Related
How can I quickly shift all the items in an array one to the left, padding the end with null?
For example, [0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
Edit: I said quickly but I guess I meant efficiently. I need to do this without creating a List or some other data structure. This is something I need to do several hundred thousand times in as short amount of time as possible.
Here's my test harness...
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
var destination = new int?[source.Length];
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000;i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, 1, destination, 0, source.Length - 1);
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Here are the performance results for 1 million iterations of each solution (8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz)
100 elements 10000 elements
For Loop 0.390s 31.839s
Array.Copy() 0.177s 12.496s
Aaron 1 3.789s 84.082s
Array.ConstrainedCopy() 0.197s 17.658s
Make the choice for yourself :)
The quickest way to do this is to use Array.Copy, which in the final implementation uses a bulk memory transfer operation (similar to memcpy):
var oldArray = new int?[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
var newArray = new int?[oldArray.Length];
Array.Copy(oldArray, 1, newArray, 0, oldArray.Length - 1);
// newArray is now { 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null }
Edited: according to the documentation:
If sourceArray and destinationArray overlap, this method behaves as if the original values of sourceArray were preserved in a temporary location before destinationArray is overwritten.
So if you don't want to allocate a new array, you can pass in the original array for both source and destination--although I imagine the tradeoff will be a somewhat slower performance since the values go through a temporary holding position.
I suppose, as in any investigation of this kind, you should do some quick benchmarking.
Here is my solution, similar to Task's in that it is a simple Array wrapper and that it takes O(1) time to shift the array to the left.
public class ShiftyArray<T>
{
private readonly T[] array;
private int front;
public ShiftyArray(T[] array)
{
this.array = array;
front = 0;
}
public void ShiftLeft()
{
array[front++] = default(T);
if(front > array.Length - 1)
{
front = 0;
}
}
public void ShiftLeft(int count)
{
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ShiftLeft();
}
}
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
if(index > array.Length - 1)
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
return array[(front + index) % array.Length];
}
}
public int Length { get { return array.Length; } }
}
Running it through Jason Punyon's test code...
int?[] intData = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
ShiftyArray<int?> array = new ShiftyArray<int?>(intData);
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
array.ShiftLeft();
}
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Takes ~29ms, regardless of the array size.
Use the Array.Copy() method as in
int?[] myArray = new int?[]{0,1,2,3,4};
Array.Copy(myArray, 1, myArray, 0, myArray.Length - 1);
myArray[myArray.Length - 1] = null
The Array.Copy is probably the way, Microsoft wanted us to copy array elements...
Couldn't you use a System.Collections.Generic.Queue instead of an array ?
I feel like you need to perform actions on your value the discard it, thus using a queue seems to be more appropriate :
// dummy initialization
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 7; ++i ) { queue.Enqueue(i); }// add each element at the end of the container
// working thread
if (queue.Count > 0)
doSomething(queue.Dequeue());// removes the last element of the container and calls doSomething on it
For any pour soul finding this thread and about to implement one of the highly rated answers. All of them are trash, I'm not sure why that is. Maybe Dested asked for a new array implementation at first or something that has now been removed from the question. Well if you simply want to shift the array and don't need a new one, see an answer like tdaines's answer. And read up on things like the Circular Buffer / Ring Buffer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_buffer. No moving of the actual data is necessary. The performance of shifting an array should not be tied to the size of the array.
If it absolutely has to be in an array, then I would recommend the most obvious code possible.
for (int index = startIndex; index + 1 < values.Length; index++)
values[index] = values[index + 1];
values[values.Length - 1] = null;
This gives the optimizer the most opportunities to find the best way on whatever target platform the program is installed on.
EDIT:
I just borrowed Jason Punyon's test code, and I'm afraid he's right. Array.Copy wins!
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
int indexToRemove = 4;
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, indexToRemove + 1, source, indexToRemove, source.Length - indexToRemove - 1);
//for (int index = indexToRemove; index + 1 < source.Length; index++)
// source[index] = source[index + 1];
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Array.Copy takes between 103 and 150 ms on my machine.
for loop takes between 269 and 338 ms on my machine.
