We Keep Coding

How can I obtain (even by coding a new function) the size of an Object array (type Fraction created by me)?

I am creating a function library for the class Frazione (it means fraction) and I need to work on the logical size of an array of type Frazione. How can I obtain it?
I tried a for loop and a while loop but I can't find the right way to separate the used indexes from the unused ones.
public static int size(Frazione[] set) {
int size = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < set.length; i++)
if (set[i] != null) //the only way I know not to count unused indexes
size++;
return size;
}
It should return the number of elements in the array but it doesn't even run

Your code works fine. Just as an alternate you could do the same using stream API. There is count() method that returns long type. So you could cast it to int:
public static int size(Frazione[] set) {
return (int)Arrays.stream(set)
.filter(Objects::nonNull)
.count();
}

Java Searching through two Arrays

I have 2 ArrayList's. ArrayList A has 8.1k elements and ArrayList B has 81k elements.
I need to iterate through B, search for that particular item in A then change a field in the matched element in list B.
Here's my code:
private void mapAtoB(List<A> aList, ListIterator<B> it) {
AtomicInteger i = new AtomicInteger(-1);
while(it.hasNext()) {
System.out.print(i.incrementAndGet() + ", ");
B b = it.next();
aList.stream().filter(a -> b.equalsB(a)).forEach(a -> {
b.setId(String.valueOf(a.getRedirectId()));
it.set(b);
});
}
System.out.println();
}
public class B {
public boolean equalsB(A a) {
if (a == null) return false;
if (this.getFullURL().contains(a.getFirstName())) return true;
return false;
}
}
But this is taking forever. To finish this method it takes close to 15 minutes. Is there any way to optimize any of this? 15 min run time is way too much.

I'll be happy to see a good and thorough solution, meanwhile I can propose two ideas (or maybe two reincarnations of one).
The first one is to speed up searching of all objects of type A in one object of type B. For that, Rabin-Karp algorithm seems applicable and simple enough to quickly implement, and Aho-Corasick harder but will probably give better results, not sure how much better.
The other option is to limit the number of objects of type B which should be fully processed for each object of A, for that you could e.g. build an inverse N-gram index: for each fullUrl you take all its substrings of length N ("N-grams"), and you build a map from each such N-gram to a set of B's that have such N-gram in their fullUrl. When searching for an object A, you take all of its N-grams, find a set of B's for each such N-gram and intersect all these sets, the intersection will contain all B's that you should fully process. I implemented this approach quickly, for the sizes you specified it gives a 6-7 time speedup for N=4; as N grows, search becomes faster, but building the index slows down (so if you can reuse it you are probably better off choosing a bigger N). This index takes about 200 Mb for the sizes you specified, so this approach will only scale this far with the growth of the collection of B's. Assuming that all strings are longer than NGRAM_LENGTH, here's the quick and dirty code for building the index using Guava's SetMultimap, HashMultimap:
SetMultimap<String, B> idx = HashMultimap.create();
for (B b : bList) {
for (int i = 0; i < b.getFullURL().length() - NGRAM_LENGTH + 1; i++) {
idx.put(b.getFullURL().substring(i, i + NGRAM_LENGTH), b);
}
}
And for the search:
private void mapAtoB(List<A> aList, SetMultimap<String, B> mmap) {
for (A a : aList) {
Collection<B> possible = null;
for (int i = 0; i < a.getFirstName().length() - NGRAM_LENGTH + 1; i++) {
String ngram = a.getFirstName().substring(i, i + NGRAM_LENGTH);
Set<B> forNgram = mmap.get(ngram);
if (possible == null) {
possible = new ArrayList<>(forNgram);
} else {
possible.retainAll(forNgram);
}
if (possible.size() < 20) { // it's ok to scan through 20
break;
}
}
for (B b : possible) {
if (b.equalsB(a)) {
b.setId(a.getRedirectId());
}
}
}
}
A possible direction for optimization would be to use hashes instead of full N-grams thus reducing the memory footprint and necessity for N-gram key comparisons.

