Develop Reference

Is there a way to avoid number to string conversion & nested loops for performance?

I just took a coding test online and this one question really bothered me. My solution was correct but was rejected for being unoptimized. The question is as following:
Write a function combineTheGivenNumber taking two arguments:
numArray: number[]
num: a number
The function should check all the concatenation pairs that can result in making a number equal to num and return their count.
E.g. if numArray = [1, 212, 12, 12] & num = 1212 then we will have return value of 3 from combineTheGivenNumber
The pairs are as following:
numArray[0]+numArray[1]
numArray[2]+numArray[3]
numArray[3]+numArray[2]
The function I wrote for this purpose is as following:
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
//convert all numbers to strings for easy concatenation
numArray = numArray.map(e => e+'');
//also convert the `hay` to string for easy comparison
num = num+'';
let pairCounts = 0;
// itereate over the array to get pairs
numArray.forEach((e,i) => {
numArray.forEach((f,j) => {
if(i!==j && num === (e+f)) {
pairCounts++;
}
});
});
return pairCounts;
}
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber([1,212,12,12],1212));
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber([4,21,42,1],421));
From my experience, I know conversion of number to string is slow in JS, but I am not sure whether my approach is wrong/lack of knowledge or does the tester is ignorant of this fact. Can anyone suggest further optimization of the code snipped?
Elimination of string to number to string will be a significant speed boost but I am not sure how to check for concatenated numbers otherwise.

Elimination of string to number to string will be a significant speed boost
No, it won't.
Firstly, you're not converting strings to numbers anywhere, but more importantly the exercise asks for concatenation so working with strings is exactly what you should do. No idea why they're even passing numbers. You're doing fine already by doing the conversion only once for each number input, not every time your form a pair. And last but not least, avoiding the conversion will not be a significant improvement.
To get a significant improvement, you should use a better algorithm. #derpirscher is correct in his comment: "[It's] the nested loop checking every possible combination which hits the time limit. For instance for your example, when the outer loop points at 212 you don't need to do any checks, because regardless, whatever you concatenate to 212, it can never result in 1212".
So use
let pairCounts = 0;
numArray.forEach((e,i) => {
if (num.startsWith(e)) {
//^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
numArray.forEach((f,j) => {
if (i !== j && num === e+f) {
pairCounts++;
}
});
}
});
You might do the same with suffixes, but it becomes more complicated to rule out concatenation to oneself there.
Optimising further, you can even achieve a linear complexity solution by putting the strings in a lookup structure, then when finding a viable prefix just checking whether the missing part is an available suffix:
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
const strings = new Map();
for (const num of numArray) {
const str = String(num);
strings.set(str, 1 + (strings.get(str) ?? 0));
}
const whole = String(num);
let pairCounts = 0;
for (const [prefix, pCount] of strings) {
if (!whole.startsWith(prefix))
continue;
const suffix = whole.slice(prefix.length);
if (strings.has(suffix)) {
let sCount = strings.get(suffix);
if (suffix == prefix) sCount--; // no self-concatenation
pairCounts += pCount*sCount;
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
(the proper handling of duplicates is a bit difficile)