Can't you
allocate the array with an extra 1000 elements
have an integer variable int base = 0
instead of accessing a[i] access a[base+i]
to do your shift, just say base++
Then after you've done this 1000 times, copy it down and start over.
That way, you only do the copy once per 1000 shifts.
Old joke:
Q: How many IBM 360s does it take to shift a register by 1 bit?
A: 33. 32 to hold the bits in place, and 1 to move the register. (or some such...)
You can use the same array as source and destination for fast in-place copy:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] array = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
Array.ConstrainedCopy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length - 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = 0;
}
You might do it like this:
var items = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }; // Your array
var itemList = new List<int?>(items); // Put the items in a List<>
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
items = itemList.ToArray(); // Turn the list back into an array
Of course, it would be more efficient to get rid of the array entirely and just use a List<>. You could then forget the first line and last line and do it like this:
var itemList = new List<int?> { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
The best and most efficient method I believe is using Buffer.BlockCopy function.
You will set both source and destination to your array, the offset of the source is 1. Depending on your array type (I assume it is int), 1 int = 4 bytes, so you must pass in 4 as the second parameter of this function. Note that the offset is byte offset.
So it looks like this:
int bytes2copy = yourArray.length - 4;
Buffer.BlockCopy(yourArray, 4, yourArray, 0, bytes2copy);
yourArray[yourArray.length-1] = null;
Try this! using Linq. No need of second Array.
var i_array = new int?[] {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
i_array = i_array.Select((v, k) => new { v = v, k = k }).
Where(i => i.k > 0).Select(i => i.v).ToArray();
Array.Resize(ref i_array, i_array.Length + 1);
Output:
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
If you own the memory you could consider using Unsafe Code and good old fashioned pointers.
Make yourself a memory stream and lock it down or use Marshal.AllocHGlobal
Construct all your arrays in it with a little bit of padding at the beginning and end.
increment or decrement all of the array pointers at once. You'll still need to loop back and set your nulls.
If you need to selectively increment or decrement the arrays you would have to add padding between them.
Arrays are incredibly low level data structures, if you treat them in a low level way you can get huge performance out of them.
A baytrail doing this could outperform Jason's with all its copying 8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz
Not tested this code, but it should shifts all the values to right by one. Note that the last three lines of code is all you require to efficiently shift the array.
public class Shift : MonoBehaviour {
//Initialize Array
public int[] queue;
void Start () {
//Create Array Rows
queue = new int[5];
//Set Values to 1,2,3,4,5
for (int i=0; i<5;i++)
{
queue[i] = i + 1;
}
//Get the integer at the first index
int prev = queue[0];
//Copy the array to the new array.
System.Array.Copy(queue, 1, queue, 0, queue.Length - 1);
//Set the last shifted value to the previously first value.
queue[queue.Length - 1] = prev;
Implementation with Extension methods passing shifting direction as Enum.
"for" statements and indexers only (don't use Array.Copy method).
using System;
namespace ShiftArrayElements
{
public static class EnumShifter
{
public static int[] Shift(int[] source, Direction[] directions)
{
for (var i = 0; i < directions.Length; i++)
{
var direction = directions[i];
if (direction == Direction.Left)
{
source.LeftShift();
}
else if (direction == Direction.Right)
{
source.RightShift();
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Direction is invalid");
}
}
return source;
}
public static void LeftShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[0];
for (int j = 0; j + 1 < source.Length; j++)
{
source[j] = source[j + 1];
}
source[lastIndex] = temp;
}
public static void RightShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[lastIndex];
for (int j = lastIndex; j > 0; j--)
{
source[j] = source[j - 1];
}
source[0] = temp;
}
}
}
Array copying is an O(n) operation and creates a new array.