Implementing an equals() method to compare contents of two 'bag' objects

I am working on a school assignment. The objective is to practice GUI's, clone() methods, and using/ modifying existing code. I am trying to write an equals method in the way the instructor desires-- by using a clone of the object, removing items from the bag (returns boolean based on success or failure to remove).
The bag is represented in an array, and should return true in cases such as {1,2,3} and {3,2,1}, ie order does not matter, only the number of each number present in the arrays.
Here is the issue
It works in most cases, however there is a bug in cases where the bags contain numbers as such: {1,1,2} and {1,2,2} and other similar iterations. It is returning true instead of false.
I believe it has something to do with the remove() method we are supposed to use. If i understand it correctly, it is supposed to put the value at the 'end' of the array and decrease the manyItems counter (this is a variable for number of items in the array, because array.length is by default in the constructor 10.)
The code is largely written by another person. We had to import the existing files and write new methods to complete the task we were given. I have all the GUI part done so i will not include that class, only the used methods in the IntArrayBag class.
A second pair of eyes would be helpful. Thanks.
public class IntArrayBag implements Cloneable
{
// Invariant of the IntArrayBag class:
// 1. The number of elements in the bag is in the instance variable
// manyItems, which is no more than data.length.
// 2. For an empty bag, we do not care what is stored in any of data;
// for a non-empty bag, the elements in the bag are stored in data[0]
// through data[manyItems-1], and we don�t care what�s in the
// rest of data.
private int[ ] data;
private int manyItems;
public IntArrayBag( )
{
final int INITIAL_CAPACITY = 10;
manyItems = 0;
data = new int[INITIAL_CAPACITY];
}
public IntArrayBag clone( )
{ // Clone an IntArrayBag object.
IntArrayBag answer;
try
{
answer = (IntArrayBag) super.clone( );
}
catch (CloneNotSupportedException e)
{ // This exception should not occur. But if it does, it would probably
// indicate a programming error that made super.clone unavailable.
// The most common error would be forgetting the "Implements Cloneable"
// clause at the start of this class.
throw new RuntimeException
("This class does not implement Cloneable");
}
answer.data = data.clone( );
return answer;
}
public int size( )
{
return manyItems;
}
public boolean remove(int target)
{
int index; // The location of target in the data array.
// First, set index to the location of target in the data array,
// which could be as small as 0 or as large as manyItems-1; If target
// is not in the array, then index will be set equal to manyItems;
for (index = 0; (index < manyItems) && (target != data[index]); index++)
// No work is needed in the body of this for-loop.
;
if (index == manyItems)
// The target was not found, so nothing is removed.
return false;
else
{ // The target was found at data[index].
// So reduce manyItems by 1 and copy the last element onto data[index].
manyItems--;
data[index] = data[manyItems];
return true;
}
}
//I added extra variables that are not needed to try to increase readability,
//as well as when i was trying to debug the code originally
public boolean equals(Object obj){
if (obj instanceof IntArrayBag){
IntArrayBag canidate = (IntArrayBag) obj; // i know this can be changed, this was required
IntArrayBag canidateTest = (IntArrayBag) canidate.clone(); //this was created
//as a clone because it was otherwise referring to the same memory address
//this caused items to be removed from bags when testing for equality
IntArrayBag test = (IntArrayBag) this.clone();
//fast check to see if the two objects have the same number of items,
//if they dont will return false and skip the item by item checking
if (test.size() != canidateTest.size())
return false;
//the loop will go through every element in the test bag it will
//then remove the value that is present at the first index of the test bag
for (int i = 0; (i < (test.size()) || i < (canidateTest.size())); i++){
int check = test.data[i];
//remove() returns a boolean so if the value is not present in each bag
//then the conditional will be met and the method will return false
boolean test1 = test.remove(check);
boolean test2 = canidateTest.remove(check);
if (test1 != test2)
return false;
}//end for loop
// if the loop goes through every element
//and finds every value was true it will return true
return true;
}//end if
else
return false;
}//end equals
}

I cannot see the big picture, as I havent coded GUIs in Java before, however, as far as comparing 2 int[] arrays, I would sort the arrays before the comparison. This will allow you to eliminate problem cases like the one you stated ( if sorting is possible), then apply something like:
while(array_1[index]==array_2[index] && index<array_1.length)
{index++;}
and find where did the loop break by checking the final value of index

