We Keep Coding

I want to get most frequent values using LINQ

I am trying to get the most frequent values in an array using LINQ in C#.
For example,
int[] input = {1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8};
output = {1, 6}
int[] input = {1, 2, 2, 3 ,3, 3, 5}
output = {3}
Please let me know how to build LINQ.
Please read be careful.
This is a different problem with Select most frequent value using LINQ
I have to choose only the most frequent values. The code below is similar, but I can't use Take(5) because I don't know the number of results.
int[] nums = new[] { 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7 };
IEnumerable<int> top5 = nums
.GroupBy(i => i)
.OrderByDescending(g => g.Count())
.Take(5)
.Select(g => g.Key);
this output is {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
but my expected output = {1, 2}
Please read the questions carefully and answer.
Thanks and regards.

Just to add to the plethora of answers:
int[] input = { 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8 };
var result = input
.GroupBy(i => i)
.GroupBy(g => g.Count())
.OrderByDescending(g => g.Key)
.First()
.Select(g => g.Key)
.ToArray();
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", result)); // Prints "1, 6"
[EDIT]
In case anyone finds this interesting, I compared the performance of the above between .net 4.8 and .net 5.0 as follows:
(1) Added a Comparer class to instrument the number of comparisons made:
class Comparer : IComparer<int>
{
public int Compare(int x, int y)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Comparing {x} with {y}");
return x.CompareTo(y);
}
}
(2) Modified the call to OrderByDescending() to pass a Comparer:
.OrderByDescending(g => g.Key, new Comparer())
(3) Multi-targeted my test console app to "net48" and "net5.0".
After making those changes the output was as follows:
For .net 4.8:
Comparing 1 with 3
Comparing 1 with 1
Comparing 1 with 2
Comparing 3 with 3
Comparing 3 with 2
Comparing 3 with 3
1, 6
For .net 5.0:
Comparing 3 with 1
Comparing 3 with 2
1, 6
As you can see, .net 5.0 is better optimised. For .net Framework however, (as /u/mjwills mentions below) it would likely be more performant to use a MaxBy() extension to avoid having to use OrderByDescending() - but only if instrumentation indicates that the sort is causing a performance issue.

If you want to do it in pure LINQ in one query you can group groups by count and select the max one:
int[] nums = new[] { 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7 };
var tops = nums
.GroupBy(i => i)
.GroupBy(grouping => grouping.Count())
.OrderByDescending(gr => gr.Key)
.Take(1)
.SelectMany(g => g.Select(g => g.Key))
.ToList();
Note that it is not a most effective and clear solution.
UPD
A little bit more effective version using Aggregate to perform MaxBy. Note that it will fail for empty collections unlike the previous one:
var tops = nums
.GroupBy(i => i)
.GroupBy(grouping => grouping.Count())
.Aggregate((max, curr) => curr.Key > max.Key ? curr : max)
.Select(gr => gr.Key);
Also you can use MaxBy from MoreLinq or one introduced in .NET 6.

You can store your result in an IEnumerable of tuples with the first item being the number, the second item being the count of the number in your input array. Then you look at the count of your group with most elements, and take all the tuples where the second items equals your maximum.
int[] nums = new[] { 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7 };
var intermediate = nums
.GroupBy(i => i)
.Select(g => (g.Key,g.Count()));
int amount = intermediate.Max(x => x.Item2);
IEnumerable<int> mostFrequent = intermediate
.Where(x => x.Item2 == amount)
.Select(x => x.Item1);
Online demo: https://dotnetfiddle.net/YCVGam