While array copying can certainly be done quickly and efficiently, the problem you've stated can actually be solved in an entirely different way without (as you've requested) creating a new array/data structure and only creating one small wrapping object instance per array:
using System;
using System.Text;
public class ArrayReindexer
{
private Array reindexed;
private int location, offset;
public ArrayReindexer( Array source )
{
reindexed = source;
}
public object this[int index]
{
get
{
if (offset > 0 && index >= location)
{
int adjustedIndex = index + offset;
return adjustedIndex >= reindexed.Length ? "null" : reindexed.GetValue( adjustedIndex );
}
return reindexed.GetValue( index );
}
}
public void Reindex( int position, int shiftAmount )
{
location = position;
offset = shiftAmount;
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder output = new StringBuilder( "[ " );
for (int i = 0; i < reindexed.Length; ++i)
{
output.Append( this[i] );
if (i == reindexed.Length - 1)
{
output.Append( " ]" );
}
else
{
output.Append( ", " );
}
}
return output.ToString();
}
}
By wrapping and controlling access to the array in this manner, we can now demonstrate how the problem was solved with an O(1) method call...
ArrayReindexer original = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
Console.WriteLine( " Base array: {0}", original.ToString() );
ArrayReindexer reindexed = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
reindexed.Reindex( 1, 1 );
Console.WriteLine( "Shifted array: {0}", reindexed.ToString() );
Will produce the output:
Base array: [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]
Shifted array: [ 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null ]
I'm willing to bet that there will be a reason that such a solution won't work for you, but I believe this does match your initial stated requirements. 8 )
It's often helpful to think about all the different kinds of solutions to a problem before implementing a specific one, and perhaps that might be the most important thing that this example can demonstrate.
Hope this helps!
Incorrect and slightly amusing answer (thanks, i'll be here all night !)
int?[] test = new int?[] {0,1,2,3,4,5,6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
t = test.Skip(1).ToArray();
t[t.Length - 1] = null;
In the spirit of still using Skip (dont ask me, i know worst usage of LINQ extension methods ever), the only way I thought of rewriting it would be
int?[] test = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
Array.Copy(test.Skip(1).ToArray(), t, t.Length - 1);
But it's in NO WAY faster than the other options.
I know this is an old question but coming from Google there was no simple example so thanks to this is the easiest way to reorder a list, and you don't have to supply the type it will work it out at runtime,
private static List<T> reorderList<T>(List<T> list){
List<T> newList = new List<T>();
list.ForEach(delegate(T item)
{
newList.Add(item);
});
return newList;
}
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ShiftMatrix
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MatrixOperation objMatrixOperation = new MatrixOperation();
//Create a matrix
int[,] mat = new int[,]
{
{1, 2},
{3,4 },
{5, 6},
{7,8},
{8,9},
};
int type = 2;
int counter = 0;
if (type == 1)
{
counter = mat.GetLength(0);
}
else
{
counter = mat.GetLength(1);
}
while (true)
{
for (int i = 0; i < counter; i++)
{
ShowMatrix(objMatrixOperation.ShiftMatrix(mat, i, type));
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2));
}
}
}
public static void ShowMatrix(int[,] matrix)
{
int rows = matrix.GetLength(0);
int columns = matrix.GetLength(1);
for (int k = 0; k < rows; k++)
{
for (int l = 0; l < columns; l++)
{
Console.Write(matrix[k, l] + " ");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
class MatrixOperation
{
public int[,] ShiftMatrix(int[,] origanalMatrix, int shift, int type)
{
int rows = origanalMatrix.GetLength(0);
int cols = origanalMatrix.GetLength(1);
int[,] _tmpMatrix = new int[rows, cols];
if (type == 2)
{
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < rows; x1++)
{
int y2 = 0;
for (int y1 = shift; y2 < cols - shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
y2--;
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
else
{
int x2 = 0;
for (int x1 = shift; x2 < rows - shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
x2--;
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
return _tmpMatrix;
}
}
}
See C# code below to remove space from string. That shift character in array. Performance is O(n). No other array is used. So no extra memory either.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string strIn = System.Console.ReadLine();
char[] chraryIn = strIn.ToCharArray();
int iShift = 0;
char chrTemp;
for (int i = 0; i < chraryIn.Length; ++i)
{
if (i > 0)
{
chrTemp = chraryIn[i];
chraryIn[i - iShift] = chrTemp;
chraryIn[i] = chraryIn[i - iShift];
}
if (chraryIn[i] == ' ') iShift++;
if (i >= chraryIn.Length - 1 - iShift) chraryIn[i] = ' ';
}
System.Console.WriteLine(new string(chraryIn));
System.Console.Read();
}
a is array of ints & d is number of times array has to shift left.