Is it explicitly stated to use clone? You can achieve it easily by overriding the hashCode() for this Object.
You can override the hashCode() for this object as follows:
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 5;
int result = 1;
/* Sort Array */
Arrays.sort(this.data);
/* Calculate Hash */
for(int d : this.data) {
result = prime * result + d;
}
/* Return Result */
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj) return true;
if (obj == null || this.getClass() != obj.getClass()){
return false;
}
return false;
}
If you want to continue using your implementation for equals to compare test and CandidateTest then also you can compute unique hashes and make decision based on the results.
Here is the code snippet:
/* Assuming that you have put size comparison logic on top
and the two objects are of same size */
final int prime = 31;
int testResult = 1;
int candidateTestResult = 1;
for(int i = 0; i < test.size(); i++) {
testResult = prime * testResult + test.data[i];
candidateTestResult = prime * candidateTestResult + candidateTest.data[i];
}
/* Return Result */
return testResult == candidateTestResult;

I believe the problem is in this line:
for (int i = 0; (i < (test.size()) || i < (canidateTest.size())); i++){
The problem here is that test and canidateTest are the clones that you made, and you are removing elements from those bags. And any time you remove an element from the bag, the size will decrease (because you decrease manyItems, and size() returns manyItems). This means you're only going to go through half the array. Suppose the original size is 4. Then, the first time through the loop, i==0 and test.size()==4; the second time, i==0 and test.size()==3; the third time, i==2 and test.size()==2, and you exit the loop. So you don't look at all 4 elements--you only look at 2.
You'll need to decide: do you want to go through the elements of the original array, or the elements of the clone? If you go through the elements of the clone, you actually never need to increment i. You can always look at test.data[0], since once you look at it, you remove it, so you know test.data[0] will be replaced with something else. In fact, you don't need i at all. Just loop until the bag size is 0, or until you determine that the bags aren't equal. On the other hand, if you go through the elements of this.data (i.e. look at this.data[i] or just data[i]), then make sure i goes all the way up to this.size().
(One more small point: the correct spelling is "candidate".)

Maybe you should try SET interface
view this in detail ：http://www.tutorialspoint.com/java/java_set_interface.htm
A set object cannot contains duplicate elements, so it's suitable for your assignment than build your own class.
For example：[1,1,2] and [1,2,2]
you can use this to test whether they are equal
arr1 = {1,1,2}
arr2 = {1,2,2}
Set<Integer> set = new HashSet<Integer>();
for(int i : arr1){//build set of arr1
if(set.contains(i)==false){
set.add(i)
}
}
for(int i:arr2){
if(set.contains(i)==false){
System.out.println('not equal');
break;
}
}
Hope this is helpful.

Insert into an already-sorted list

With Java, I have a class, known as TestClass, which has a member named Name, which is a string. I also have an ArrayList of this type, which is already sorted alphabetically by Name. What I want to do is find the best index in which to put a new instance of TestClass. The best approach I could come up with so far is this:
public static int findBestIndex(char entry, ArrayList<TestClass> list){
int desiredIndex = -1;
int oldPivot = list.size();
int pivot = list.size()/2;
do
{
char test = list.get(pivot).Name.charAt(0);
if (test == entry)
{
desiredIndex = pivot;
}
else if (Math.abs(oldPivot - pivot) <= 1)
{
if (test < entry)
{
desiredIndex = pivot + 1;
}
else
{
desiredIndex = pivot - 1;
}
}
else if (test < entry)
{
int tempPiv = pivot;
pivot = oldPivot - (oldPivot - pivot)/2;
oldPivot = tempPiv;
}
else
{
int tempPiv = pivot;
pivot = pivot - (oldPivot - pivot)/2;
oldPivot = tempPiv;
}
} while (desiredIndex < 0);
return desiredIndex;
}
Essentially, Break the array in half, check to see if your value goes before, after, or at that point. If it's after, check the first half of the array. Other wise, check the second half. Then, repeat. I understand that this method only tests by the first character, but that's easily fixed, and not relevant to my main problem. For some scenarios, this approach works well enough. For most, it works horribly. I assume that it isn't finding the new pivot point properly, and if that's the case, how would I fix it?
Edit: For clarification, I'm using this for an inventory system, so I'm not sure a LinkedList would be appropriate. I'm using an ArrayList because they are more familiar to me, and thus would be easier to translate into another language, if needed (which is likely, at the moment, might be moving over to C#). I'm trying to avoid things like Comparable for that reason, as I'd have to completely re-write if C# lacks it.
Edit part Duex: Figured out what I was doing wrong. Instead of using the previous pivot point, I should have been setting and changing the boundaries of the area I was checking, and creating the new pivot based on that.

