wouldn’t benefit from parallel processing, even with a very large input map. Only if there were additional computational intense task within the stream pipeline that could benefit from SMP, there was a chance of getting a benefit from parallel streams. So perhaps, the concise, sequential Collection API solution is preferable.

You should use flatMap as follows:
entrySet.stream()
.flatMap(e -> e.getValue().stream()
.map(s -> new SimpleImmutableEntry(e.getKey(), s)));
SimpleImmutableEntry is a nested class in AbstractMap.

Hope this would do it in simplest way. :))
mapFrom.forEach((key, values) -> values.forEach(value -> mapTo.put(value, key)));

This should work. Please notice that you lost some keys from List.
Map<Integer, List<String>> mapFrom = new HashMap<>();
Map<String, Integer> mapTo = mapFrom.entrySet().stream()
.flatMap(integerListEntry -> integerListEntry.getValue()
.stream()
.map(listItem -> new AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<>(listItem, integerListEntry.getKey())))
.collect(Collectors.toMap(AbstractMap.SimpleEntry::getKey, AbstractMap.SimpleEntry::getValue));

Same as the previous answers with Java 9:
Map<String, Integer> mapTo = mapFrom.entrySet()
.stream()
.flatMap(entry -> entry.getValue()
.stream()
.map(s -> Map.entry(s, entry.getKey())))
.collect(toMap(Entry::getKey, Entry::getValue));

Transform and filter a Java Map with streams

I have a Java Map that I'd like to transform and filter. As a trivial example, suppose I want to convert all values to Integers then remove the odd entries.
Map<String, String> input = new HashMap<>();
input.put("a", "1234");
input.put("b", "2345");
input.put("c", "3456");
input.put("d", "4567");
Map<String, Integer> output = input.entrySet().stream()
.collect(Collectors.toMap(
Map.Entry::getKey,
e -> Integer.parseInt(e.getValue())
))
.entrySet().stream()
.filter(e -> e.getValue() % 2 == 0)
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Map.Entry::getKey, Map.Entry::getValue));
System.out.println(output.toString());
This is correct and yields: {a=1234, c=3456}
However, I can't help but wonder if there's a way to avoid calling .entrySet().stream() twice.
Is there a way I can perform both transform and filter operations and call .collect() only once at the end?

Yes, you can map each entry to another temporary entry that will hold the key and the parsed integer value. Then you can filter each entry based on their value.
Map<String, Integer> output =
input.entrySet()
.stream()
.map(e -> new AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<>(e.getKey(), Integer.valueOf(e.getValue())))
.filter(e -> e.getValue() % 2 == 0)
.collect(Collectors.toMap(
Map.Entry::getKey,
Map.Entry::getValue
));
Note that I used Integer.valueOf instead of parseInt since we actually want a boxed int.
If you have the luxury to use the StreamEx library, you can do it quite simply:
Map<String, Integer> output =
EntryStream.of(input).mapValues(Integer::valueOf).filterValues(v -> v % 2 == 0).toMap();

One way to solve the problem with much lesser overhead is to move the mapping and filtering down to the collector.
Map<String, Integer> output = input.entrySet().stream().collect(
HashMap::new,
(map,e)->{ int i=Integer.parseInt(e.getValue()); if(i%2==0) map.put(e.getKey(), i); },
Map::putAll);
This does not require the creation of intermediate Map.Entry instances and even better, will postpone the boxing of int values to the point when the values are actually added to the Map, which implies that values rejected by the filter are not boxed at all.
Compared to what Collectors.toMap(…) does, the operation is also simplified by using Map.put rather than Map.merge as we know beforehand that we don’t have to handle key collisions here.
However, as long as you don’t want to utilize parallel execution you may also consider the ordinary loop
HashMap<String,Integer> output=new HashMap<>();
for(Map.Entry<String, String> e: input.entrySet()) {
int i = Integer.parseInt(e.getValue());
if(i%2==0) output.put(e.getKey(), i);
}
or the internal iteration variant:
HashMap<String,Integer> output=new HashMap<>();
input.forEach((k,v)->{ int i = Integer.parseInt(v); if(i%2==0) output.put(k, i); });
the latter being quite compact and at least on par with all other variants regarding single threaded performance.

Guava's your friend:
Map<String, Integer> output = Maps.filterValues(Maps.transformValues(input, Integer::valueOf), i -> i % 2 == 0);
Keep in mind that output is a transformed, filtered view of input. You'll need to make a copy if you want to operate on them independently.

You could use the Stream.collect(supplier, accumulator, combiner) method to transform the entries and conditionally accumulate them:
Map<String, Integer> even = input.entrySet().stream().collect(
HashMap::new,
(m, e) -> Optional.ofNullable(e)
.map(Map.Entry::getValue)
.map(Integer::valueOf)
.filter(i -> i % 2 == 0)
.ifPresent(i -> m.put(e.getKey(), i)),
Map::putAll);
System.out.println(even); // {a=1234, c=3456}
Here, inside the accumulator, I'm using Optional methods to apply both the transformation and the predicate, and, if the optional value is still present, I'm adding it to the map being collected.