I like your approach of going to strings early. I can suggest a couple of simple optimizations.
You only need the numbers that are valid "first parts" and those that are valid "second parts"
You can use the javascript .startsWith and .endsWith to test for those conditions. All other strings can be thrown away.
The lengths of the strings must add up to the length of the desired answer
Suppose your target string is 8 digits long. If you have 2 valid 3-digit "first parts", then you only need to know how many valid 5-digit "second parts" you have. Suppose you have 9 of them. Those first parts can only combine with those second parts, and give you 2 * 9 = 18 valid pairs.
You don't actually need to keep the strings!
It struck me that if you know you have 2 valid 3-digit "first parts", you don't need to keep those actual strings. Knowing that they are valid 2-digit first parts is all you need to know.
So let's build an array containing:
How many valid 1-digit first parts do we have?,
How many valid 2-digit first parts do we have?,
How many valid 3-digit first parts do we have?,
etc.
And similarly an array containing the number of valid 1-digit second parts, etc.
X first parts and Y second parts can be combined in X * Y ways
Except if the parts are the same length, in which case we are reusing the same list, and so it is just X * (Y-1).
So not only do we not need to keep the strings, but we only need to do the multiplication of the appropriate elements of the arrays.
5 1-char first parts & 7 3-char second parts = 5 * 7 = 35 pairs
6 2-char first part & 4 2-char second parts = 6 * (4-1) = 18 pairs
etc
So this becomes extremely easy. One pass over the strings, tallying the "first part" and "second part" matches of each length. This can be done with an if and a ++ of the relevant array element.
Then one pass over the lengths, which will be very quick as the array of lengths will be very much shorter than the array of actual strings.
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
const sElements = numArray.map(e => "" + e);
const sTarget = "" + num;
const targetLength = sTarget.length
const startsByLen = (new Array(targetLength)).fill(0);
const endsByLen = (new Array(targetLength)).fill(0);
sElements.forEach(sElement => {
if (sTarget.startsWith(sElement)) {
startsByLen[sElement.length]++
}
if (sTarget.endsWith(sElement)) {
endsByLen[sElement.length]++
}
})
// We can now throw away the strings. We have two separate arrays:
// startsByLen[1] is the count of strings (without attempting to remove duplicates) which are the first character of the required answer
// startsByLen[2] similarly the count of strings which are the first 2 characters of the required answer
// etc.
// and endsByLen[1] is the count of strings which are the last character ...
// and endsByLen[2] is the count of strings which are the last 2 characters, etc.
let pairCounts = 0;
for (let firstElementLength = 1; firstElementLength < targetLength; firstElementLength++) {
const secondElementLength = targetLength - firstElementLength;
if (firstElementLength === secondElementLength) {
pairCounts += startsByLen[firstElementLength] * (endsByLen[secondElementLength] - 1)
} else {
pairCounts += startsByLen[firstElementLength] * endsByLen[secondElementLength]
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber([1, 212, 12, 12], 1212));
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber([4, 21, 42, 1], 421));

Depending on a setup, the integer slicing can be marginally faster
Although in the end it falls short
Also, when tested on higher N values, the previous answer exploded in jsfiddle. Possibly a memory error.
As far as I have tested with both random and hand-crafted values, my solution holds. It is based on an observation, that if X, Y concantenated == Z, then following must be true:
Z - Y == X * 10^(floor(log10(Y)) + 1)
an example of this:
1212 - 12 = 1200
12 * 10^(floor((log10(12)) + 1) = 12 * 10^(1+1) = 12 * 100 = 1200
Now in theory, this should be faster then manipulating strings. And in many other languages it most likely would be. However in Javascript as I just learned, the situation is a bit more complicated. Javascript does some weird things with casting that I haven't figured out yet. In short - when I tried storing the numbers(and their counts) in a map, the code got significantly slower making any possible gains from this logarithm shenanigans evaporate. Furthermore, storing them in a custom-crafted data structure isn't guaranteed to be faster since you have to build it etc. Also it would be quite a lot of work.
As it stands this log comparison is ~ 8 times faster in a case without(or with just a few) matches since the quadratic factor is yet to kick in. As long as the possible postfix count isn't too high, it will outperform the linear solution. Unfortunately it is still quadratic in nature with the breaking point depending on a total number of strings as well as their length.
So if you are searching for a needle in a haystack - for example you are looking for a few pairs in a huge heap of numbers, this can help. In the other case of searching for many matches, this won't help. Similarly, if the input array was sorted, you could use binary search to push the breaking point further up.
In the end, unless you manage to figure out how to store ints in a map(or some custom implementation of it) in a way that doesn't completely kill the performance, the linear solution of the previous answer will be faster. It can still be useful even with the performance hit if your computation is going to be memory heavy. Storing numbers takes less space then storing strings.
var log10 = Math.log(10)
function log10floored(num) {
return Math.floor(Math.log(num) / log10)
}
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
count = 0
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let portion = num - numArray[i]
let removedPart = Math.pow(10, log10floored(numArray[i]))
if (portion % (removedPart * 10) == 0) {
for (var j=0; j!=numArray.length; j++) {
if (j != i && portion / (removedPart * 10) == numArray[j] ) {
count += 1
}
}
}
}
return count
}
//The previous solution, that I used for timing, comparison and check purposes
function combineTheGivenNumber2(numArray, num) {
const strings = new Map();
for (const num of numArray) {
const str = String(num);
strings.set(str, 1 + (strings.get(str) ?? 0));
}
const whole = String(num);
let pairCounts = 0;
for (const [prefix, pCount] of strings) {
if (!whole.startsWith(prefix))
continue;
const suffix = whole.slice(prefix.length);
if (strings.has(suffix)) {
let sCount = strings.get(suffix);
if (suffix == prefix) sCount--; // no self-concatenation
pairCounts += pCount*sCount;
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
var myArray = []
for (let i =0; i!= 10000000; i++) {
myArray.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000000))
}
var a = new Date()
t1 = a.getTime()
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber(myArray,15285656));
var b = new Date()
t2 = b.getTime()
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber2(myArray,15285656));
var c = new Date()
t3 = c.getTime()
console.log('Test1 time: ', t2 - t1)
console.log('test2 time: ', t3 - t2)
Small update
As long as you are willing to take a performance hit with the setup and settle for the ~2 times performance, using a simple "hashing" table can help.(Hashing tables are nice and tidy, this is a simple modulo lookup table. The principle is similar though.)
Technically this isn't linear, practicaly it is enough for the most cases - unless you are extremely unlucky and all your numbers fall in the same bucket.
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
count = 0
let size = 1000000
numTable = new Array(size)
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let idx = numArray[i] % size
if (numTable[idx] == undefined) {
numTable[idx] = [numArray[i]]
} else {
numTable[idx].push(numArray[i])
}
}
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let portion = num - numArray[i]
let removedPart = Math.pow(10, log10floored(numArray[i]))
if (portion % (removedPart * 10) == 0) {
if (numTable[portion / (removedPart * 10) % size] != undefined) {
let a = numTable[portion / (removedPart * 10) % size]
for (var j=0; j!=a.length; j++) {
if (j != i && portion / (removedPart * 10) == a[j] ) {
count += 1
}
}
}
}
}
return count
}

