In a proficiency assessment as part of Exam 98-361, Software Development Fundamentals, this question pops up:
Scenario 3-3: Using Stacks
You are writing a program that uses two stacks. The data in each stack is already in descending order. You need to process the contents of both stacks in such a way that the output is printed on the screen ascending order. How would you write such a program?
Now, I have this scenario already coded. My solution is to iterate over two separate stacks, merge them into a List by popping their items off until the stack is empty, and sort the list into the correct order.
However, it strikes me that the question is a bit vague on whether or not I should be merging the stacks. It's kind of implied, but it kind of isn't.
If you were reading this question, how would you interpret it?
Note that I'm not actually taking this exam, just prepping for it. It's more of a requirements interpretation issue, at this point, in my mind.
My point of view:
DECLARE NEW_LIST;
INT COUNT = STACK_A.COUNT() + STACK_B.COUNT()
FOR I=0 TO COUNT-1
IF STACK_A.PEEK() > STACK_B.PEEK()
NEW_LIST.ADD(STACK_A.POP())
ELSE
NEW_LIST.ADD(STACK_B.POP());
Now you have NEW_LIST which is sorted - you just need to decide on the printing order
(reverse for ascending order)
Assuming m, n are the initial sizes of the two stacks,
Merging both stacks and then sorting a list will cost you more -
O((n+m)log(n+m)) for a quicksort, which is obviously slower than
O(m+n) - for the solution above
I think you're correct. That was my initial interpretation (although I agree it seems a bit vague). And on further thought, it seems to me there'd be no need to specify two stacks unless they were supposed to be merged.
This question sounds like a set-up for a merge-sort; to get the contents of both in a combined, sorted (but reversed) order, you repeatedly peek the top of each stack to see which value is lower (id est, earlier in a descending order sort), pop the value off that stack and push it to a third stack. Repeat until both source stacks are empty, and because your third stack is FILO the items you added in descending order will pop off in ascending order.
Related
I have a need to check if a list of items contains a string...so kind of like the list gets filtered as the user types in a search box. So, on the text changed event, I am checking if the entered text is contained in one of the listox items and filtering out...so
something like:
value.Contains(enteredText)
I was wondering if this is the fastest and most efficient way to filter out listbox items?
Is Contains() method the best way to search for substrings in C#?
I'd say that in all but very exceptional circumstances, it's fast and efficient enough, and even in such exceptional circumstances it's likely to be a purely academical problem. If you use it and come across any bottlenecks in your logic related to this then I'd be surprised, but only then would it be worth looking at, then chances are you'll be looking elsewhere.
Contains is one of the cheapest methods in my code completion filtering algorithm (Part 6 #6, where #7 and the fuzzy logic matching described in the footnote are vastly more expensive), which doesn't have problems keeping up with even a fast typing user and thousands of items in the dropdown.
I highly doubt it will cause you problems.
Although this is not the fastest option globally, it is the fastest one for which you do not need to code anything. It should be sufficient for filtering drop-down items.
For longer texts, you may want to go with the KMP Algorithm, which has a linear timing complexity. Note, however, that it would not make any difference for very short search strings.
For searches that have lots of matches (e.g. ones that you get for the first one to two characters) you may want to precompute a table that maps single letters and letter pairs to the rows in your drop-down list for a much faster look-up at the expense of using more memory (a pretty standard tradeoff in programming in general).
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 :-)
In some library code, I have a List that can contain 50,000 items or more.
Callers of the library can invoke methods that result in strings being added to the list. How do I efficiently check for uniqueness of the strings being added?
Currently, just before adding a string, I scan the entire list and compare each string to the to-be-added string. This starts showing scale problems above 10,000 items.
I will benchmark this, but interested in insight.
if I replace the List<> with a Dictionary<> , will ContainsKey() be appreciably faster as the list grows to 10,000 items and beyond?
if I defer the uniqueness check until after all items have been added, will it be faster? At that point I would need to check every element against every other element, still an n^^2 operation.
