I'd like to have a Map that is also a Collection. Or more specifically, I'd like to be able to iterate over the entries in a Map, including the case where there are multiple entries for a particular key.
The specific problem I'm trying to solve is providing an object that can be used in jstl both to iterate over using c:forEach and in an expression like ${a.b.c}. In this example, I'd want ${a.b.c} to evaluate to the the first value of c (or null if there are none), but also be able to iterate over all cs with <c:forEach items="${a.b.c}"> and have the loop body see each individual value of c in turn, although they have the same key in the Map.
Looking at things from a method point of view, this should be straightforward, just provide a Map implementation whose entrySet() method returns a set with multiple Entries with the same key. But since this seems to violate the contract of a Map, will things break in subtle yet disastrous ways? Has anyone else done this sort of thing?
(If you guessed I'm trying to present xml, you'd be correct)
EDIT
Please note that this is for use in jstl, so whatever interface I present must meet 2 conditions:
for use with the [] and . operators, it must be a Map, List, array or JavaBeans object (and of those it can't be a List or array because the indexes will not be numbers)
for use with forEach it must be an array, Collection, Iterator, Enumeration, Map, or String.
So I guess the real question is, can I count on jstl only calling .containsKey(), .get(), and .entrySet() and not caring about invariants being violated, and not internally making a copy of the Map which would not preserve the special iteration behavior.
What you are looking for is a Multimap. Guava provides an implementation of it and specifically you are looking for ArrayListMultimap.
I barely remember jstl, but what you're saying sounds a kind of controversial:
In foreach:
here ${a.b.c} should point to some container of values and then we iterate over it.
On the other hand you say, ${a.b.c} "should evaluate to the the first value of c" (or null...)
Its an ambiguous definition.
If you feel like Multimap is not what you want, you can provide your own collection implementation (probably internally based on Multimap)
Just as an idea you can always look at a single element as a list (that accidentally
is comprised of one element). This way you would resolve your ambiguity, I guess.
I hope this helps
Having a Map with multiple entries for the same key irreparably breaks the Map contract. If Multimap doesn't work for you, then there's no way to do this without breaking a lot of things.
Specifically, if you pass your monstrosity to something that's specified to take a Map, it'll almost certainly break...and it sounds like that's what you want to do with it, so yeah.
how about you use a Map with Collections as values? then you can have different values for the same key and you can iterate over them by a nested foreach-loop
you can also easily write a wrapper for an existing map-implementation, which gives you a single iterator over all values, if you need it that way
Related
Is there a data structure that does the following:
Returns the value given the index
Returns the index given the value
Returns all values sorted by index as List<>
As far as I am aware, a HashMap supports property 2, doesn't support properties 1 and 3.
An ArrayList supports 1 and 3 but not 2.
Is there something that fits my needs?
(1) and (2) describe a bi-directional map; the Guava library provides several implementations of this data structure.
Unfortunately there isn't a SortedBiMap class (presently), however depending on your specific constraints you may be able to address (3) in different ways.
For example, the simplest thing to do would be to create a new wrapping type that contains a BiMap<Integer, V> and a List<V> and ensures the two data structures are kept in sync. This may be inefficient for some use-cases (e.g. removals are O(n) due to the backing list) but may well be all you need.
Alternatively you could try to loosen constraint (3) if you don't really need a List, but just need to be able to iterate in a fixed order, in which case you could probably use Guava's ImmutableBiMap, which is guaranteed to iterate in insertion-order.
Otherwise, you could probably create your own SortedBiMap type modeled after HashBiMap but using TreeMap instead of HashMap. This would allow you to iterate over the keys in order (e.g. 0->n) regardless of their insertion order.
List (Any List including ArrayList) supports all 3 of your requirments. 1 and 3 you already know about, for #2 see method indexOf(). Also see related method lastIndexOf()
First of all, I want to make it clear that I would never use a HashMap to do things that require some kind of order in the data structure and that this question is motivated by my curiosity about the inner details of Java HashMap implementation.
You can read in the java documentation on Object about the Object method hashCode.
I understand from there that hashCode implementation for classes such as String and basic types wrappers (Integer, Long,...) is predictable once the value contained by the object is given. An example of that would be that calls to hashCode for any String object containing the value hello should return always: 99162322
Having an algorithm that always insert into an empty Java HashMap where Strings are used as keys the same values in the same order. Then, the order of its elements at the end should be always the same, am I wrong?
Since the hash code for a concrete value is always the same, if there are not collisions the order should be the same.
On the other hand, if there are collisions, I think (I don't know the facts) that the collisions resolutions should result in the same order for exactly the same input elements.
So, isn't it right that two HashMap objects with the same elements, inserted in the same order should be traversed (by an iterator) giving the same elements sequence?
As far as I know the order (assuming we call "order" the order of elements as returned by values() iterator) of the elements in HashMap are kept until map rehash is performed. We can influence on probability of that event by providing capacity and/or loadFactor to the constructor.
Nevertheless, we should never rely on this statement because the internal implementation of HashMap is not a part of its public contract and is a subject to change in future.
I think you are asking "Is HashMap non-deterministic?". The answer is "probably not" (look at the source code of your favourite implementation to find out).
However, bear in mind that because the Java standard does not guarantee a particular order, the implementation is free to alter at any time (e.g. in newer JRE versions), giving a different (yet deterministic) result.