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
var innerLoop = a.Length - 1;
for(var loop=0; loop < d; loop++)
{
var res = a[innerLoop];
for (var i= innerLoop; i>=0; i--)
{
var tempI = i-1;
if (tempI < 0)
{
tempI = innerLoop;
}
var yolo = a[tempI];
a[tempI] = res;
res = yolo;
}
}
return a;
}
Simple way to do it when you need to resize the same array.
var nLength = args.Length - 1;
Array.Copy(args, 1, args, 0, nLength);
Array.Resize(ref args, nLength);
I have a group of integers that I want to send over a socket connection. What would be the cleanest way to convert the following variables into a byte array?
int var1 = 1;
int var2 = 2;
int var3 = 3;
Because I'm sending data via sockets, I would like to format the data using big-endianness. Thus for the three variables listed, I would want a 12 byte array such that
byte[0] = 0;
byte[1] = 0;
byte[2] = 0;
byte[3] = 1;
byte[4] = 0;
byte[5] = 0;
byte[6] = 0;
byte[7] = 2;
byte[8] = 0;
byte[9] = 0;
byte[10] = 0;
byte[11] = 3;
My search results are surprisingly coming up empty.
Edit: The suggested duplicate questions are different from what I'm asking. I do not have an "array of integers" or "a single integer" that I want to convert to a byte array. I have a group of individual array variables and am looking for the cleanest solution.
One way to do this would be to write a method that takes in a params int[] arg, which allows you to pass any number of int values to it.
Then you can create a byte[] based on the number of arguments, and populate it in a loop.
Since you want a Big-Endian result, we can use Array.Reverse to reverse the order of bytes returned from BitConverter.GetBytes for each argument, and then we can add each byte to the result array based on the index of the byte and the index of the argument:
public static byte[] GetBigEndianBytes(params int[] args)
{
var result = new byte[args.Length * sizeof(int)];
for (var argIndex = 0; argIndex < args.Length; argIndex++)
{
var bytes = BitConverter.GetBytes(args[argIndex]).Reverse().ToArray();
for (var byteIndex = 0; byteIndex < bytes.Length; byteIndex++)
{
result[byteIndex + argIndex * sizeof(int)] = bytes[byteIndex];
}
}
return result;
}
In use, this might look like:
private static void Main()
{
int var1 = 1;
int var2 = 2;
int var3 = 3;
var result = GetBigEndianBytes(var1, var2, var3);
// result = { 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 3}
Using C# 6 I have a list of names alphabetically ordered:
List<String> names = getAlphabeticallyOrderedNames();
I need to shuffle the names but I want to get the same result every time. So I cannot use:
List<String> shuffledNames = names.OrderBy(x => Guid.NewGuid());
I then tried something like:
List<String> shuffledNames = names.OrderBy(x => "d2fda3b5-4089-43f9-ba02-f68d138dee49");
Or
List<String> shuffledNames = names.OrderBy(x => Int32.MaxValue);
But the names are not shuffled ...
How can I solve this?
You can use a standard shuffle algorithm, such as the one from this answer:
Suitably modified to add a seed parameter, it would look like this:
public static void Shuffle<T>(IList<T> list, int seed)
{
var rng = new Random(seed);
int n = list.Count;
while (n > 1)
{
n--;
int k = rng.Next(n + 1);
T value = list[k];
list[k] = list[n];
list[n] = value;
}
}
Then to shuffle in a repeatable way, just specify the same seed for the shuffle for each repeated shuffle:
List<String> names = getAlphabeticallyOrderedNames();
int seed = 12345;
Shuffle(names, seed);
An Enumerable extension using Yield and having Seed value as parameter (Online Example):
public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Int32? seed = null) {
List<T> buffer = source.ToList();
Random random = seed.HasValue ? new Random(seed.Value) : new Random();
Int32 count = buffer.Count;
for (Int32 i = 0; i < count; i++) {
Int32 j = random.Next(i, count);
yield return buffer[j];
buffer[j] = buffer[i];
}
}
Try ordering by the hash value
var shuffled = names.OrderBy(n=>n.GetHashCode());
How can I quickly shift all the items in an array one to the left, padding the end with null?