EDIT
Some basic benchmark results. I created an abstract class that exposes 2 methods: Fill and Scan. Fill just fills the collection with n items (I used 50,000). Scan scans the list m times (I used 5000) to see if a given value is present. Then I built an implementation of that class for List, and another for HashSet.
The strings used were uniformly 11 characters in length, and randomly generated via a method in the abstract class.
A very basic micro-benchmark.
Hello from Cheeso.Tests.ListTester
filling 50000 items...
scanning 5000 items...
Time to fill: 00:00:00.4428266
Time to scan: 00:00:13.0291180
Hello from Cheeso.Tests.HashSetTester
filling 50000 items...
scanning 5000 items...
Time to fill: 00:00:00.3797751
Time to scan: 00:00:00.4364431
So, for strings of that length, HashSet is roughly 25x faster than List , when scanning for uniqueness. Also, for this size of collection, HashSet has zero penalty over List when adding items to the collection.
The results are interesting and not valid. To get valid results, I'd need to do warmup intervals, multiple trials, with random selection of the implementation. But I feel confident that that would move the bar only slightly.
Thanks everyone.
EDIT2
After adding randomization and multple trials, HashSet consistently outperforms List in this case, by about 20x.
These results don't necessarily hold for strings of variable length, more complex objects, or different collection sizes.
You should use the HashSet<T> class, which is specifically designed for what you're doing.
Use HashSet<string> instead of List<string>, then it should scale very well.
From my tests, HashSet<string> takes no time compared to List<string> :)
Possibly off-topic, but if you want to scale very large unique sets of strings (millions+) in a language-independent way, you might check out Bloom Filters.
Does the Contains(T) function not work for you?
I have read that dictionary<> is implemented as an associative array. In some languages (not necessarily anything related to .NET), string indexes are stored as a tree structure that forks at each node based upon the character in the node. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associative_arrays.
A similar data structure was devised by Aho and Corasick in 1973 (I think). If you store 50,000 strings in such a structure, then it matters not how many strings you are storing. It matters more the length of the strings. If they are are about the same length, then you will likely never see a slow-down in lookups because the search algorithm is linear in run-time with respect to the length of the string you are searching for. Even for a red-black tree or AVL tree, the search run-time depends more upon the length of the string you are searching for rather than the number of elements in the index. However, if you choose to implement your index keys with a hash function, you now incurr the cost of hashing the string (going to be O(m), m = string length) and also the lookup of the string in the index, which will likely be on the order of O(log(n)), n = number of elements in the index.
edit: I'm not a .NET guru. Other more experienced people suggest another structure. I would take their word over mine.
edit2: your analysis is a little off for comparing uniqueness. If you use a hashing structure or dictionary, then it will not be an O(n^2) operation because of the reasoning I posted above. If you continue to use a list, then you are correct that it is O(n^2) * (max length of a string in your set) because you must examine each element in the list each time.
In an application I will have between about 3000 and 30000 strings.
After creation (read from files unordered) there will not be many strings that will be added often (but there WILL be sometimes!). Deletion of strings will also not happen often.
Comparing a string with the ones stored will occur frequently.
What kind of structure can I use best, a hashtable, a tree (Red-Black, Splay,....) or just on ordered list (maybe a StringArray?) ?
(Additional remark : a link to a good C# implementation would be appreciated as well)
It sounds like you simply need a hashtable. The HashSet<T> would thus seem to be the ideal choice. (You don't seem to require keys, but Dictionary<T> would be the right option if you did, of course.)
Here's a summary of the time complexities of the different operations on a HashSet<T> of size n. They're partially based off the fact that the type uses an array as the backing data structure.
Insertion: Typically O(1), but potentially O(n) if the array needs to be resized.
Deletion: O(1)
Exists (Contains): O(1) (given ideal hashtable buckets)
Someone correct me if any of these are wrong please. They are just my best guesses from what I know of the implementation/hashtables in general.
HashSet is very good for fast insertion and search speeds. Add, Remove and Contains are O(1).
Edit- Add assumes the array does not need to be resized. If that's the case as Noldorin has stated it is O(n).