Use a variable to capture the number of items for the first item, then use TakeWhile to get all the groups with that number of items.
void Main()
{
var input = new[] { 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8 };
int numberOfItems = 0;
var output = input
.GroupBy(i => i)
.OrderByDescending(group => group.Count());
var maxNumberOfItems = output.FirstOrDefault()?.Count() ?? 0;
var finalOutput = output.TakeWhile(group => group.Count() == maxNumberOfItems).ToList();
foreach (var item in finalOutput)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Value {item.Key} has {item.Count()} members");
}
}
You can do this as a single query as well:
int? numberOfItems = null;
var finalOutput = input
.GroupBy(i => i)
.OrderByDescending(group => group.Count())
.TakeWhile(i =>
{
var count = i.Count();
numberOfItems ??= count;
return count == numberOfItems;
})
.ToList();

You could consider adding an extension-method. Something like
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeWhileEqual<T, T2>(this IEnumerable<T> collection, Func<T, T2> predicate)
where T2 : IEquatable<T2>
{
using var iter = collection.GetEnumerator();
if (iter.MoveNext())
{
var first = predicate(iter.Current);
yield return iter.Current;
while (iter.MoveNext() && predicate(iter.Current).Equals(first))
{
yield return iter.Current;
}
}
}
This has the advantage of being efficient, not needing to iterate over the collection more than once. But it does require some more code, even if this can be hidden in an extension method.

I think you probably want to use TakeWhile rather than Take;
int[] nums = new[] { 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7 };
var n = nums
.GroupBy(i => i)
.OrderByDescending(g => g.Count());
var c = n.First().Count();
var r = n.TakeWhile(g => g.Count() == c)
.Select(g => g.Key);
If you want to do this in a single pass, without LINQ, you can use a Dictionary and a List track
a) how many times you saw a value and
b) what value you saw the most times
c) what other most-values you saw that many times
We skip through the list, trying to look the current value up in the dictionary. It either works or it doesn't - if it works, TryGetValue tells us how many times the current value has been seen. IF it doesn't, TryGetValue gives use a seen of 0. We increment seen. We take a look at how it compares to the max we've seen so far:
It's greater - we have a new leader in the "most frequent" contest - clear the current leaders list and start over with the new n as the leader. Also note the new max
It's equal - we have a tie for the lead; add the current n in among its peers
It's less - we don't care
int[] nums = new[] { 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7 };
int maxSeen = int.MinValue;
var seens = new Dictionary<int, int>();
var maxes = new List<int>();
foreach(var n in nums){
seens.TryGetValue(n, out var seen);
seens[n] = ++seen;
if(seen > maxSeen){
maxes = new(){n};
maxSeen = seen;
} else if(seen == maxSeen)
maxes.Add(n);
}
You'll end up with maxes as a List<int> that is the list of numbers that appear most.
If you care about allocations of the List's internal array, you could consider clearing the list instead of newing; I new'd because it was a handy one liner to use an initializer with the new leader

You may first group the first input like that.
int[] input = { 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8 };
var tmpResult = from i in input
group i by i into k
select new
{
k.Key,
count = k.Count()
};
then you can filter the max value of group like that;
var max = tmpResult.Max(s => s.count);
after you should make a filter is enough
int[] result = tmpResult.Where(f => f.count == max).Select(s => s.Key).ToArray();
Also you can create an Extension method for this.
public static class Extension
{
public static int[] GetMostFrequent(this int[] input)
{
var tmpResult = from i in input
group i by i into k
select new
{
k.Key,
count = k.Count()
};
var max = tmpResult.Max(s => s.count);
return tmpResult.Where(f => f.count == max).Select(s => s.Key).ToArray();
}

You were very close. Just add one more line to your code.
int[] input = { 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8 };
var counts = input
.GroupBy(i => i)
.Select(i => new { Number = i.Key, Count = i.Count()})
.OrderByDescending(i => i.Count);
var maxCount = counts.First().Count;
var result = counts
.Where(i=> i.Count == maxCount)
.Select(i => i.Number);
result
{1,6}

Converting a 2d array into a 2d array of a different type. int[,] => ushort[,]