For example, [0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
Edit: I said quickly but I guess I meant efficiently. I need to do this without creating a List or some other data structure. This is something I need to do several hundred thousand times in as short amount of time as possible.
Here's my test harness...
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
var destination = new int?[source.Length];
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000;i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, 1, destination, 0, source.Length - 1);
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Here are the performance results for 1 million iterations of each solution (8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz)
100 elements 10000 elements
For Loop 0.390s 31.839s
Array.Copy() 0.177s 12.496s
Aaron 1 3.789s 84.082s
Array.ConstrainedCopy() 0.197s 17.658s
Make the choice for yourself :)
The quickest way to do this is to use Array.Copy, which in the final implementation uses a bulk memory transfer operation (similar to memcpy):
var oldArray = new int?[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
var newArray = new int?[oldArray.Length];
Array.Copy(oldArray, 1, newArray, 0, oldArray.Length - 1);
// newArray is now { 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null }
Edited: according to the documentation:
If sourceArray and destinationArray overlap, this method behaves as if the original values of sourceArray were preserved in a temporary location before destinationArray is overwritten.
So if you don't want to allocate a new array, you can pass in the original array for both source and destination--although I imagine the tradeoff will be a somewhat slower performance since the values go through a temporary holding position.
I suppose, as in any investigation of this kind, you should do some quick benchmarking.
Here is my solution, similar to Task's in that it is a simple Array wrapper and that it takes O(1) time to shift the array to the left.
public class ShiftyArray<T>
{
private readonly T[] array;
private int front;
public ShiftyArray(T[] array)
{
this.array = array;
front = 0;
}
public void ShiftLeft()
{
array[front++] = default(T);
if(front > array.Length - 1)
{
front = 0;
}
}
public void ShiftLeft(int count)
{
for(int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
ShiftLeft();
}
}
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
if(index > array.Length - 1)
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
return array[(front + index) % array.Length];
}
}
public int Length { get { return array.Length; } }
}
Running it through Jason Punyon's test code...
int?[] intData = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
ShiftyArray<int?> array = new ShiftyArray<int?>(intData);
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
array.ShiftLeft();
}
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Takes ~29ms, regardless of the array size.
Use the Array.Copy() method as in
int?[] myArray = new int?[]{0,1,2,3,4};
Array.Copy(myArray, 1, myArray, 0, myArray.Length - 1);
myArray[myArray.Length - 1] = null
The Array.Copy is probably the way, Microsoft wanted us to copy array elements...
Couldn't you use a System.Collections.Generic.Queue instead of an array ?
I feel like you need to perform actions on your value the discard it, thus using a queue seems to be more appropriate :
// dummy initialization
System.Collections.Generic.Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 7; ++i ) { queue.Enqueue(i); }// add each element at the end of the container
// working thread
if (queue.Count > 0)
doSomething(queue.Dequeue());// removes the last element of the container and calls doSomething on it
For any pour soul finding this thread and about to implement one of the highly rated answers. All of them are trash, I'm not sure why that is. Maybe Dested asked for a new array implementation at first or something that has now been removed from the question. Well if you simply want to shift the array and don't need a new one, see an answer like tdaines's answer. And read up on things like the Circular Buffer / Ring Buffer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_buffer. No moving of the actual data is necessary. The performance of shifting an array should not be tied to the size of the array.
If it absolutely has to be in an array, then I would recommend the most obvious code possible.
for (int index = startIndex; index + 1 < values.Length; index++)
values[index] = values[index + 1];
values[values.Length - 1] = null;
This gives the optimizer the most opportunities to find the best way on whatever target platform the program is installed on.
