We Keep Coding

Check is HashMap contains another HashMap with specific value in Java

I have a HashMap like this:
private HashMap<Integer, HashMap<String, Material>> logs = new HashMap<>();
Then I have multiple Materials stored as enum (for example. Material.OAK_LOG).
Is there any easy way to check if HashMap logs contains HashMap with specific Material?
I came up with this, which works, but I want to know if there is any other way to do this without looping through the entire HashMap
private boolean hasLog(Material mat){
boolean contains = false;
for (Map.Entry<Integer, HashMap<String, Material>> entry : this.logs.entrySet()) {
if(entry.getValue().containsValue(mat)){
contains = true;
break;
}
}
return contains;
}

No, you have to loop through the maps, doing sequential search.
You can simplify the logic a little by using values() instead of entrySet(), and simply return directly, but that's just minor refactoring:
private boolean hasLog(Material mat) {
for (HashMap<String, Material> submap : this.logs.values())
if (submap.containsValue(mat))
returns true;
return false;
}
You can write the same logic using Java 8+ Streams, but it is the same nested loop sequential search, so runtime complexity remains O(nm).
private boolean hasLog(Material mat) {
return this.logs.values().stream()
.anyMatch(submap -> submap.containsValue(mat));
}

If your Material objects are immutable and unique from an equals perspective, you could use them as a key in a cross reference map. But if Material will change, your maps could get corrupted depending on how equals is set up.
Map<Material, String> crossRef = new HashMap<>();
Whenever you add a new Map with a material to logs, do the following:
int outerKey; = ... // some integer to get the inner map
String innerKey = .. // some string to get the actual Material
Map<String, Material> innerMap = logs.get(outerKey);
Material mat = new Material(...);
innerMap.put(innerKey, mat);
crossRef.put(mat, outerKey+"_"+innerKey);
Then later
if (crossRef.contains(mat)) {
// it exists somewhere.
String mapId = crossRef.get(mat);
key[] parts = mapId.split("_");
int outerKey = Integer.valueOf(parts[0]);
String innerKey = parts[1];
Map<String, Material> map = logs.get(outerKey);
Material mat = map.get(innerKey);
}
One other downside is that your speeding up lookup time at the cost of more storage.
And to re-emphasize if two different Material objects compare equally they will be considered duplicates and thus cannot be used as keys to access both types of material.
Instead of using a concatenated String as the cross-ref key you could use a simple class or record that holds those as their specific type.
This was a drawn out answer to a simple question but it may provide some alternative ideas as to how to address your problem.

Is there a Map object with takes index and key and object? Java

I'm trying to emulate a rotor of an enigma machine in Java.
I need an object which takes an index, a key and an object, because I unsuccessfully tried HashMaps like this:
private HashMap<Integer,Integer> rotorWiring = new HashMap<Integer, Integer();
private HashMap<Integer,Integer> reverseRotorWiring = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
//The "wiring" of the rotor is set from a String,
public void setRotorWiring(String Wiring) {
if (Wiring.length()==26) {
for (int i=0; i<Wiring.length();i++ ) {
char tempChar = Wiring.charAt(i);
int valueOfChar = (int)tempChar-64;
if (valueOfChar<=26){
this.rotorWiring.put(i+1,valueOfChar);
this.reverseRotorWiring.put(valueOfChar,i+1);
}
}
}
}
So far so good, this allows me to translate e.x. an A to an E, however, once I tried to simulate a turn of the rotor like this:
//It should be mentioned that I designing the program to only accept characters a to z inclusive.
public void turn() {
for (int i=1;i<=rotorWiring.size();i++) {
if (i!=26) {
rotorWiring.replace(i, rotorWiring.get(i+1));
}
else {
rotorWiring.replace(i, rotorWiring.get(1));
}
}
for (int i=1;i<=rotorWiring.size();i++) {
if (i!=26) {
reverseRotorWiring.replace(i, rotorWiring.get(i+1));
}
}
}
However, I noticed that this rather simulates an offset of the internal wiring of the rotor rather than a turn... I'm asking for a "Map"-like solutions with an index, key and object, because that would allow me to offset the index of all the keys and objects by 1, thus simulating a turn.
I am, however, open to suggestions for different solutions to this problem.
It should be mentioned that I'm a bit of a novice, and therefore appreciate rather in-depth explanations.
Many thanks.

