Related
This question already has answers here:
Is there a way to get the last element in a Queue?
(6 answers)
How would you obtain the first and last items in a Queue?
(5 answers)
why to use queue.Peek() instead of queue.First()/Last()
(1 answer)
Closed 2 years ago.
Using C# and VisualStudio.
I'm trying to intrude everything in one function.
Check the Queue<T>.TryPeek(T) Method
To get the last element you added to a Queue, which means the last element that will be dequeued, you can just use Last:
var queue = new Queue<int>();
queue.Enqueue(1);
queue.Enqueue(2);
queue.Enqueue(3);
Console.WriteLine(queue.Last());
Output
3
Note : Peeking will not help, peeking a queue shows you the next dequable item
The long story is, a queue supports IEnumerbale<T>
public class Queue<T> : IEnumerable<T>,
System.Collections.ICollection,
IReadOnlyCollection<T>
Internally, it stores a queue as an array with a capacity and modulates around the array to get the next item so it doesn't need to copy all the time.
IEnumerable.Last will iterate from head to tail using something similar to the following, until it reaches the last item. Which makes it safe to call.
internal T GetElement(int i)
{
return _array[(_head + i) % _array.Length];
}
Basically it's an O(n) operation. So, I've you have large queues take into consideration this is not all that efficient. Maybe you want a Stack Instead, or to keep the last item added in memory.
It is just a fancy array.
Try .Top(). Top() method shows the next element that will be popped in the queue.
Regards,
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Check if a List already contains an item or not?
for (int i = 0; i < webSites.Count(); i++)
{
string t = webSites[i];
webCrawler(t, levels - 1);
// csFiles.add
}
MessageBox.Show(webSites.Count().ToString());
return csFiles;
Lets say in webSites i have:
www.google.com
www.microsoft.com
Now in the second level lets say www.google.com exist again so this time i dont want to process it to do the recrusive if it will it will do it all over again the same thing. I need somehow to make or check that it will do each link once. How can i check it ?
I dont need to check just if the item already exist in the List i need to check if it was exist already so dont do it again since it will dig the same links again and repeat it self.
Don't use a list for this - use a Hashset<string> - this has expected O(1) lookup time instead of O(n) for a list, and really the "set" metaphor fits perfectly:
HashSet<string> visitedPages = new HashSet<string>();
for (int i = 0; i < webSites.Count(); i++)
{
string page = webSites[i];
if(visitedPages.Add(page)) //returns true if new page was added
{
webCrawler(page, levels - 1);
}
}
If you call this method recursively, of course the declaration of the visitedPages hash set must be outside of the method, e.g. make it a member variable so that you can maintain the history of visited pages.
List.Contains method is what you need I guess but
List.Contains is O(n) and I would recommend a Hashset instead which has a O(1) lookup..
if your list contains all the entry then you can also use the Distinct() function in Linq which will return you an enumerable with Distinct elements only..
webSites.Distinct()
Keep visited items in a HashSet<string>.
Use Add when visiting a page and Contains when checking if you already have visited the page.
Create a temporary List and call it, let's say, "temp". Every iteration of the for loop, see if the string in that position in webSites is already in temp. If it is, ignore it. If it isn't, add it to temp and then process it.
EDIT: Apparently this isn't the best approach.
Why not you just select distinct list of websites at first place?
foreach (var site in webSites.GroupBy(s => s))
{
webCrawler(t, levels - 1);
// csFiles.add
}
MessageBox.Show(webSites.Count().ToString());
return csFiles;
This question already has answers here:
How to find the index of an element in an array in Java?
(15 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was asked this question in an interview. Although the interview was for dot net position, he asked me this question in context to java, because I had mentioned java also in my resume.
How to find the index of an element having value X in an array ?
I said iterating from the first element till last and checking whether the value is X would give the result. He asked about a method involving less number of iterations, I said using binary search but that is only possible for sorted array. I tried saying using IndexOf function in the Array class. But nothing from my side answered that question.
Is there any fast way of getting the index of an element having value X in an array ?
As long as there is no knowledge about the array (is it sorted? ascending or descending? etc etc), there is no way of finding an element without inspecting each one.
Also, that is exactly what indexOf does (when using lists).
How to find the index of an element having value X in an array ?
This would be fast:
int getXIndex(int x){
myArray[0] = x;
return 0;
}
A practical way of finding it faster is by parallel processing.
Just divide the array in N parts and assign every part to a thread that iterates through the elements of its part until value is found. N should preferably be the processor's number of cores.
If a binary search isn't possible (beacuse the array isn't sorted) and you don't have some kind of advanced search index, the only way I could think of that isn't O(n) is if the item's position in the array is a function of the item itself (like, if the array is [10, 20, 30, 40], the position of an element n is (n / 10) - 1).
Maybe he wants to test your knowledge about Java.