Whether or not that is true is entirely dependent upon the implementation. What's more important is that it isn't guaranteed. If you order is important to you there are options. You could create your own implementation of Map that does preserve order, you can use a SortedMap/LinkedHashMap or you can use something like the apache commons-collections OrderedMap: http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-collections/javadocs/api-release/org/apache/commons/collections4/OrderedMap.html.
I am considering using a Java collection that would work best with random insertions. I will be inserting a lot and only read the collection once at the end.
My desired functionality is adding an element at a specified index, anywhere between <0, current_length>. Which collection would be the most efficient to use?
Useful link for your reference:
http://www.coderfriendly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/java_collections_v2.pdf
Not entirely sure how you will be reading the information post input (and how important it is to you). Hashmap or ArrayList would make sense depending on what you are looking to do. Also not sure if you are looking for something thread safe or not.
Hope it helps.
The inefficiency of using List is endemic to the problem. Every time you add something, every subsequent element will have to be re-indexed - as the javadoc states:
Shifts the element currently at that position (if any) and any
subsequent elements to the right (adds one to their indices).
From your question/comments, it would appear that you have a bunch of Objects, and you're sorting them as you go. I'd suggest a more efficient solution to this problem would be to write a Comparator (or make your object implement Comparable), and then use Collections.sort(list, comparator) (or Collections.sort(list)).
You might suggest that your Objects are being sorted on the basis of other variables. In which case, you could create an extension of the Object, with those other variables as fields and extending Comparable, and with a method like getOriginal(). You add these wrapped objects to your list, sort, and then iterate through the list, adding the original objects (from getOriginal()) to a new list.
For info on the sorting algorithm of collections - see this SO question
I have a multiset in guava and I would like to retrieve the number of instances of a given element without iterating over this multiset (I don't want to iterate because I assume that iterating takes quite some time, as it looks through all the collection).
To do that, I was thinking first to use the entryset() method of multiset, to obtain a set with single instances and their corresponding count. Then, transform this set into a hashmap (where keys are the elements of my set, and values are their instance count). Because then I can use the methods of hashmap to directly retrieve a value from its key - done! But this makes sense only if I can transform the set into the hashmap in a quick way (without iterating trhough all elements): is it possible?
(as I said I expect this question to be flawed on multiple counts, I'd be happy if you could shed light on the conceptual mistakes I probably make here. Thx!)
Simply invoke count(element) on your multiset -- voila!
You may know in Guava Multiset is an interface, not a class.
If you just want to know the repeated number of an element, call Multiset.count(Object element).
Please forget my following statement:
Then if you are using a popular implementation HashMultiset, there is already a HashMap<E, AtomicInteger> working under the scene.
That is, when the HashMultiset iterates, also a HashMap iterates. No need to transform into another HashMap.
Often, I have a list of objects. Each object has properties. I want to extract a subset of the list where a specific property has a predefined value.
Example:
I have a list of User objects. A User has a homeTown. I want to extract all users from my list with "Springfield" as their homeTown.
I normally see this accomplished as follows:
List users = getTheUsers();
List returnList = new ArrayList();
for (User user: users) {
if ("springfield".equalsIgnoreCase(user.getHomeTown())
returnList.add(user);
}
I am not particularly satisfied with this solution. Yes, it works, but it seems so slow. There must be a non-linear solution.
Suggestions?
Well, this operation is linear in nature unless you do something extreme like index the collection based on properties you expect to examine in this way. Short of that, you're just going to have to look at each object in the collection.
But there may be some things you can do to improve readability. For example, Groovy provides an each() method for collections. It would allow you to do something like this...
def returnList = new ArrayList();
users.each() {
if ("springfield".equalsIgnoreCase(it.getHomeTown())
returnList.add(user);
};
You will need a custom solution for this. Create a custom collection such that it implements List interface and add all elements from original list into this list.
Internally in this custom List class you need to maintain some collections of Map of all attributes which can help you lookup values as you need. To populate this Map you will have to use introspection to find list of all fields and their values.
This custom object will have to implement some methods as List findAllBy(String propertyName, String propertyValue); that will use above hash map to look up those values.
This is not an easy straightforward solution. Further more you will need to consider nested attributes like "user.address.city". Making this custom List immutable will help a lot.
However even if you are iterating list of 1000's of objects in List, still it will be faster so you are better off iterating List for what you need.
As I have found out, if you are using a list, you have to iterate. Whether its a for-each, lambda, or a FindAll - it is still being iterated. No matter how you dress up a duck, it's still a duck. As far as I know there are HashTables, Dictionaries, and DataTables that do not require iteration to find a value. I am not sure what the Java equivalent implementations are, but maybe this will give you some other ideas.
If you are really interested in performance here, I would also suggest a custom solution. My suggestion would be to create a Tree of Lists in which you can sort the elements.
If you are not interested about the ordering of the elements inside your list (and most people are usually not), you could also use a TreeMap (or HashMap) and use the homeTown as key and a List of all entries as value. If you add new elements, just look up the belonging list in the Map and append it (if it is the first element of course you need to create the list first). If you want to delete an element simply do the same.
In the case you want a list of all users with a given homeTown you just need to look up that list in the Map and return it (no copying of elements needed), I am not 100% sure about the Map implementations in Java, but the complete method should be in constant time (worst case logarithmic, depending on the Map implementation).
I ended up using Predicates. Its readability looks similar to Drew's suggestion.
As far as performance is concerned, I found negligible speed improvements for small (< 100 items) lists. For larger lists (5k-10k), I found 20-30% improvements. Medium lists had benefits but not quite as large as bigger lists. I did not test super large lists, but my testing made it seem the large the list the better the results in comparison to the foreach process.