It might not be a good idea to use a SortedSet (e.g. a TreeSet) for this, because Set‘s don't allow duplicate elements. If you have duplicate elements (i.e. TestClass instances with the same name), then a List should be used. To insert an element into an already sorted list is as simple as this:
void insert(List<TestClass> list, TestClass element) {
int index = Collections.binarySearch(list, element, Comparator.comparing(TestClass::getName));
if (index < 0) {
index = -index - 1;
}
list.add(index, element);
}
This code requires Java 8 or later, but can be rewritten to work in older Java versions as well.

As already pointed out, there is no reason to implement this by yourself, simple code example:
class FooBar implements Comparable<FooBar> {
String name;
#Override
public int compareTo(FooBar other) {
return name.compareTo(other.name);
}
}
TreeSet<FooBar> foobarSet = new TreeSet<>();
FooBar f1;
foobarSet.add(new FooBar("2"));
foobarSet.add(f1 = new FooBar("1"));
int index = foobarSet.headSet(f1).size();
(Based on How to find the index of an element in a TreeSet?)

I think the problem is in this bit of the code:
else if (test < entry)
{
int tempPiv = pivot;
pivot = oldPivot - (oldPivot - pivot)/2;
oldPivot = tempPiv;
}
else
{
int tempPiv = pivot;
pivot = pivot - (oldPivot - pivot)/2;
oldPivot = tempPiv;
}
You are peforming the same actions wether test < entry or wether test > entry. This will lead to a linear search when the item you are searching for is at the start of the array.
I prefer to use (low and high) like
high = list.size();
low = 0;
do {
pivot = (high + low) / 2;
if (test < entry) {
low = pivot;
} else if (test > entry) {
high = pivot
} else {
....
}
} while ...;

You should use something like a PriorityQueue that already has a sense of order. Inserting into a collection with a sense of order will automatically place the element in the correct place with minimal time(usually log(n) or less).
If you want to do arbitrary inserts without this, then I would suggest using a LinkedList that won't have to be resorted or completely copied over to insert a single item like the ArrayList you currently have. While finding the correct insert location for a LinkedList will take up to O(n) time, in practice it will still be faster than using a log(n) search for the correct location in an ArrayList, but then needing to copy or sort it afterwards.
Also the code for finding the insert location in a linked list is much simpler.
if (next != null && next.compareTo(insertElement) > 0){
// You have the right location
}

There are other data structures used could use instead of list like a tree, priority queue etc.

Make a list implementation of your own, and in your add method have these lines:
wrappedList.add(object);
Collections.sort(wrappedList);

Iterating through array - java

I was wondering if it was better to have a method for this and pass the Array to that method or to write it out every time I want to check if a number is in the array.
For example:
public static boolean inArray(int[] array, int check) {
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
if (array[i] == check)
return true;
}
return false;
}
Thanks for the help in advance!

Since atleast Java 1.5.0 (Java 5) the code can be cleaned up a bit. Arrays and anything that implements Iterator (e.g. Collections) can be looped as such:
public static boolean inArray(int[] array, int check) {
for (int o : array){
if (o == check) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
In Java 8 you can also do something like:
// import java.util.stream.IntStream;
public static boolean inArray(int[] array, int check) {
return IntStream.of(array).anyMatch(val -> val == check);
}
Although converting to a stream for this is probably overkill.

You should definitely encapsulate this logic into a method.
There is no benefit to repeating identical code multiple times.
Also, if you place the logic in a method and it changes, you only need to modify your code in one place.
Whether or not you want to use a 3rd party library is an entirely different decision.

If you are using an array (and purely an array), the lookup of "contains" is O(N), because worst case, you must iterate the entire array. Now if the array is sorted you can use a binary search, which reduces the search time to log(N) with the overhead of the sort.
If this is something that is invoked repeatedly, place it in a function:
private boolean inArray(int[] array, int value)
{
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
{
if (array[i] == value)
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
}

You can import the lib org.apache.commons.lang.ArrayUtils
There is a static method where you can pass in an int array and a value to check for.
contains(int[] array, int valueToFind)
Checks if the value is in the given array.
ArrayUtils.contains(intArray, valueToFind);
ArrayUtils API

Using java 8 Stream API could simplify your job.
public static boolean inArray(int[] array, int check) {
return Stream.of(array).anyMatch(i -> i == check);
}
It's just you have the overhead of creating a new Stream from Array, but this gives exposure to use other Stream API. In your case you may not want to create new method for one-line operation, unless you wish to use this as utility.
Hope this helps!