There is Utility Class called Arrays, this class contains various methods for manipulating arrays (such as sorting and searching)
http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/Arrays.html
In 2 lines you can have a O(n * log n) result:
Arrays.sort(list); //O(n * log n)
Arrays.binarySearch(list, 88)); //O(log n)
Puneet - in .net its:
string[] testArray = {"fred", "bill"};
var indexOffset = Array.IndexOf(testArray, "fred");
[edit] - having read the question properly now, :) an alternative in linq would be:
string[] testArray = { "cat", "dog", "banana", "orange" };
int firstItem = testArray.Select((item, index) => new
{
ItemName = item,
Position = index
}).Where(i => i.ItemName == "banana")
.First()
.Position;
this of course would find the FIRST occurence of the string. subsequent duplicates would require additional logic. but then so would a looped approach.
jim
It's a question about data structures and algorithms (altough a very simple data structure). It goes beyond the language you are using.
If the array is ordered you can get O(log n) using binary search and a modified version of it for border cases (not using always (a+b)/2 as the pivot point, but it's a pretty sophisticated quirk).
If the array is not ordered then... good luck.
He can be asking you about what methods you have in order to find an item in Java. But anyway they're not faster. They can be olny simpler to use (than a for-each - compare - return).
There's another solution that's creating an auxiliary structure to do a faster search (like a hashmap) but, OF COURSE, it's more expensive to create it and use it once than to do a simple linear search.
Take a perfectly unsorted array, just a list of numbers in memory. All the machine can do is look at individual numbers in memory, and check if they are the right number. This is the "password cracker problem". There is no faster way than to search from the beginning until the correct value is hit.
Are you sure about the question? I have got a questions somewhat similar to your question.
Given a sorted array, there is one element "x" whose value is same as its index find the index of that element.
For example:
//0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10
int a[10]={1,3,5,5,6,6,6,8,9,10,11};
at index 6 that value and index are same.
for this array a, answer should be 6.
This is not an answer, in case there was something missed in the original question this would clarify that.
If the only information you have is the fact that it's an unsorted array, with no reletionship between the index and value, and with no auxiliary data structures, then you have to potentially examine every element to see if it holds the information you want.
However, interviews are meant to separate the wheat from the chaff so it's important to realise that they want to see how you approach problems. Hence the idea is to ask questions to see if any more information is (or could be made) available, information that can make your search more efficient.
Questions like:
1/ Does the data change very often?
If not, then you can use an extra data structure.
For example, maintain a dirty flag which is initially true. When you want to find an item and it's true, build that extra structure (sorted array, tree, hash or whatever) which will greatly speed up searches, then set the dirty flag to false, then use that structure to find the item.
If you want to find an item and the dirty flag is false, just use the structure, no need to rebuild it.
Of course, any changes to the data should set the dirty flag to true so that the next search rebuilds the structure.
This will greatly speed up (through amortisation) queries for data that's read far more often than written.
In other words, the first search after a change will be relatively slow but subsequent searches can be much faster.
You'll probably want to wrap the array inside a class so that you can control the dirty flag correctly.
2/ Are we allowed to use a different data structure than a raw array?
This will be similar to the first point given above. If we modify the data structure from an array into an arbitrary class containing the array, you can still get all the advantages such as quick random access to each element.
But we gain the ability to update extra information within the data structure whenever the data changes.
So, rather than using a dirty flag and doing a large update on the next search, we can make small changes to the extra information whenever the array is changed.
This gets rid of the slow response of the first search after a change by amortising the cost across all changes (each change having a small cost).
3. How many items will typically be in the list?
This is actually more important than most people realise.
All talk of optimisation tends to be useless unless your data sets are relatively large and performance is actually important.
For example, if you have a 100-item array, it's quite acceptable to use even the brain-dead bubble sort since the difference in timings between that and the fastest sort you can find tend to be irrelevant (unless you need to do it thousands of times per second of course).
For this case, finding the first index for a given value, it's probably perfectly acceptable to do a sequential search as long as your array stays under a certain size.
The bottom line is that you're there to prove your worth, and the interviewer is (usually) there to guide you. Unless they're sadistic, they're quite happy for you to ask them questions to try an narrow down the scope of the problem.
Ask the questions (as you have for the possibility the data may be sorted. They should be impressed with your approach even if you can't come up with a solution.
In fact (and I've done this in the past), they may reject all your possibile approaches (no, it's not sorted, no, no other data structures are allowed, and so on) just to see how far you get.
And maybe, just maybe, like the Kobayashi Maru, it may not be about winning, it may be how you deal with failure :-)
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
Exception during iteration on collection and remove items from that collection
How to remove elements from a generic list while iterating around it?
Better way to remove matched items from a list
// tmpClientList is List<Client> type
if (txtboxClientName.Text != "")
foreach (Client cli in tmpClientList)
if (cli.Name != txtboxClientName.Text)
tmpClientList.Remove(cli);
Error: "Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute."
How can i remove items from the list, in some simple way, without saving indexes of these items in another list or array, and removing them in another place in the code. Tried also RemoveAt(index) but it's exactly the same situation, modifying when loop runs.