Here's a simplified, and partially optimised approach with 2 loops:
// let's optimise 'combineTheGivenNumber', where
// a=array of numbers AND n=number to match
const ctgn = (a, n) => {
// convert our given number to a string using `toString` for clarity
// this isn't entirely necessary but means we can use strict equality later
const ns = n.toString();
// reduce is an efficient mechanism to return a value based on an array, giving us
// _=[accumulator], na=[array number] and i=[index]
return a.reduce((_, na, i) => {
// convert our 'array number' to an 'array number string' for later concatenation
const nas = na.toString();
// iterate back over our array of numbers ... we're using an optimised/reverse loop
for (let ii = a.length - 1; ii >= 0; ii--) {
// skip the current array number
if (i === ii) continue;
// string + number === string, which lets us strictly compare our 'number to match'
// if there's a match we increment the accumulator
if (a[ii] + nas === ns) ++_;
}
// we're done
return _;
}, 0);
}

Javascript: Find out of sequence dates

Consider this nested array of dates and names:
var fDates = [
['2015-02-03', 'name1'],
['2015-02-04', 'nameg'],
['2015-02-04', 'name5'],
['2015-02-05', 'nameh'],
['1929-03-12', 'name4'],
['2023-07-01', 'name7'],
['2015-02-07', 'name0'],
['2015-02-08', 'nameh'],
['2015-02-15', 'namex'],
['2015-02-09', 'namew'],
['1980-12-23', 'name2'],
['2015-02-12', 'namen'],
['2015-02-13', 'named'],
]
How can I identify those dates that are out of sequence. I don't care if dates repeat, or skip, I just need the ones out of order. Ie, I should get back:
results = [
['1929-03-12', 'name4'],
['2023-07-01', 'name7'],
['2015-02-15', 'namex'],
['1980-12-23', 'name2'],
]
('Namex' is less obvious, but it's not in the general order of the list.)
This appears to be a variation on the Longest Increase Subsequence (LIS) problem, with the caveat that there may be repeated dates in the sequence but shouldn't ever step backward.
Use case: I have sorted and dated records and need to find the ones where the dates are "suspicious" -- perhaps input error -- to flag for checking.
NB1: I am using straight Javascript and NOT a framework. (I am in node, but am looking for a package-free solution so I can understand what's going on...)

