We Keep Coding

Structure like Java's EnumSet that can hold repeated elements

I need some structure where to store N Enums, some of them repeated. And be able to easily extract them. So far I've try to use the EnumSet like this.
cards = EnumSet.of(
BEST_OF_THREE,
BEST_OF_THREE,
SIMPLE_QUESTION,
SIMPLE_QUESTION,
STAR);
But now I see it can only have one of each. Conceptually, which one would be the best structure to use for this problem.
Regards
jose

You can use a Map of type Enumeration -> Integer, where the integer indicates how many of each there are. The google guava "MultiSet" does this for you, and handles the edge cases of adding an enum to the set when there is not already an entry, and removing an enum when it leaves none left.
Another strategy is to use the Enumeration ordinal index. Because this index is unique, you can use this to index into an int array that is sized to the Enumeration size, where the count in each array slot would indicate how many of each enumeration you have. Like this:
// initialize array for counting each enumeration type
// TODO: someone should double check every initial value will be zero
int[] cardCount = new int[CardEnum.values().length];
...
// incrementing the count for an enumeration (when we add)
cardCount[BEST_OF_THREE.ordinal()]++;
...
// decrementing the count for an enumeration (when we remove)
cardCount[BEST_OF_THREE.ordinal()]--;
// DEBUG: assert cardCount[BEST_OF_THREE.ordinal()] >= 0
...
// getting the count for an enumeration
int count = cardCount[BEST_OF_THREE.ordinal()];
... Some time later
Having read the clarifying comments underneath the original post that explained what the OP was asking, it is clear that you're best off with a linear structure with an entry per element. I didn't realize that you didn't need detailed information on how many of each you needed. Storing them in a MultiSet or an equivalent counting structure makes it hard to randomly pick, as you need to attribute an index picked at random from [0, size) to a particular container, which takes log time.

Sets don't allow duplicates, so if you want repeats you'll need either a List or a Map.
If you just need the number of duplicates, an EnumMap with Integer values is probably your best bet.
If the order is important, and you need quick access to the number of each type, you'll probably need to roll your own data structure.
If the order is important (but the count of each is not), then a List is the way to go, which implementation depends on how you will use it.
LinkedList - Best when there will be many inserts/removals from the beginning of the List. Indexing into a LinkedList is very expensive, and should be avoided whenever possible. If a List is built by shifting data onto the front of the list, but any later additions are at the end, conversion to an ArrayList once the initial List is built is a good idea - especially if indexing into the List is anticipated at any point.
ArrayList - When in doubt, this is a good place to start. Inserting or removing items requires shifting, so if this is a common operation look elsewhere.
TreeList - This is a good all-around option, and insertions and removals anywhere in the List are inexpensive. This does require the Apache commons library, and uses a bit more memory than the others.
Benchmarks, and the code used go generate them can be found in this gist.

Merge two ArrayList in java

I have two identical array lists in java each having a string value and an integer count. Now I have to merge these array lists into a single one, in which if the value is present, i will just increment the count, if the value is not present, i will just add the value and the count as such.
The question is, is there anyway I can do it graciously other than iterating in a for loop and if checking every value?

You can't, there's too much custom logic. Iterate, check and add - that's the best approach, and will be more readable.
Technically, you can use a Multiset from guava, but there the count is taken care of by the collection itself, rather than you, so it might require some more work.

The question is, is there anyway I can do it graciously other than
iterating in a for loop and if checking every value?
Short answer is no.
You would be better of using HashMap as a container, at least the merging operation would perform faster. You need a loop in any case. (since there is no addAll / putAll wich could update your counts).

Comparator for TreeBag to sort by the number of occurrences

I have a source of strings (let us say, a text file) and many strings repeat multiple times. I need to get the top X most common strings in the order of decreasing number of occurrences.
The idea that came to mind first was to create a sortable Bag (something like org.apache.commons.collections.bag.TreeBag) and supply a comparator that will sort the entries in the order I need. However, I cannot figure out what is the type of objects I need to compare. It should be some kind of an internal map that combines my object (String) and the number of occurrences, generated internally by TreeBag. Is this possible?
Or would I be better off by simply using a hashmap and sort it by value as described in, for example, Java sort HashMap by value

Why don't you put the strings in a map. Map of string to number of times they appear in text.
In step 2, traverse the items in the map and keep on adding them to a minimum heap of size X. Always extract min first if the heap is full before inserting.
Takes nlogx time.
Otherwise after step 1 sort the items by number of occurrences and take first x items. A tree map would come in helpful here :) (I'd add a link to the javadocs, but I'm in a tablet )
Takes nlogn time.

With Guava's TreeMultiset, just use Multisets.copyHighestCountFirst.