Move backwards through the list.. that way removing an item does not affect the next item.
for(var i=tmpClientList.Count-1;i>=0;i--)
{
if (tmpClientList[i].Name != txtboxClientName.Text)
tmpClientList.RemoveAt(i);
}
On a List<T>, there is a RemoveAll method that takes a delegate to indicate whether to remove the item. You can use it like this:
tmpCLientList.RemoveAll(cli => cli.Name != txtboxClientName.Text);
Either use a for/while loop, or tmpClientList.RemoveAll(a => a.Name == txtboxClientName.Text). As you didn't specify which c# version you are using, ymmw.
Don't use foreach. Use for and descend the list (i.e. start from the end), using RemoveAt.
So,
// tmpClientList is List<Client> type
if (txtboxClientName.Text != "")
foreach (int pos = tmpClientList.Length - 1; pos >= 0; pos--)
{
Client cli = tmpClientList[pos];
if (cli.Name != txtboxClientName.Text)
tmpClientList.RemoveAt(pos);
}
The problem is that you are trying the modify the list in a foreach iteration. Replace that with a for and you should be ok.
Also, since you seem to be using user input for the name, consider cleaning up the input a bit, at least with a Trim() to remove extra white spaces. If you don't, 'John ' and 'John' will be two different things.
Same for the initial != "" check.
You can create another list with the items you want to delete and iterate the new list to remove items from your "txtboxClientName" list.
Actually, foreach uses Enumerators to iterate through given Item-Collections. Going further the System.Collections.Generic.List<T> implements the IEnumarable-Interface to provide a Class, that knows how to iterate through the items of the list, i.e. the Enumerator. Now if you iterate through that list by using foreach the Enumerator keeps track of the current position, how to reach the next position and some other stuff. The internal logic could be something like storing the number of items in a variable n and then access all objects from 0 to n-1. As you may notice if any object is removed between the iteration steps we shall end in a NullReferenceException when the Enumerator tries to deliver the last object of the list. So to prevent any iteration failures, the list itself is not allowed to be modified during Enumeration.
Hope I was able to state that out at least a little bit comprehensively. :-)
I have an array of items that are time sensitive. After an amount of time, the last item needs to fall off and a new item is put at the beginning.
What is the best way to do this?
I would suggest using a queue, just a special instance of an array or list. When your timed event occurs, pop the last item from the queue, and then push your new item on.
Probably the easiest way to do this with an array is to use a circular index. Rather than always looking at array[n], you would reference array[cIndex] (where cIndex referrs to the item in the array being indexed (cIndex is incremented based on the arraySize (cIndex % arraySize)).
When you choose to drop the oldest item in the array, you would simply reference the element located at ((cIndex + (arraySize - 1)) % arraySize).
Alternatively, you could use a linkedList approach.
Use a Queue instead.
By using a Queue, preferably one implemented using a linked-list.
Have a look at using a Queue rather than a simple array.
A queue would work if there a fixed number of items.
Given that the 'amount of time' is known, how about a SortedDictionary with a DateTime key and override the Add method to remove all items with keys that are too old.
LinkedList<T> has AddFirst and RemoveLast members that should work perfectly.
EDIT: Looking at the Queue docs, it seems they use an internal array. As long as the implementation uses a circular-array type algorithm performance should be fine.
In csharp 3 you can do:
original = new[] { newItem }.Concat(
original.Take(original.Count() - 1)).ToArray()
But you are probably better off using a specialised datastructure
Queue is great for FIFO arrays. For generic array handling, use List(T)'s
Insert(0, x) and RemoveAt(0) methods to put or remove items in front of the list, for example.
Technically you need a deque. A queue has items pushed and popped off one end only. A deque is open at both ends.
Most languages will allow array manipulation, just remove the first element and put another one on the end.
Alternatively you can shift every element, by looping. Just replace each element (starting from the oldest) with its neighbour. Then place the new item in the last element.
If you know that your deque won't go above a certain size, then you can make it circular. You'll need two pointers to tell you where the two ends are though. Adding and removing items, will increase/decrease your pointers accordingly. You'll have to detect a buffer overflow condition (i.e. your pointers 'cross'). And you'll have to use modular arithmetic so your pointers go in a circle around the array.
Or you could time stamp each element in the array and remove them when they become too 'old'. You can either do this by keeping a separate array indexed in the same way, or by having an array of two element arrays, with the time stamp stored in one of the sub-elements.
If you're looking for the fastest way of doing this, it's going to be a circular array: you keep track of your current position in the array (ndx), and the end of the array (end), so when you insert an item, you implicitly eliminate the oldest item.
A circular array is the fastest implementation of a fixed-size queue that I know of.
For example, in C/C++ it would look like this for ints (quitting when you get a 0):
int queue[SIZE];
int ndx=0; // start at the beginning of the array
int end=SIZE-1;
int newitem;
while(1){
cin >> newitem;
if(!newitem) // quit if it's a 0
break;
if(ndx>end) // need to loop around the end of the array
ndx=0;
queue[ndx] = newitem;
ndx++
}
Lots of optimization could be done, but if you want to built it yourself, this is the fastest route.
If you don't care about performance, use a shipped Queue object because it should be generalized.
It may or may not be optimized, and it may not support a fixed size list, so be sure to check the documentation on it before using.