Welcome to StackOverflow. There doesn't exist an implementation of what you have described in JDK. However, there are more ways to achieve the storing of Integer-String-Object. Note that both the index and the key are unique by definition. Also, note that the index-key are tightly coupled. You might want to put a Map to another Map:
Map<Integer, Map<String, MyObject>> map;
Or use a collection characteristic for indices:
List<Map<String, MyObject>>
Be careful with removing items which change the index of all the subsequent elements - replace it with null instead to keep the indices. Alternatively, you can create a decorator for your defined object with index/key:
Map<Integer, MyDecoratedObject> map;
Where the MyDecoratedObject would look like:
public class MyDecoratedObject {
private final String key; // or int index
private final MyObject delegate;
// Full-args constructor, getters
}
Finally, it's up to you to pick a way that satisfied your requirements the most.

A map of maps was the solution! It was solved like this:
private HashMap<Integer,HashMap<Integer,Integer>> rotorWiring = new HashMap<Integer, HashMap<Integer,Integer>>();
private HashMap<Integer,HashMap<Integer,Integer>> reverseRotorWiring = new HashMap<Integer, HashMap<Integer,Integer>>();
public void setRotorWiring(String Wiring) {
if (Wiring.length()==26) {
for (int i=0; i<Wiring.length();i++ ) {
HashMap<Integer, Integer> wire = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
HashMap<Integer, Integer> reverseWire = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
char tempChar = Wiring.charAt(i);
int valueOfChar = (int)tempChar-64;
if (valueOfChar<=26){
wire.put(i+1,valueOfChar);
reverseWire.put(valueOfChar,i+1);
rotorWiring.put(i, wire);
reverseRotorWiring.put(i, reverseWire);
}
}
}
}

Search multiple HashMaps at the same time

tldr: How can I search for an entry in multiple (read-only) Java HashMaps at the same time?
The long version:
I have several dictionaries of various sizes stored as HashMap< String, String >. Once they are read in, they are never to be changed (strictly read-only).
I want to check whether and which dictionary had stored an entry with my key.
My code was originally looking for a key like this:
public DictionaryEntry getEntry(String key) {
for (int i = 0; i < _numDictionaries; i++) {
HashMap<String, String> map = getDictionary(i);
if (map.containsKey(key))
return new DictionaryEntry(map.get(key), i);
}
return null;
}
Then it got a little more complicated: my search string could contain typos, or was a variant of the stored entry. Like, if the stored key was "banana", it is possible that I'd look up "bannana" or "a banana", but still would like the entry for "banana" returned. Using the Levenshtein-Distance, I now loop through all dictionaries and each entry in them:
public DictionaryEntry getEntry(String key) {
for (int i = 0; i < _numDictionaries; i++) {
HashMap<String, String> map = getDictionary(i);
for (Map.Entry entry : map.entrySet) {
// Calculate Levenshtein distance, store closest match etc.
}
}
// return closest match or null.
}
So far everything works as it should and I'm getting the entry I want. Unfortunately I have to look up around 7000 strings, in five dictionaries of various sizes (~ 30 - 70k entries) and it takes a while. From my processing output I have the strong impression my lookup dominates overall runtime.
My first idea to improve runtime was to search all dictionaries parallely. Since none of the dictionaries is to be changed and no more than one thread is accessing a dictionary at the same time, I don't see any safety concerns.
The question is just: how do I do this? I have never used multithreading before. My search only came up with Concurrent HashMaps (but to my understanding, I don't need this) and the Runnable-class, where I'd have to put my processing into the method run(). I think I could rewrite my current class to fit into Runnable, but I was wondering if there is maybe a simpler method to do this (or how can I do it simply with Runnable, right now my limited understanding thinks I have to restructure a lot).
Since I was asked to share the Levenshtein-Logic: It's really nothing fancy, but here you go:
private int _maxLSDistance = 10;
public Map.Entry getClosestMatch(String key) {
Map.Entry _closestMatch = null;
int lsDist;
if (key == null) {
return null;
}
for (Map.Entry entry : _dictionary.entrySet()) {
// Perfect match
if (entry.getKey().equals(key)) {
return entry;
}
// Similar match
else {
int dist = StringUtils.getLevenshteinDistance((String) entry.getKey(), key);
// If "dist" is smaller than threshold and smaller than distance of already stored entry
if (dist < _maxLSDistance) {
if (_closestMatch == null || dist < _lsDistance) {
_closestMatch = entry;
_lsDistance = dist;
}
}
}
}
return _closestMatch
}