Im trying to find out a way to convert a 2d array of one type to another in a single line of code.
This is a personal learning experience rather than a need to do it in one line!!
Ive gotten so far as to convert it into IEnumerable<Tuple<ushort,ushort>>. Not sure where to go from here.
int[,] X = new int[,] { { 1, 2 }, { 3, 4 }, { 5, 6 } };
var Result = (from e in X.OfType<int>() select e)
.Select(S => (ushort)S)
.Select((value, index) => new { Index = index, Value = value })
.GroupBy(x => x.Index / 2)
.Select(g => new ushort[,] { { g.ElementAt(0).Value,
g.ElementAt(1).Value } });
Need to somehow convert the collection of Tuples into a ushort[,]
EDIT:
Just clarifying the question.
How do I convert a int 2d array into a ushort 2d array using a single line of code in linq?
EDIT:
Ive updated my code.
I now have it resulting in a IEnumerable collection of ushort[,].
I need to now find a way to concatonate all these into a single ushort[,]

The best I could come up with to keep the result two dimensional is this:
var input = new [,] { { 1, 2 }, { 3, 4 }, { 5, 6 } };
var output = new ushort[input.GetUpperBound(0) + 1, input.GetUpperBound(1) + 1];
Buffer.BlockCopy(input.Cast<int>().Select(x => (ushort)x).ToArray(), 0, output, 0, input.GetLength(0) * input.GetLength(1) * sizeof(ushort));

Using explicit cast to ushort we could do this, I'm leaving it to you to explore consequences in the conversion and addressing them.
int[,] X = new int[,] { { 1, 2 }, { 3, 4 }, { 5, 6 } };
ushort[,] shortArray = new ushort[X.GetUpperBound(0)+1, X.GetUpperBound(1)+1];
for (int i = 0; i <= X.GetUpperBound(0); ++i)
{
for(int j=0;j<= X.GetUpperBound(1);j++)
shortArray[i, j] = (ushort)X[i,j];
}
In case you are interested on Jagged array instead of multidimensional array, use this.
var jagged = X.Cast<int>()
.Select((x, i) => new { Index = i, Value = x })
.GroupBy(x => x.Index / (X.GetUpperBound(1) +1))
.Select(x => x.Select(s=> (ushort)s.Value).ToArray())
.ToArray();
Working example

How about:
var Result = X.OfType<int>().Select(s => new { Index = (s + 1) / 2, Value = s})
.GroupBy(g => g.Index)
.Select(s => s.Select(g => (ushort)g.Value).ToArray())
.ToArray();

The union of the intersects of the 2 set combinations of a sequence of sequences

How can I find the set of items that occur in 2 or more sequences in a sequence of sequences?
In other words, I want the distinct values that occur in at least 2 of the passed in sequences.
Note:
This is not the intersect of all sequences but rather, the union of the intersect of all pairs of sequences.
Note 2:
The does not include the pair, or 2 combination, of a sequence with itself. That would be silly.
I have made an attempt myself,
public static IEnumerable<T> UnionOfIntersects<T>(
this IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> source)
{
var pairs =
from s1 in source
from s2 in source
select new { s1 , s2 };
var intersects = pairs
.Where(p => p.s1 != p.s2)
.Select(p => p.s1.Intersect(p.s2));
return intersects.SelectMany(i => i).Distinct();
}
but I'm concerned that this might be sub-optimal, I think it includes intersects of pair A, B and pair B, A which seems inefficient. I also think there might be a more efficient way to compound the sets as they are iterated.
I include some example input and output below:
{ { 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 }, { 5, 6, 7 }, { 2, 6, 7, 9 } , { 4 } }
returns
{ 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 }
and
{ { 1, 2, 3} } or { {} } or { }
returns
{ }
I'm looking for the best combination of readability and potential performance.
EDIT
I've performed some initial testing of the current answers, my code is here. Output below.
Original valid:True
DoomerOneLine valid:True
DoomerSqlLike valid:True
Svinja valid:True
Adricadar valid:True
Schmelter valid:True
Original 100000 iterations in 82ms
DoomerOneLine 100000 iterations in 58ms
DoomerSqlLike 100000 iterations in 82ms
Svinja 100000 iterations in 1039ms
Adricadar 100000 iterations in 879ms
Schmelter 100000 iterations in 9ms
At the moment, it looks as if Tim Schmelter's answer performs better by at least an order of magnitude.