Here's an adaptation of Rosetta Code LIS to take a custom getElement and compare functions. We can refine the comparison and element-get functions based on your specific needs.
function f(arr, getElement, compare){
function findIndex(input){
var len = input.length;
var maxSeqEndingHere = new Array(len).fill(1)
for(var i=0; i<len; i++)
for(var j=i-1;j>=0;j--)
if(compare(getElement(input, i), getElement(input, j)) && maxSeqEndingHere[j] >= maxSeqEndingHere[i])
maxSeqEndingHere[i] = maxSeqEndingHere[j]+1;
return maxSeqEndingHere;
}
function findSequence(input, result){
var maxValue = Math.max.apply(null, result);
var maxIndex = result.indexOf(Math.max.apply(Math, result));
var output = new Set();
output.add(maxIndex);
for(var i = maxIndex ; i >= 0; i--){
if(maxValue==0)break;
if(compare(getElement(input, maxIndex), getElement(input, i)) && result[i] == maxValue-1){
output.add(i);
maxValue--;
}
}
return output;
}
var result = findIndex(arr);
var final = findSequence(arr, result)
return arr.filter((e, i) => !final.has(i));
}
var fDates = [
['2015-02-03', 'name1'],
['2015-02-04', 'nameg'],
['2015-02-04', 'name5'],
['2015-02-05', 'nameh'],
['1929-03-12', 'name4'],
['2023-07-01', 'name7'],
['2015-02-07', 'name0'],
['2015-02-08', 'nameh'],
['2015-02-15', 'namex'],
['2015-02-09', 'namew'],
['1980-12-23', 'name2'],
['2015-02-12', 'namen'],
['2015-02-13', 'named'],
];
console.log(f(fDates, (arr, i) => arr[i][0], (a,b) => a >= b));

This solution tries to get all valid sequences and returns the longes sequences for filtering the parts out.
It works by iterating the given array and checks if the values could build a sequence. If a value is given, which part result has a valid predecessor, the array is appended with this value. If not a backtracking is made and a sequence is searched with a valid predecessor.
act. array
value 7 3 4 4 5 1 23 7 comment
----- ------------------------ ---------------------------
7 7 add array with single value
3 7 keep
3 add array with single value
4 7 keep
3 4 add value to array
4 7 keep
3 4 4 add value to array
5 7 keep
3 4 4 5 add value to array
1 7 keep
3 4 4 5 keep
1 add array with single value
23 7 23 add value to array
3 4 4 5 23 add value to array
1 23 add value to array
7 7 23 keep
7 7 fork above, filter for smaller or equal and add value
3 4 4 5 23 keep
3 4 4 5 7 fork above, filter for smaller or equal and add value
1 23 keep
1 7 fork above, filter for smaller or equal and add value
function longestSequences(array, getValue = v => v) {
return array
.reduce(function (sub, value) {
var single = true;
sub.forEach(function (s) {
var temp;
if (getValue(s[s.length - 1]) <= getValue(value)) {
s.push(value);
single = false;
return;
}
// backtracking
temp = s.reduceRight(function (r, v) {
if (getValue(v) <= getValue(r[0])) {
r.unshift(v);
single = false;
}
return r;
}, [value]);
if (temp.length !== 1 && !sub.some(s => s.length === temp.length && s.every((v, i) => getValue(v) === getValue(temp[i])))) {
sub.push(temp);
}
});
if (single) {
sub.push([value]);
}
return sub;
}, [])
.reduce(function (r, a) {
if (!r || r[0].length < a.length) {
return [a];
}
if (r[0].length === a.length) {
r.push(a);
}
return r;
}, undefined);
}
function notInSequence(array, getValue = v => v) {
var longest = longestSequences(array, getValue);
return array.filter((i => a => a !== longest[0][i] || !++i)(0));
}
var array = [7, 3, 4, 4, 5, 1, 23, 7, 8, 15, 9, 2, 12, 13],
fDates = [['2015-02-03', 'name1'], ['2015-02-04', 'nameg'], ['2015-02-04', 'name5'], ['2015-02-05', 'nameh'], ['1929-03-12', 'name4'], ['2023-07-01', 'name7'], ['2015-02-07', 'name0'], ['2015-02-08', 'nameh'], ['2015-02-15', 'namex'], ['2015-02-09', 'namew'], ['1980-12-23', 'name2'], ['2015-02-12', 'namen'], ['2015-02-13', 'named']],
usuallyFailingButNotHere = [['2015-01-01'], ['2014-01-01'], ['2015-01-02'], ['2014-01-02'], ['2015-01-03'], ['2014-01-03'], ['2014-01-04'], ['2015-01-04'], ['2014-01-05'], ['2014-01-06'], ['2014-01-07'], ['2014-01-08'], ['2014-01-09'], ['2014-01-10'], ['2014-01-11']],
test2 = [['1975-01-01'], ['2015-02-03'], ['2015-02-04'], ['2015-02-04'], ['2015-02-05'], ['1929-03-12'], ['2023-07-01'], ['2015-02-07'], ['2015-02-08']];
console.log(longestSequences(array));
console.log(notInSequence(array));
console.log(notInSequence(fDates, a => a[0]));
console.log(longestSequences(usuallyFailingButNotHere, a => a[0]));
console.log(notInSequence(usuallyFailingButNotHere, a => a[0]));
console.log(longestSequences(test2, a => a[0]));
console.log(notInSequence(test2, a => a[0]));
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }

This solution uses the function reduce and keeps the previously accepted date to make the necessary comparisons.
var fDates = [['2015-02-03', 'name1'], ['2015-02-04', 'nameg'], ['2015-02-04', 'name5'], ['2015-02-05', 'nameh'], ['1929-03-12', 'name4'], ['2023-07-01', 'name7'], ['2015-02-07', 'name0'], ['2015-02-08', 'nameh'], ['2015-02-15', 'namex'], ['2015-02-09', 'namew'], ['1980-12-23', 'name2'], ['2015-02-12', 'namen'], ['2015-02-13', 'named']],
results = fDates.reduce((acc, c, i, arr) => {
/*
* This function finds a potential valid sequence.
* Basically, will check if any next valid sequence is
* ahead from the passed controlDate.
*/
function sequenceAhead(controlDate) {
for (var j = i + 1; j < arr.length; j++) {
let [dt] = arr[j];
//The controlDate is invalid because at least a forward date is in conflict with its sequence.
if (dt > acc.previous && dt < controlDate) return true;
}
//The controlDate is valid because forward dates don't conflict with its sequence.
return false;
}
let [date] = c; //Current date in this iteration.
if (i > 0) { // If this is not the first iteration
if (date === acc.previous) return acc; // Same as previous date are skipped.
// If the current date is lesser than previous then is out of sequence.
// Or if there is at least valid sequence ahead.
if (date < acc.previous || sequenceAhead(date)) acc.results.push(c);
else acc.previous = date; // Else, this current date is in sequence.
}
else acc.previous = date; // Else, set the first date.
return acc;
}, { 'results': [] }).results;
console.log(results);
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }

All of previous answers focus on JavaScript and maybe they won't work
correctly. So I decided to add new answer that focused on
Algorithm.
As #Trees4theForest mentioned in his question and comments, he is looking for a solution for Longest Increase Subsequence and out of order dates are dates that aren't in Longest Increase Subsequence (LIS) set.
I used this method like below. In algorithm's point of view, it's true.
function longestIncreasingSequence(arr, strict) {
var index = 0,
indexWalker,
longestIncreasingSequence,
i,
il,
j;
// start by putting a reference to the first entry of the array in the sequence
indexWalker = [index];
// Then walk through the array using the following methodolgy to find the index of the final term in the longestIncreasing and
// a sequence (which may need altering later) which probably, roughly increases towards it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_increasing_subsequence#Efficient_algorithms
for (i = 1, il = arr.length; i < il; i++) {
if (arr[i] < arr[indexWalker[index]]) {
// if the value is smaller than the last value referenced in the walker put it in place of the first item larger than it in the walker
for (j = 0; j <= index; j++) {
// As well as being smaller than the stored value we must either
// - be checking against the first entry
// - not be in strict mode, so equality is ok
// - be larger than the previous entry
if (arr[i] < arr[indexWalker[j]] && (!strict || !j || arr[i] > arr[indexWalker[j - 1]])) {
indexWalker[j] = i;
break;
}
}
// If the value is greater than [or equal when not in strict mode) as the last in the walker append to the walker
} else if (arr[i] > arr[indexWalker[index]] || (arr[i] === arr[indexWalker[index]] && !strict)) {
indexWalker[++index] = i;
}
}
// Create an empty array to store the sequence and write the final term in the sequence to it
longestIncreasingSequence = new Array(index + 1);
longestIncreasingSequence[index] = arr[indexWalker[index]];
// Work backwards through the provisional indexes stored in indexWalker checking for consistency
for (i = index - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
// If the index stored is smaller than the last one it's valid to use its corresponding value in the sequence... so we do
if (indexWalker[i] < indexWalker[i + 1]) {
longestIncreasingSequence[i] = arr[indexWalker[i]];
// Otherwise we need to work backwards from the last entry in the sequence and find a value smaller than the last entry
// but bigger than the value at i (this must be possible because of the way we constructed the indexWalker array)
} else {
for (j = indexWalker[i + 1] - 1; j >= 0; j--) {
if ((strict && arr[j] > arr[indexWalker[i]] && arr[j] < arr[indexWalker[i + 1]]) ||
(!strict && arr[j] >= arr[indexWalker[i]] && arr[j] <= arr[indexWalker[i + 1]])) {
longestIncreasingSequence[i] = arr[j];
indexWalker[i] = j;
break;
}
}
}
}
return longestIncreasingSequence;
}
With method above, we can find dates that is out of order like below:
// Finding Longest Increase Subsequence (LIS) set
var _longestIncreasingSequence = longestIncreasingSequence(fDates.map(([date]) => date));
// Out of order dates
var result = fDates.filter(([date]) => !_longestIncreasingSequence.includes(date));
Online demo(jsFiddle)