Another way to do this is to remove the values you don't want from the transformed Map:
Map<String, Integer> output = input.entrySet().stream()
.collect(Collectors.toMap(
Map.Entry::getKey,
e -> Integer.parseInt(e.getValue()),
(a, b) -> { throw new AssertionError(); },
HashMap::new
));
output.values().removeIf(v -> v % 2 != 0);
This assumes you want a mutable Map as the result, if not you can probably create an immutable one from output.
If you are transforming the values into the same type and want to modify the Map in place this could be alot shorter with replaceAll:
input.replaceAll((k, v) -> v + " example");
input.values().removeIf(v -> v.length() > 10);
This also assumes input is mutable.
I don't recommend doing this because It will not work for all valid Map implementations and may stop working for HashMap in the future, but you can currently use replaceAll and cast a HashMap to change the type of the values:
((Map)input).replaceAll((k, v) -> Integer.parseInt((String)v));
Map<String, Integer> output = (Map)input;
output.values().removeIf(v -> v % 2 != 0);
This will also give you type safety warnings and if you try to retrieve a value from the Map through a reference of the old type like this:
String ex = input.get("a");
It will throw a ClassCastException.
You could move the first transform part into a method to avoid the boilerplate if you expect to use it alot:
public static <K, VO, VN, M extends Map<K, VN>> M transformValues(
Map<? extends K, ? extends VO> old,
Function<? super VO, ? extends VN> f,
Supplier<? extends M> mapFactory){
return old.entrySet().stream().collect(Collectors.toMap(
Entry::getKey,
e -> f.apply(e.getValue()),
(a, b) -> { throw new IllegalStateException("Duplicate keys for values " + a + " " + b); },
mapFactory));
}
And use it like this:
Map<String, Integer> output = transformValues(input, Integer::parseInt, HashMap::new);
output.values().removeIf(v -> v % 2 != 0);
Note that the duplicate key exception can be thrown if, for example, the old Map is an IdentityHashMap and the mapFactory creates a HashMap.

Here is code by abacus-common
Map<String, String> input = N.asMap("a", "1234", "b", "2345", "c", "3456", "d", "4567");
Map<String, Integer> output = Stream.of(input)
.groupBy(e -> e.getKey(), e -> N.asInt(e.getValue()))
.filter(e -> e.getValue() % 2 == 0)
.toMap(Map.Entry::getKey, Map.Entry::getValue);
N.println(output.toString());
Declaration： I'm the developer of abacus-common.

Java 8 list to map with stream

I have a List<Item> collection.
I need to convert it into Map<Integer, Item>
The key of the map must be the index of the item in the collection.
I can not figure it out how to do this with streams.
Something like:
items.stream().collect(Collectors.toMap(...));
Any help?
As this question is identified as possible duplicate I need to add that my concrete problem was - how to get the position of the item in the list and put it as a key value

You can create a Stream of the indices using an IntStream and then convert them to a Map :
Map<Integer,Item> map =
IntStream.range(0,items.size())
.boxed()
.collect(Collectors.toMap (i -> i, i -> items.get(i)));

One more solution just for completeness is to use custom collector:
public static <T> Collector<T, ?, Map<Integer, T>> toMap() {
return Collector.of(HashMap::new, (map, t) -> map.put(map.size(), t),
(m1, m2) -> {
int s = m1.size();
m2.forEach((k, v) -> m1.put(k+s, v));
return m1;
});
}
Usage:
Map<Integer, Item> map = items.stream().collect(toMap());
This solution is parallel-friendly and does not depend on the source (you can use list without random access or Files.lines() or whatever).

Don't feel like you have to do everything in/with the stream. I would just do:
AtomicInteger index = new AtomicInteger();
items.stream().collect(Collectors.toMap(i -> index.getAndIncrement(), i -> i));
As long as you don't parallelise the stream this will work and it avoids potentially expensive and/or problematic (in the case of duplicates) get() and indexOf() operations.
(You cannot use a regular int variable in place of the AtomicInteger because variables used from outside a lambda expression must be effectively final. Note that when uncontested (as in this case), AtomicInteger is very fast and won't pose a performance problem. But if it worries you you can use a non-thread-safe counter.)

This is updated answer and has none of the problems mentioned in comments.
Map<Integer,Item> outputMap = IntStream.range(0,inputList.size()).boxed().collect(Collectors.toMap(Function.identity(), i->inputList.get(i)));

Using a third party library (protonpack for example, but there are others) you can zip the value with its index and voila:
StreamUtils.zipWithIndex(items.stream())
.collect(Collectors.toMap(Indexed::getIndex, Indexed::getValue));
although getIndex returns a long, so you may need to cast it using something similar to:
i -> Integer.valueOf((int) i.getIndex())

Eran's answer is usually the best approach for random-access lists.
If your List isn't random access, or if you have a Stream instead of a List, you can use forEachOrdered:
Stream<Item> stream = ... ;
Map<Integer, Item> map = new HashMap<>();
AtomicInteger index = new AtomicInteger();
stream.forEachOrdered(item -> map.put(index.getAndIncrement(), item));
This is safe, if the stream is parallel, even though the destination map is thread-unsafe and is operated upon as a side effect. The forEachOrdered guarantees that items are processed one-at-a-time, in order. For this reason it's unlikely that any speedup will result from running in parallel. (There might be some speedup if there are expensive operations in the pipeline before the forEachOrdered.)