// init sequences
var sequences = new int[][]
{
new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 },
new int[] { 5, 6, 7 },
new int[] { 2, 6, 7, 9 },
new int[] { 4 }
};
One-line way:
var result = sequences
.SelectMany(e => e.Distinct())
.GroupBy(e => e)
.Where(e => e.Count() > 1)
.Select(e => e.Key);
// result is { 2 4 5 7 6 }
Sql-like way (with ordering):
var result = (
from e in sequences.SelectMany(e => e.Distinct())
group e by e into g
where g.Count() > 1
orderby g.Key
select g.Key);
// result is { 2 4 5 6 7 }
May be fastest code (but not readable), complexity O(N):
var dic = new Dictionary<int, int>();
var subHash = new HashSet<int>();
int length = array.Length;
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
subHash.Clear();
int subLength = array[i].Length;
for (int j = 0; j < subLength; j++)
{
int n = array[i][j];
if (!subHash.Contains(n))
{
int counter;
if (dic.TryGetValue(n, out counter))
{
// duplicate
dic[n] = counter + 1;
}
else
{
// first occurance
dic[n] = 1;
}
}
else
{
// exclude duplucate in sub array
subHash.Add(n);
}
}
}

This should be very close to optimal - how "readable" it is depends on your taste. In my opinion it is also the most readable solution.
var seenElements = new HashSet<T>();
var repeatedElements = new HashSet<T>();
foreach (var list in source)
{
foreach (var element in list.Distinct())
{
if (seenElements.Contains(element))
{
repeatedElements.Add(element);
}
else
{
seenElements.Add(element);
}
}
}
return repeatedElements;

You can skip already Intesected sequences, this way will be a little faster.
public static IEnumerable<T> UnionOfIntersects<T>(this IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> source)
{
var result = new List<T>();
var sequences = source.ToList();
for (int sequenceIdx = 0; sequenceIdx < sequences.Count(); sequenceIdx++)
{
var sequence = sequences[sequenceIdx];
for (int targetSequenceIdx = sequenceIdx + 1; targetSequenceIdx < sequences.Count; targetSequenceIdx++)
{
var targetSequence = sequences[targetSequenceIdx];
var intersections = sequence.Intersect(targetSequence);
result.AddRange(intersections);
}
}
return result.Distinct();
}
How it works?
Input: {/*0*/ { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 } ,/*1*/ { 5, 6, 7 },/*2*/ { 2, 6, 7, 9 } , /*3*/{ 4 } }
Step 0: Intersect 0 with 1..3
Step 1: Intersect 1 with 2..3 (0 with 1 already has been intersected)
Step 2: Intersect 2 with 3 (0 with 2 and 1 with 2 already has been intersected)
Return: Distinct elements.
Result: { 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 }
You can test it with the below code
var lists = new List<List<int>>
{
new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7},
new List<int> {5, 6, 7},
new List<int> {2, 6, 7, 9},
new List<int> {4 }
};
var result = lists.UnionOfIntersects();