here is a simple self- explanatory solution. hope it will help you.
const findOutOfSequenceDates = items => {
items = items.map(d => d);
const sequence = [], outOfsequence = [];
sequence.push(items.shift());
const last = ind => sequence[sequence.length - ind][0];
items.forEach(item => {
const current = new Date(item[0]);
if (current >= new Date(last(1))) {
sequence.push(item);
} else if (current >= new Date(last(2))) {
outOfsequence.push(sequence.pop());
sequence.push(item);
} else {
outOfsequence.push(item);
}
});
return outOfsequence;
};
var fDates = [
['2015-02-03', 'name1'],
['2015-02-04', 'nameg'],
['2015-02-04', 'name5'],
['2015-02-05', 'nameh'],
['1929-03-12', 'name4'],
['2023-07-01', 'name7'],
['2015-02-07', 'name0'],
['2015-02-08', 'nameh'],
['2015-02-15', 'namex'],
['2015-02-09', 'namew'],
['1980-12-23', 'name2'],
['2015-02-12', 'namen'],
['2015-02-13', 'named'],
];
console.log(findOutOfSequenceDates(fDates));

Use the Javascript Date type. Compare with those objects. Very simplistically,
date1 = new Date(fDates[i, 0])
date2 = new Date(fDates[i+1, 0])
if (date2 < date1) { // or whatever comparison you want ...
// flag / print / alert the date
}
To clarify, This merely finds items out of sequence. You can do that with strings, as Jaromanda X pointed out. However, you use the phrase "way out of line"; whatever this means for you, Date should give you the ability to determine and test for it. For instance, is '2023-07-01' unacceptable because it's 8 years away, or simply because it's out of order with the 2015 dates? You might want some comparison to a simpler time span, such as one month, where your comparison will looks something like
if (date2-date1 > one_month)

Summary of your question
If I have understood your question correctly, you are trying to identify array entries that do not follow a chronological order based on the time/date property value.
Solution
Convert the date string / time into a UNIX time stamp (number of seconds lapsed since 01/jan/1970 at 00:00:00)
Using a loop, we can store the value against a previous reading per itenary, if the value is negative, this would indicate an error in the date lapse, if the value is positive, it would indicate the order is valid
When negative, we can create an array to denote the position of the reference array and its values allowing you to go back to the original array and review the data.
Example Code
var arrData = [
{date: '2015-02-03', value:'name1'},
{date: '2015-02-04', value:'nameg'},
{date: '2015-02-04', value:'name5'},
{date: '2015-02-05', value:'nameh'},
{date: '1929-03-12', value:'name4'},
{date: '2023-07-01', value:'name7'},
{date: '2015-02-07', value:'name0'},
{date: '2015-02-08', value:'nameh'},
{date: '2015-02-15', value:'namex'},
{date: '2015-02-09', value:'namew'},
{date: '1980-12-23', value:'name2'},
{date: '2015-02-12', value:'namen'},
{date: '2015-02-13', value:'named'}
];
var arrSeqErrors = [];
function funTestDates(){
var intLastValue = 0, intUnixDate =0;
for (x = 0; x <= arrData.length-1; x++){
intUnixDate = Date.parse(arrData[x].date)/1000;
var intResult = intUnixDate - intLastValue;
if (intResult < 0){
console.log("initeneration: " + x + " is out of sequence");
arrSeqErrors.push (arrData[x]);
}
intLastValue = intResult;
}
console.log("Items out of sequence are:");
console.log(arrSeqErrors);
}
funTestDates();

Javascript fill array with intermediate value

I'm trying to fill an array with missing intermediate data
My data input is like this
var data = [[5.23,7],[5.28,7],[5.32,8],[5.35,8]];
I wanna fill the array with missing value but I need to respect this rule:
The 1st value on 2d array must be the next sequence number, so 5.23
... 5.24 ... 5.25 ...
The 2nd value on 2d array must be the same element from the i+1
value
So the results in this case would be
var data = [[5.23,7],[5.24,7],[5.25,7],[5.26,7],[5.27,7],[5.28,7],[5.29,8],[5.30,8],[5.31,8],[5.32,8],[5.33,8],[5.34,8],[5.35,8]];
This little piece of code works, but I don't know
how to put in loop
and how to write a while loop that pass every time the new length of the array
var data = [[5.23,7],[5.28,7],[5.32,8],[5.35,8]];
if (data[1][0]-data[0][0] > 0.01) {
data.push([data[0][0]+0.01,data[1][1]]);
data.sort(function (a, b) { return a[0] - b[0]; });
} else {
check the next element
}
console.log(data);
Any idea?