Most efficient way to check if row exists in grid Java

All,
I am wondering what's the most efficient way to check if a row already exists in a List<Set<Foo>>. A Foo object has a key/value pair(as well as other fields which aren't applicable to this question). Each Set in the List is unique.
As an example:
List[
Set<Foo>[Foo_Key:A, Foo_Value:1][Foo_Key:B, Foo_Value:3][Foo_Key:C, Foo_Value:4]
Set<Foo>[Foo_Key:A, Foo_Value:1][Foo_Key:B, Foo_Value:2][Foo_Key:C, Foo_Value:4]
Set<Foo>[Foo_Key:A, Foo_Value:1][Foo_Key:B, Foo_Value:3][Foo_Key:C, Foo_Value:3]
]
I want to be able to check if a new Set (Ex: Set[Foo_Key:A, Foo_Value:1][Foo_Key:B, Foo_Value:3][Foo_Key:C, Foo_Value:4]) exists in the List.
Each Set could contain anywhere from 1-20 Foo objects. The List can contain anywhere from 1-100,000 Sets. Foo's are not guaranteed to be in the same order in each Set (so they will have to be pre-sorted for the correct order somehow, like a TreeSet)
Idea 1: Would it make more sense to turn this into a matrix? Where each column would be the Foo_Key and each row would contain a Foo_Value?
Ex:
A B C
-----
1 3 4
1 2 4
1 3 3
And then look for a row containing the new values?
Idea 2: Would it make more sense to create a hash of each Set and then compare it to the hash of a new Set?
Is there a more efficient way I'm not thinking of?
Thanks

If you use TreeSets for your Sets can't you just do list.contains(set) since a TreeSet will handle the equals check?
Also, consider using Guava's MultSet class.Multiset

I would recommend you use a less weird data structure. As for finding stuff: Generally Hashes or Sorting + Binary Searching or Trees are the ways to go, depending on how much insertion/deletion you expect. Read a book on basic data structures and algorithms instead of trying to re-invent the wheel.
Lastly: If this is not a purely academical question, Loop through the lists, and do the comparison. Most likely, that is acceptably fast. Even 100'000 entries will take a fraction of a second, and therefore not matter in 99% of all use cases.
I like to quote Knuth: Premature optimisation is the root of all evil.

Java find nearest (or equal) value in collection

I have a class along the lines of:
public class Observation {
private String time;
private double x;
private double y;
//Constructors + Setters + Getters
}
I can choose to store these objects in any type of collection (Standard class or 3rd party like Guava). I have stored some example data in an ArrayList below, but like I said I am open to any other type of collection that will do the trick. So, some example data:
ArrayList<Observation> ol = new ArrayList<Observation>();
ol.add(new Observation("08:01:23",2.87,3.23));
ol.add(new Observation("08:01:27",2.96,3.17));
ol.add(new Observation("08:01:27",2.93,3.20));
ol.add(new Observation("08:01:28",2.93,3.21));
ol.add(new Observation("08:01:30",2.91,3.23));
The example assumes a matching constructor in Observation. The timestamps are stored as String objects as I receive them as such from an external source but I am happy to convert them into something else. I receive the observations in chronological order so I can create and rely on a sorted collection of observations. The timestamps are NOT unique (as can be seen in the example data) so I cannot create a unique key based on time.
Now to the problem. I frequently need to find one (1) observation with a time equal or nearest to a certain time, e.g if my time was 08:01:29 I would like to fetch the 4th observation in the example data and if the time is 08:01:27 I want the 3rd observation.
I can obviously iterate through the collection until I find the time that I am looking for, but I need to do this frequently and at the end of the day I may have millions of observations so I need to find a solution where I can locate the relevant observations in an efficient manner.
I have looked at various collection-types including ones where I can filter the collections with Predicates but I have failed to find a solution that would return one value, as opposed to a subset of the collection that fulfills the "<="-condition. I am essentially looking for the SQL equivalent of SELECT * FROM ol WHERE time <= t LIMIT 1.
I am sure there is a smart and easy way to solve my problem so I am hoping to be enlightened. Thank you in advance.

Try TreeSet providing a comparator that compares the time. It mantains an ordered set and you can ask for TreeSet.floor(E) to find the greatest min (you should provide a dummy Observation with the time you are looking for). You also have headSet and tailSet for ordered subsets.
It has O(log n) time for adding and retrieving. I think is very suitable for your needs.
If you prefer a Map you can use a TreeMap with similar methods.

Sort your collection (ArrayList will probably work best here) and use BinarySearch which returns an integer index of either a match of the "closest" possible match, ie it returns an...
index of the search key, if it is contained in the list; otherwise, (-(insertion point) - 1). The insertion point is defined as the point at which the key would be inserted into the list: the index of the first element greater than the key, or list.size(),

Have the Observation class implement Comparable and use a TreeSet to store the objects, which will keep the elements sorted. TreeSet implements SortedSet, so you can use headSet or tailSet to get a view of the set before or after the element you're searching for. Use the first or last method on the returned set to get the element you're seeking.
If you are stuck with ArrayList, but can keep the elements sorted yourself, use Collections.binarySearch to search for the element. It returns a positive number if the exact element is found, or a negative number that can be used to determine the closest element. http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/Collections.html#binarySearch(java.util.List,%20java.lang.Object)

If you are lucky enough to be using Java 6, and the performance overhead of keeping a SortedSet is not a big deal for you. Take a look at TreeSet ceiling, floor, higher and lower methods.