You can try this approach, it might be more efficient and also allows to specify the minimum intersection-count and the comparer used:
public static IEnumerable<T> UnionOfIntersects<T>(this IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> source
, int minIntersectionCount
, IEqualityComparer<T> comparer = null)
{
if (comparer == null) comparer = EqualityComparer<T>.Default;
foreach (T item in source.SelectMany(s => s).Distinct(comparer))
{
int containedInHowManySequences = 0;
foreach (IEnumerable<T> seq in source)
{
bool contained = seq.Contains(item, comparer);
if (contained) containedInHowManySequences++;
if (containedInHowManySequences == minIntersectionCount)
{
yield return item;
break;
}
}
}
}
Some explaining words:
It enumerates all unique items in all sequences. Since Distinct is using a set this should be pretty efficient. That can help to speed up in case of many duplicates in all sequences.
The inner loop just looks into every sequence if the unique item is contained. Thefore it uses Enumerable.Contains which stops execution as soon as one item was found(so duplicates are no issue).
If the intersection-count reaches the minum intersection count this item is yielded and the next (unique) item is checked.

That should nail it:
int[][] test = { new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 }, new int[] { 5, 6, 7 }, new int[] { 2, 6, 7, 9 }, new int[] { 4 } };
var result = test.SelectMany(a => a.Distinct()).GroupBy(x => x).Where(g => g.Count() > 1).Select(y => y.Key).ToList();
First you make sure, there are no duplicates in each sequence. Then you join all sequences to a single sequence and look for duplicates as e.g. here.

name of assoc-diff in C#

What do you call this method, (is it available in .net?)
var list1 = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 2, 3, 4 };
var list2 = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3};
var results = list1.diff(list2);
results:
{ 2, 4 }

The closest thing built in is the Except LINQ operator.
Produces the set difference of two sequences.
Though with your example it will result in:
{ 4 }
I don't believe there is a direct analogue to what you want.

You actually need a multiset implementation. Although there is no multiset out of the box in BCL, there are some ideas here and in the linked question.
Or you can actually implement one by yourself, it's not so complicated:
class Multiset<K> // maybe implement IEnumerable?
{
Dictionary<K, int> arities = new Dictionary<K, int>();
...
Multiset<K> Except(Multiset<K> other)
{
foreach (var k in arities.keys)
{
int arity = arities[k];
if (other.Contains(k))
arity -= other.Arity(k);
if (arity > 0)
result.Add(k, arity);
}
return result;
}
}

This exactly return what you want, You can refactor it in a Extension Method:
var results = list1.GroupBy(p => p).Select(p => new { item = p.Key, count = p.Count() })
.Concat(list2.GroupBy(p => p).Select(p => new { item = p.Key, count = -p.Count() }))
.GroupBy(p => p.item).Select(p => new { item = p.Key, count = p.Sum(q => q.count) })
.Where(p => p.count > 0)
.SelectMany(p => Enumerable.Repeat(p.item, p.count));

Like this: (see oded's post for a linq to msdn)
int[] numbersA = { 0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 };
int[] numbersB = { 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 };
IEnumerable<int> aOnlyNumbers = numbersA.Except(numbersB);

Possible to group by Count in LINQ?

This might be either impossible or so obvious I keep passing over it.
I have a list of objects(let's say ints for this example):
List<int> list = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
I'd like to be able to group by pairs with no regard to order or any other comparison, returning a new IGrouping object.
ie,
list.GroupBy(i => someLogicToProductPairs);
There's the very real possibility I may be approaching this problem from the wrong angle, however, the goal is to group a set of objects by a constant capacity. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Do you mean like this:
List<int> list = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
IEnumerable<IGrouping<int,int>> groups =
list
.Select((n, i) => new { Group = i / 2, Value = n })
.GroupBy(g => g.Group, g => g.Value);
foreach (IGrouping<int, int> group in groups) {
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(", ", group.Select(n=>n.ToString()).ToArray()));
}
Output
1, 2
3, 4
5, 6

you can do something like this...
List<int> integers = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 };
var p = integers.Select((x, index) => new { Num = index / 2, Val = x })
.GroupBy(y => y.Num);

int counter = 0;
// this function returns the keys for our groups.
Func<int> keyGenerator =
() =>
{
int keyValue = counter / 2;
counter += 1;
return keyValue;
};
var groups = list.GroupBy(i => {return keyGenerator()});