EDIT:
I just borrowed Jason Punyon's test code, and I'm afraid he's right. Array.Copy wins!
var source = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Cast<int?>().ToArray();
int indexToRemove = 4;
var s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
Array.Copy(source, indexToRemove + 1, source, indexToRemove, source.Length - indexToRemove - 1);
//for (int index = indexToRemove; index + 1 < source.Length; index++)
// source[index] = source[index + 1];
}
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.Elapsed);
Array.Copy takes between 103 and 150 ms on my machine.
for loop takes between 269 and 338 ms on my machine.
Can't you
allocate the array with an extra 1000 elements
have an integer variable int base = 0
instead of accessing a[i] access a[base+i]
to do your shift, just say base++
Then after you've done this 1000 times, copy it down and start over.
That way, you only do the copy once per 1000 shifts.
Old joke:
Q: How many IBM 360s does it take to shift a register by 1 bit?
A: 33. 32 to hold the bits in place, and 1 to move the register. (or some such...)
You can use the same array as source and destination for fast in-place copy:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] array = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7};
Array.ConstrainedCopy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length - 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = 0;
}
You might do it like this:
var items = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 }; // Your array
var itemList = new List<int?>(items); // Put the items in a List<>
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
items = itemList.ToArray(); // Turn the list back into an array
Of course, it would be more efficient to get rid of the array entirely and just use a List<>. You could then forget the first line and last line and do it like this:
var itemList = new List<int?> { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
itemList.RemoveAt(1); // Remove the item at index 1
itemList.Add(null); // Add a null to the end of the list
The best and most efficient method I believe is using Buffer.BlockCopy function.
You will set both source and destination to your array, the offset of the source is 1. Depending on your array type (I assume it is int), 1 int = 4 bytes, so you must pass in 4 as the second parameter of this function. Note that the offset is byte offset.
So it looks like this:
int bytes2copy = yourArray.length - 4;
Buffer.BlockCopy(yourArray, 4, yourArray, 0, bytes2copy);
yourArray[yourArray.length-1] = null;
Try this! using Linq. No need of second Array.
var i_array = new int?[] {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
i_array = i_array.Select((v, k) => new { v = v, k = k }).
Where(i => i.k > 0).Select(i => i.v).ToArray();
Array.Resize(ref i_array, i_array.Length + 1);
Output:
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6] would become [1,2,3,4,5,6,null]
If you own the memory you could consider using Unsafe Code and good old fashioned pointers.
Make yourself a memory stream and lock it down or use Marshal.AllocHGlobal
Construct all your arrays in it with a little bit of padding at the beginning and end.
increment or decrement all of the array pointers at once. You'll still need to loop back and set your nulls.
If you need to selectively increment or decrement the arrays you would have to add padding between them.
Arrays are incredibly low level data structures, if you treat them in a low level way you can get huge performance out of them.
A baytrail doing this could outperform Jason's with all its copying 8 Core Intel Xeon E5450 # 3.00GHz
Not tested this code, but it should shifts all the values to right by one. Note that the last three lines of code is all you require to efficiently shift the array.
public class Shift : MonoBehaviour {
//Initialize Array
public int[] queue;
void Start () {
//Create Array Rows
queue = new int[5];
//Set Values to 1,2,3,4,5
for (int i=0; i<5;i++)
{
queue[i] = i + 1;
}
//Get the integer at the first index
int prev = queue[0];
//Copy the array to the new array.
System.Array.Copy(queue, 1, queue, 0, queue.Length - 1);
//Set the last shifted value to the previously first value.
queue[queue.Length - 1] = prev;
Implementation with Extension methods passing shifting direction as Enum.
"for" statements and indexers only (don't use Array.Copy method).
using System;
namespace ShiftArrayElements
{
public static class EnumShifter
{
public static int[] Shift(int[] source, Direction[] directions)
{
for (var i = 0; i < directions.Length; i++)
{
var direction = directions[i];
if (direction == Direction.Left)
{
source.LeftShift();
}
else if (direction == Direction.Right)
{
source.RightShift();
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Direction is invalid");
}
}
return source;
}
public static void LeftShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[0];
for (int j = 0; j + 1 < source.Length; j++)
{
source[j] = source[j + 1];
}
source[lastIndex] = temp;
}
public static void RightShift(this int[] source)
{
var lastIndex = source?.Length - 1 ?? 0;
var temp = source[lastIndex];
for (int j = lastIndex; j > 0; j--)
{
source[j] = source[j - 1];
}
source[0] = temp;
}
}
}
Array copying is an O(n) operation and creates a new array.