In order to use multi-threading in your case, could be something like:
The "monitor" class, which basically stores the results and coordinates the threads;
public class Results {
private int nrOfDictionaries = 4; //
private ArrayList<String> results = new ArrayList<String>();
public void prepare() {
nrOfDictionaries = 4;
results = new ArrayList<String>();
}
public synchronized void oneDictionaryFinished() {
nrOfDictionaries--;
System.out.println("one dictionary finished");
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized boolean isReady() throws InterruptedException {
while (nrOfDictionaries != 0) {
wait();
}
return true;
}
public synchronized void addResult(String result) {
results.add(result);
}
public ArrayList<String> getAllResults() {
return results;
}
}
The Thread it's self, which can be set to search for the specific dictionary:
public class ThreadDictionarySearch extends Thread {
// the actual dictionary
private String dictionary;
private Results results;
public ThreadDictionarySearch(Results results, String dictionary) {
this.dictionary = dictionary;
this.results = results;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
// search dictionary;
results.addResult("result of " + dictionary);
System.out.println("adding result from " + dictionary);
}
results.oneDictionaryFinished();
}
}
And the main method for demonstration:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Results results = new Results();
ThreadDictionarySearch threadA = new ThreadDictionarySearch(results, "dictionary A");
ThreadDictionarySearch threadB = new ThreadDictionarySearch(results, "dictionary B");
ThreadDictionarySearch threadC = new ThreadDictionarySearch(results, "dictionary C");
ThreadDictionarySearch threadD = new ThreadDictionarySearch(results, "dictionary D");
threadA.start();
threadB.start();
threadC.start();
threadD.start();
if (results.isReady())
// it stays here until all dictionaries are searched
// because in "Results" it's told to wait() while not finished;
for (String string : results.getAllResults()) {
System.out.println("RESULT: " + string);
}

I think the easiest would be to use a stream over the entry set:
public DictionaryEntry getEntry(String key) {
for (int i = 0; i < _numDictionaries; i++) {
HashMap<String, String> map = getDictionary(i);
map.entrySet().parallelStream().foreach( (entry) ->
{
// Calculate Levenshtein distance, store closest match etc.
}
);
}
// return closest match or null.
}
Provided you are using java 8 of course. You could also wrap the outer loop into an IntStream as well. Also you could directly use the Stream.reduce to get the entry with the smallest distance.

Maybe try thread pools:
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(_numDictionaries);
for (int i = 0; i < _numDictionaries; i++) {
//prepare a Runnable implementation that contains a logic of your search
es.submit(prepared_runnable);
}
I believe you may also try to find a quick estimate of strings that completely do not match (i.e. significant difference in length), and use it to finish your logic ASAP, moving to next candidate.

I have my strong doubts that HashMaps are a suitable solution here, especially if you want to have some fuzzing and stop words. You should utilize a proper full text search solutions like ElaticSearch or Apache Solr or at least an available engine like Apache Lucene.
That being said, you can use a poor man's version: Create an array of your maps and a SortedMap, iterate over the array, take the keys of the current HashMap and store them in the SortedMap with the index of their HashMap. To retrieve a key, you first search in the SortedMap for said key, get the respective HashMap from the array using the index position and lookup the key in only one HashMap. Should be fast enough without the need for multiple threads to dig through the HashMaps. However, you could make the code below into a runnable and you can have multiple lookups in parallel.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.SortedMap;
import java.util.TreeMap;
public class Search {
public static void main(String[] arg) {
if (arg.length == 0) {
System.out.println("Must give a search word!");
System.exit(1);
}
String searchString = arg[0].toLowerCase();
/*
* Populating our HashMaps.
*/
HashMap<String, String> english = new HashMap<String, String>();
english.put("banana", "fruit");
english.put("tomato", "vegetable");
HashMap<String, String> german = new HashMap<String, String>();
german.put("Banane", "Frucht");
german.put("Tomate", "Gemüse");
/*
* Now we create our ArrayList of HashMaps for fast retrieval
*/
List<HashMap<String, String>> maps = new ArrayList<HashMap<String, String>>();
maps.add(english);
maps.add(german);
/*
* This is our index
*/
SortedMap<String, Integer> index = new TreeMap<String, Integer>(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER);
/*
* Populating the index:
*/
for (int i = 0; i < maps.size(); i++) {
// We iterate through or HashMaps...
HashMap<String, String> currentMap = maps.get(i);
for (String key : currentMap.keySet()) {
/* ...and populate our index with lowercase versions of the keys,
* referencing the array from which the key originates.
*/
index.put(key.toLowerCase(), i);
}
}
// In case our index contains our search string...
if (index.containsKey(searchString)) {
/*
* ... we find out in which map of the ones stored in maps
* the word in the index originated from.
*/
Integer mapIndex = index.get(searchString);
/*
* Next, we look up said map.
*/
HashMap<String, String> origin = maps.get(mapIndex);
/*
* Last, we retrieve the value from the origin map
*/
String result = origin.get(searchString);
/*
* The above steps can be shortened to
* String result = maps.get(index.get(searchString).intValue()).get(searchString);
*/
System.out.println(result);
} else {
System.out.println("\"" + searchString + "\" is not in the index!");
}
}
}
Please note that this is a rather naive implementation only provided for illustration purposes. It doesn't address several problems (you can't have duplicate index entries, for example).
With this solution, you are basically trading startup speed for query speed.