Here's another idea... I thought it might feel more natural to loop through the sequence numbers directly.
Your final array will range (in this example) from 5.23 to 5.35 incrementing by 0.01. This approach uses a for loop starting going from 5.23 to 5.35 incrementing by 0.01.
key points
Rounding: Work in x100 then divide back down to avoid floating point rounding issues. I round to the neared hundredth using toFixed(2) and then converting back to a number (with leading + operator).
Indexing: Recognizing 5.23 is the zero index with each index incrementing 1/100, you can calculate index from numerical values, ex. 100*(5.31-5.23) equals 8 (so 5.31 belongs in output[8]).
2nd values: given a numerical value (ex. 5.31), just find the first element in the data array with a higher 1st value and use its 2nd value - this is a corollary of your requirement. Because 5.31 <= 5.28 is false, don't use 7 (from [5.28,7]). Because 5.31 <= 5.32 is true, use 8 (from [5.32,8]).
EDIT
I improved the performance a bit - (1) initialize output instead of modifying array size, (2) work in multiples of 100 instead of continuously rounding from floating point to hundredths.
I ran 5000 iterations on a longer example and, on average, these modifications make this approach 3x faster than Redu's (where the original was 2x slower).
var data = [[5.23,7],[5.28,7],[5.32,8],[5.35,8]];
var output = Array((data[data.length-1][0]-data[0][0]).toFixed(2)*100+1)
function getIndex(value){
return (value-data[0][0]*100)
}
for( var i = 100*data[0][0]; i <= 100*data[data.length-1][0]; i++ ){
output[getIndex(i)] = [i/100, data.find( d => i <= 100*d[0] )[1]]
}
//console.log(output)
// Performance comparison
function option1(data){
let t = performance.now()
var output = Array((data[data.length-1][0]-data[0][0]).toFixed(2)*100+1)
function getIndex(value){
return (value-data[0][0]*100)
}
for( var i = 100*data[0][0]; i <= 100*data[data.length-1][0]; i++ ){
output[getIndex(i)] = [i/100, data.find( d => i <= 100*d[0] )[1]]
}
return performance.now()-t
}
function option2(data){
let t = performance.now()
newData = data.reduce((p,c,i,a) => i ? p.concat(Array(Math.round(c[0]*100 - a[i-1][0]*100)).fill()
.map((_,j) => [Number((a[i-1][0]+(j+1)/100).toFixed(2)),c[1]]))
: [c],[]);
return performance.now()-t
}
var testdata = [[1.13,4],[2.05,6],[5.23,7],[5.28,7],[5.32,8],[5.35,8],[8.91,9],[10.31,9]];
var nTrials = 10000;
for(var trial=0, t1=0; trial<=nTrials; trial++) t1 += option1(testdata)
for(var trial=0, t2=0; trial<=nTrials; trial++) t2 += option2(testdata)
console.log(t1/nTrials) // ~0.4 ms
console.log(t2/nTrials) // ~0.55 ms

Array.prototype.reduce() is sometimes handy to extend the array. May be you can do as follows;
var data = [[5.23,7],[5.28,7],[5.32,8],[5.35,8]],
newData = data.reduce((p,c,i,a) => i ? p.concat(Array(Math.round(c[0]*100 - a[i-1][0]*100)).fill()
.map((_,j) => [Number((a[i-1][0]+(j+1)/100).toFixed(2)),c[1]]))
: [c],[]);
console.log(newData);
var data = [[1.01,3],[1.04,4],[1.09,5],[1.10,6],[1.15,7]],
newData = data.reduce((p,c,i,a) => i ? p.concat(Array(Math.round(c[0]*100 - a[i-1][0]*100)).fill()
.map((_,j) => [Number((a[i-1][0]+(j+1)/100).toFixed(2)),c[1]]))
: [c],[]);
console.log(newData);