While array copying can certainly be done quickly and efficiently, the problem you've stated can actually be solved in an entirely different way without (as you've requested) creating a new array/data structure and only creating one small wrapping object instance per array:
using System;
using System.Text;
public class ArrayReindexer
{
private Array reindexed;
private int location, offset;
public ArrayReindexer( Array source )
{
reindexed = source;
}
public object this[int index]
{
get
{
if (offset > 0 && index >= location)
{
int adjustedIndex = index + offset;
return adjustedIndex >= reindexed.Length ? "null" : reindexed.GetValue( adjustedIndex );
}
return reindexed.GetValue( index );
}
}
public void Reindex( int position, int shiftAmount )
{
location = position;
offset = shiftAmount;
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder output = new StringBuilder( "[ " );
for (int i = 0; i < reindexed.Length; ++i)
{
output.Append( this[i] );
if (i == reindexed.Length - 1)
{
output.Append( " ]" );
}
else
{
output.Append( ", " );
}
}
return output.ToString();
}
}
By wrapping and controlling access to the array in this manner, we can now demonstrate how the problem was solved with an O(1) method call...
ArrayReindexer original = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
Console.WriteLine( " Base array: {0}", original.ToString() );
ArrayReindexer reindexed = new ArrayReindexer( SourceArray );
reindexed.Reindex( 1, 1 );
Console.WriteLine( "Shifted array: {0}", reindexed.ToString() );
Will produce the output:
Base array: [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ]
Shifted array: [ 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, null ]
I'm willing to bet that there will be a reason that such a solution won't work for you, but I believe this does match your initial stated requirements. 8 )
It's often helpful to think about all the different kinds of solutions to a problem before implementing a specific one, and perhaps that might be the most important thing that this example can demonstrate.
Hope this helps!
Incorrect and slightly amusing answer (thanks, i'll be here all night !)
int?[] test = new int?[] {0,1,2,3,4,5,6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
t = test.Skip(1).ToArray();
t[t.Length - 1] = null;
In the spirit of still using Skip (dont ask me, i know worst usage of LINQ extension methods ever), the only way I thought of rewriting it would be
int?[] test = new int?[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
int?[] t = new int?[test.Length];
Array.Copy(test.Skip(1).ToArray(), t, t.Length - 1);
But it's in NO WAY faster than the other options.
I know this is an old question but coming from Google there was no simple example so thanks to this is the easiest way to reorder a list, and you don't have to supply the type it will work it out at runtime,
private static List<T> reorderList<T>(List<T> list){
List<T> newList = new List<T>();
list.ForEach(delegate(T item)
{
newList.Add(item);
});
return newList;
}
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ShiftMatrix
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MatrixOperation objMatrixOperation = new MatrixOperation();
//Create a matrix
int[,] mat = new int[,]
{
{1, 2},
{3,4 },
{5, 6},
{7,8},
{8,9},
};
int type = 2;
int counter = 0;
if (type == 1)
{
counter = mat.GetLength(0);
}
else
{
counter = mat.GetLength(1);
}
while (true)
{
for (int i = 0; i < counter; i++)
{
ShowMatrix(objMatrixOperation.ShiftMatrix(mat, i, type));
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2));
}
}
}
public static void ShowMatrix(int[,] matrix)
{
int rows = matrix.GetLength(0);
int columns = matrix.GetLength(1);
for (int k = 0; k < rows; k++)
{
for (int l = 0; l < columns; l++)
{
Console.Write(matrix[k, l] + " ");
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
class MatrixOperation
{
public int[,] ShiftMatrix(int[,] origanalMatrix, int shift, int type)
{
int rows = origanalMatrix.GetLength(0);
int cols = origanalMatrix.GetLength(1);
int[,] _tmpMatrix = new int[rows, cols];
if (type == 2)
{
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < rows; x1++)
{
int y2 = 0;
for (int y1 = shift; y2 < cols - shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
y2--;
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < shift; y1++, y2++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x1, y2] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
else
{
int x2 = 0;
for (int x1 = shift; x2 < rows - shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
x2--;
for (int x1 = 0; x1 < shift; x1++, x2++)
{
for (int y1 = 0; y1 < cols; y1++)
{
_tmpMatrix[x2, y1] = origanalMatrix[x1, y1];
}
}
}
return _tmpMatrix;
}
}
}
See C# code below to remove space from string. That shift character in array. Performance is O(n). No other array is used. So no extra memory either.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string strIn = System.Console.ReadLine();
char[] chraryIn = strIn.ToCharArray();
int iShift = 0;
char chrTemp;
for (int i = 0; i < chraryIn.Length; ++i)
{
if (i > 0)
{
chrTemp = chraryIn[i];
chraryIn[i - iShift] = chrTemp;
chraryIn[i] = chraryIn[i - iShift];
}
if (chraryIn[i] == ' ') iShift++;
if (i >= chraryIn.Length - 1 - iShift) chraryIn[i] = ' ';
}
System.Console.WriteLine(new string(chraryIn));
System.Console.Read();
}
a is array of ints & d is number of times array has to shift left.