Okay!!..
Since your concern is to get faster response.
I would suggest you to divide the work between threads.
Lets you have 5 dictionaries May be keep three dictionaries to one thread and rest two will take care by another thread.
And then witch ever thread finds the match will halt or terminate the other thread.
May be you need an extra logic to do that dividing work ... But that wont effect your performance time.
And may be you need little more changes in your code to get your close match:
for (Map.Entry entry : _dictionary.entrySet()) {
you are using EntrySet But you are not using values anyway it seems getting entry set is a bit expensive. And I would suggest you to just use keySet since you are not really interested in the values in that map
for (Map.Entry entry : _dictionary.keySet()) {
For more details on the proformance of map Please read this link Map performances
Iteration over the collection-views of a LinkedHashMap requires time proportional to the size of the map, regardless of its capacity. Iteration over a HashMap is likely to be more expensive, requiring time proportional to its capacity.

storing multiple values in a map against single key

I have the following file named ght.txt in my c: and it contains the following data
Id|ytr|yts
1|W|T
2|W|T
3|W|T
Now the thing is that positions of this columns (Id|ytr|yts) is also not in order means they can be reshuffled also..for ex
Id|ytr|dgfj|fhfjk|fgrt|yts
or they can be as ..
Id|wer|ytr|weg|yts
so I have done the following way and read them in java as shown below
String[] headers = firstLine.split("|");
int id, Ix, Ixt, count = 0;
for(String header : headers) {
if(header.equals("Id")) {
idIx = count;
}elseif (header.equals("Ix")) {
Ixt = count;
} elseif (header.equals("Ixt")) {
Ixt = count;
}
count++;
}
Now I need to store them in a map in such a way that against id I will get the value of column ytr and yts so in map there should be single key but against that key value could be multiple please advise how to store in map in such a way

Using a Map<Integer,List<String>> sounds like a viable first approach.
As it sound like your value is structured, it might be even better to create a value class to hold this, eg. Map<Integer, YourValueClass> where
class YourValueClass
{
String ix;
String ixt;
// constructor, getters and setters
}
Basically, you should think in terms of classes/objects - don't be in object denial :-)
Cheers,

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if I get it right, you are looking for a multimap.
You can roll one yourself, as #Anders R. Bystrup suggests.
Or you can use an existing implementation like the Google Collections Multimap.

Don't store one key and multiple values. Instead, you can store a Key and Values as a List.

You can use MultiMap from Guava Library:
MultiMap<String,String> map = ArrayListMultimap.create();
map.put("key","value1");
map.put("key","value2");
By using:
System.out.println(map.get("key");
Prints:
["value1","value2"]

Value Class
class TextValues {
final int id;
final String ix;
final String ixt;
private TextValues(final int id, final String ix, final String ixt){
this.id = id;
this.ix = ix;
this.ixt = ixt;
}
public static TextValues createTextValues(int id, String ix, String ixt) {
return new TextValues(id, ix, ixt);
}
}
Usage:
Map<Integer, TextValues> map = new HashMap<Integer, TextValues>();
map.put(1, TextValues.createTextValues(1, "ix value ", "ixt value"));

public static void main(String[] args) {
Map<String, List<String>> map = new HashMap<String, List<String>>();
List<String> valSetOne = new ArrayList<String>();
valSetOne.add("ABC");
valSetOne.add("BCD");
valSetOne.add("DEF");
List<String> valSetTwo = new ArrayList<String>();
valSetTwo.add("CBA");
valSetTwo.add("DCB");
map.put("FirstKey", valSetOne);
map.put("SecondKey", valSetTwo);
for (Map.Entry<String, List<String>> entry : map.entrySet()) {
String key = entry.getKey();
List<String> values = entry.getValue();
System.out.println("Value of " + key + " is " + values);
}
}
You can use Set or List based on your requirement i.e you need elements in ordered or unordered collection.This is a simple method of having single key with multiple values.