I used HashSet on a recent VB 6 (I didn't write it) to .NET 3.5 upgrade project where I was iterating round a collection that had child items and each child item could appear in more than one parent item. The application processed a list of items I wanted to send to an API that charges a lot of money per call.
I basically used the HashSet to keep track items I'd already sent to prevent us incurring an unnecessary charge. As the process was invoked several times (it is basically a batch job with multiple commands), I serialized the HashSet between invocations. This worked very well- I had a requirement to reuse as much as the existing code as possible as this had been thoroughly tested. The HashSet certainly performed very fast.
If you're looking for real-time performance or optimal memory efficiency I'd recommend a radix tree or explicit suffix or prefix tree. Otherwise I'd probably use a hash.
Trees have the advantage of having fixed bounds on worst case lookup, insertion and deletion times (based on the length of the pattern you're looking up). Hash based solutions have the advantage of being a whole lot easier to code (you get these out of the box in C#), cheaper to construct initially and if properly configured have similar average-case performance. However, they do tend to use more memory and have non-deterministic time lookups, insertions (and depending on the implementation possibly deletions).
The answers recommending HashSet<T> are spot on if your comparisons are just "is this string present in the set or not". You could even use different IEqualityComparer<string> implementations (probably choosing from the ones in StringComparer) for case-sensitivity etc.
Is this the only type of comparison you need, or do you need things like "where would this string appear in the set if it were actually an ordered list?" If you need that sort of check, then you'll probably want to do a binary search. (List<T> provides a BinarySearch method; I don't know why SortedList and SortedDictionary don't, as both would be able to search pretty easily. Admittedly a SortedDictionary search wouldn't be quite the same as a normal binary search, but it would still usually have similar characteristics I believe.)
As I say, if you only want "in the set or not" checking, the HashSet<T> is your friend. I just thought I'd bring up the rest in case :)
If you need to know "where would this string appear in the set if it were actually an ordered list" (as in Jon Skeet's answer), you could consider a trie. This solution can only be used for certain types of "string-like" data, and if the "alphabet" is large compared to the number of strings it can quickly lose its advantages. Cache locality could also be a problem.
This could be over-engineered for a set of only N = 30,000 things that is largely precomputed, however. You might even do better just allocating an array of k * N Optional and filling it by skipping k spaces between each actual thing (thus reducing the probability that your rare insertions will require reallocation, still leaving you with a variant of binary search, and keeping your items in sorted order. If you need precise "where would this string appear in the set", though, this wouldn't work because you would need O(n) time to examine each space before the item checking if it was blank or O(n) time on insert to update a "how many items are really before me" counter in each slot. It could provide you with very fast imprecise indexes, though, and those indexes would be stable between insertions/deletions.
I have a situation that I am not quite sure where to start looking. I have been searching for the past four hours and I couldn't find anything that does what I am looking to do.
I have eight objects controlling individual lights. When an event occurs I generate an ID of it, store that value in the first available object, and start a method. I also store the ID in a list and match the object number to the index number of that list. What I would like to do is have those eight objects update and rotate depending if the matching item is removed from the list.
Example: There are five out of the eight objects active and I remove an item from the list indexed at 0. Object 0 is stopped then object 1 is moved to object 0 then 2 to 1, 3 to 2, etc.
So my question is what terms should I look up to help me accomplish that goal? I am relatively new to c# and with the results of my research today I just want to know what is the right question to ask.
If what I am looking to do is impossible just say so and I will come up with a more simple program on my end. Or if you have a solution to that situation I am all ears.
I think you're just describing a [stack data structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_(abstract_data_type). Check it out and see if it's what you're looking for.
A stack doesn't "rotate" objects, but when you remove the top item, the "index" of all the other items will decrement as you described. In your example, it seems like the list would eventually become empty (after 8 events) which is consistent with a stack - but it's not clear why one would call this rotation.
If a stack is what you're looking for, the BCL defines a generic Stack<T> that can do this. You add items to a stack with the Push() operation, which has the side effect of incrementing the index of all other items in the structure. The dual Pop operation removes the top item from the collection and decrements the index of the other items, as you described.