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
var innerLoop = a.Length - 1;
for(var loop=0; loop < d; loop++)
{
var res = a[innerLoop];
for (var i= innerLoop; i>=0; i--)
{
var tempI = i-1;
if (tempI < 0)
{
tempI = innerLoop;
}
var yolo = a[tempI];
a[tempI] = res;
res = yolo;
}
}
return a;
}
Simple way to do it when you need to resize the same array.
var nLength = args.Length - 1;
Array.Copy(args, 1, args, 0, nLength);
Array.Resize(ref args, nLength);
I want to do something like:
object[] rowOfObjects = GetRow();//filled somewhere else
object[,] tableOfObjects = new object[10,10];
tableOfObjects[0] = rowOfObjects;
is this somehow possible and what is the syntax?
or I need to do this:
for (int i = 0; i < rowOfObjects.Length; i++)
{
tableOfObjects[0,i] = rowOfObjects[i];
}
and fill up the 2 dimensional arrays row using a loop?
Thanks
No, if you are using a two dimensional array it's not possible. You have to copy each item.
If you use a jagged array, it works just fine:
// create array of arrays
object[][] tableOfObject = new object[10][];
// create arrays to put in the array of arrays
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) tableOfObject[i] = new object[10];
// get row as array
object[] rowOfObject = GetRow();
// put array in array of arrays
tableOfObjects[0] = rowOfObjects;
If you are getting all the data as rows, you of course don't need the loop that puts arrays in the array of arrays, as you would just replace them anyway.
If your array is an array of value types, it is possible.
int[,] twoD = new int[2, 2] {
{0,1},
{2,3}
};
int[] oneD = new int[2]
{ 4, 5 };
int destRow = 1;
Buffer.BlockCopy(
oneD, // src
0, // srcOffset
twoD, // dst
destRow * twoD.GetLength(1) * sizeof(int), // dstOffset
oneD.Length * sizeof(int)); // count
// twoD now equals
// {0,1},
// {4,5}
It is not possible with an array of objects.
Note: Since .net3.5 this will only work with an array of primitives.
if I have gigabyte size arrays, I would do it in C++/CLI playing with pointers and doing just memcpy instead of having gazillion slow boundary-checked array indexing operations.
I find it easiest to just do a loop.
public static double[,] arraycopy(double[]
thearray, int n, int nrow, int ncol)
{
double[] sourcearray;
double[,] newarray;
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
sourcearray = new double[n];
sourcearray = thearray;
newarray = new double[nrow, ncol];
for(i=0; i<nrow; i++)
{
for(j=0; j<ncol; j++)
newarray[i,j] = sourcearray[nrow*i + j];
}
return newarray;
}
So, Something like:
public static object[] GetRow()
{
object[,] test = new object[10,10];
int a = 0;
object[] row = new object[10];
for(a = 0; a <= 10; a++)
{
row[a] = test[0, a];
}
return row;
}