`ArrayList of HashMap` or `LinkedHashMap` to get item by index

My need to store a a huge amount of data in the key-value form.
Also, I have two requirements
query data via the index, like from an array.
hence the order in the data structure must be preserved.
For Requirement 2 - I can use a LinkedHashMap.
For Requirement 1 - I have two options :
1.1 | To implement an ArrayList Of HashMap. [ArrayList<HashMap<String,String>>]
1.2 | To implement a LinkedHashMap and query the items by index using something like
-> new ArrayList(hashMapObject.entrySet()).get(0);
The Question is which is better among 1.1 or 1.2 ?
By better, I mean - efficient in terms of memory and space.
Let's assume the volume of data is in the order of 50 to 100 key-value pairs with average sized Strings - say every key is 10-30 characters and value is 30-50 characters.

Try using SortedMap.
For example:
SortedMap<Key, Value> map = new TreeMap<Key, Value>();
This way you get the fast lookup time (via key), but they also remain ordered.
You can then iterate over the data like so:
for(Key k : map.keySet()) {
process(map.get(k));
}
I used them recently to analyze 10s millions tweets where the key was a date, and the value was a counter. I wanted to maintain the ordering of the dates.
update If you can get by with just itereating over the data, then my method will suffice. Perhaps you could supply a small example? If it's absolutely required that you can reference the data by index as well, it seems like you would just want to maintain two datastructures like #Jim mentioned. I'ved had to do that before.

Remember that collections do not contain the objects, only references to objects.
Use two collections:
An ArrayList to store the references for access by index
A HashMap to store the references for access by key
For example:
List<MyValue> list = new ArrayList<MyValue>(100000);
Map<MyKey,MyValue> map = new HashMap<MyKey,MyValue>(100000);
while(moreItems) {
// read input
MyKey key = ...
MyValue value = ...
list.add(value);
map.put(key,value);
}
// lookup by index
MyValue v1 = list.get(11241);
// lookup by key
MyValue v2 = map.get(someKey);
If you need to cross-reference (i.e. given a value object, find its index or its key) you have some options:
Save the index and key in the the value object itself
Wrap the value in a "handle" that contains the key and index.
For example
class Wrapper {
MyKey key;
MyValue value;
int index;
// constructor, getters and setters
}
int index=0;
while(moreItems) {
// read input
MyKey key = ...
MyValue value = ...
Wrapper w = new Wrapper(key,value,index++);
list.add(w);
map.put(key,w);
}
...
Wrapper w = list.get(23410);
MyKey k = w.getKey();
MyValue v = w.getValue();
int i = w.getIndex();
...

I think the LinkedHashMap is the best solution, but to get the item, you can use
hashMapObject.values().toArray()[index]
However, the toArray method will be slow for large amounts of data. But that is something you'll have to test.
If speed is really an issue, you can maintain a HashMap and an ArrayList.

I went with experimentating it myself. Turns out the method of creating an ArrayList of HashMaps is about 40 times faster with 1000 elements.
public class HashMapVsArrayOfHashMap {
public static void main(String[] args){
ArrayList<HashMap<String, String>> listOfMaps=new ArrayList<HashMap<String,String>>();
for( int i=0;i<1000;i++){
final int finalI=i;
listOfMaps.add(new HashMap<String, String>(){{put("asdfasdfasdfasdfadsf"+finalI,"asdfsdafasdfsadfasdf"+finalI);}});
}
LinkedHashMap<String, String> map=new LinkedHashMap<String, String>();
for(int i=0;i<1000;i++)
map.put("asdfasdfasdfasdfadsf"+i,"asdfsdafasdfsadfasdf"+i);
int position=700;
testArrayList("Method1:ArrayListOfHashMaps",position,listOfMaps);
testHashMap("Method2:LinkedHashMap",position,map);
}
private static void testArrayList(String string, int position,
ArrayList<HashMap<String, String>> listOfMaps) {
long start, end;
start=System.nanoTime();
listOfMaps.get(position).get("asdfasdfasdfasdfadsf"+position);
end=System.nanoTime();
System.out.println(string+"|Difference = "+(end-start));
}
private static void testHashMap(String string, int position,
LinkedHashMap<String, String> map) {
long start, end;
start=System.nanoTime();
String s= new ArrayList<String>(map.keySet()).get(position);
end=System.nanoTime();
System.out.println(string+"|Difference = "+(end-start));
}
}
When you increase the size to 30,000 elements - the difference is HUGE.