I propose this solution :
var data = [[5.23,7],[5.28,7],[5.32,8],[5.35,8]];
var res = [];
data.forEach((item, index, arr) => {
res.push(item);
var temp = item[0];
while (arr[index+1] && arr[index+1][0]-temp > 0.01){
temp += 0.01;
res.push([temp, arr[index+1][1]]);
}
});
console.log(res);

Small Straight (Yahtzee) Algorithm

I have created a working javascript function to check an array of 5 numbers for a small straight, in a Yahtzee game I'm making. I've tested it to no end and I'm confident it works 100% of the time, but it is also probably the worst algorithm of all time in terms of being efficient. Here is what it looks like:
function calcSmstraight() {
var sum = 0;
var r = new Array();
var r2 = new Array();
var counter = 0;
var temp;
var bool = false;
var bool2 = false;
r[0] = document.getElementById('setKeep1').value;
r[1] = document.getElementById('setKeep2').value;
r[2] = document.getElementById('setKeep3').value;
r[3] = document.getElementById('setKeep4').value;
r[4] = document.getElementById('setKeep5').value;
// Move non-duplicates to new array
r2[0] = r[0];
for(var i=0; i<r.length; i++) {
for(var j=0; j<r2.length; j++) {
if(r[i] == r2[j]) {
bool2 = true; // Already in new list
}
}
// Add to new list if not already in it
if(!bool2) {
r2.push(r[i]);
}
bool2 = false;
}
// Make sure list has at least 4 different numbers
if(r2.length >= 4) {
// Sort dice from least to greatest
while(counter < r2.length) {
if(r2[counter] > r2[counter+1]) {
temp = r2[counter];
r2[counter] = r2[counter+1];
r2[counter+1] = temp;
counter = 0;
} else {
counter++;
}
}
// Check if the dice are in order
if(((r2[0] == (r2[1]-1)) && (r2[1] == (r2[2]-1)) && (r2[2] == (r2[3]-1)))
|| ((r2[1] == (r2[2]-1)) && (r2[2] == (r2[3]-1)) && (r2[3] == (r2[4]-1)))) {
bool = true;
}
}
if(bool) {
// If small straight give 30 points
sum = 30;
}
return sum;
}
My strategy is to:
1) Remove duplicates by adding numbers to a new array as they occur
2) Make sure the new array is at least 4 in length (4 different numbers)
3) Sort the array from least to greatest
4) Check if the first 4 OR last 4 (if 5 in length) numbers are in order
My question:
Does anyone know a way that I can improve this method? It seems ridiculously terrible to me but I can't think of a better way to do this and it at least works.

Given that you're implementing a Yahtzee game you presumably need to test for other patterns beyond just small straights, so it would be better to create the array of values before calling the function so that you can use them in all tests, rather than getting the values from the DOM elements inside the small straight test.
Anyway, here's the first way that came to my mind to test for a small straight within an array representing the values of five six-sided dice:
// assume r is an array with the values from the dice
r.sort();
if (/1234|2345|3456/.test(r.join("").replace(/(.)\1/,"$1") {
// is a small straight
}
Note that you can sort an array of numbers using this code:
r2.sort(function(a,b){return a-b;});
...but in your case the values in the array are strings because they came from the .value attribute of DOM elements, so a default string sort will work with r2.sort(). Either way you don't need your own sort routine, because JavaScript provides one.
EDIT: If you assume that you can just put the five values as a string as above you can implement tests for all possible combinations as a big if/else like this:
r.sort();
r = r.join("");
if (/(.)\1{4}/.test(r)) {
alert("Five of a Kind");
} else if (/(.)\1{3}/.test(r)) {
alert("Four of a Kind");
} else if (/(.)\1{2}(.)\2|(.)\3(.)\4{2}/.test(r)) {
alert("Full House");
} else if (/(.)\1{2}/.test(r)) {
alert("Three of a Kind");
} else if (/1234|2345|3456/.test( r.replace(/(.)\1/,"$1") ) {
alert("Small Straight");
} // etc.
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/4Qzfw/

Why don't you just have a six-element array of booleans indicating whether a number is present, then check 1-4, 2-5, and 3-6 for being all true? In pseudocode:
numFlags = array(6);
foreach(dice)
numFlags[die.value-1] = true;
if(numFlags[0] && numFlags[1] && numFlags[2] && numFlags[3]) return true
//Repeat for 1-4 and 2-5
return false
This wouldn't be a useful algorithm if you were using million-sided dice, but for six-siders there are only three possible small straights to check for, so it's simple and straightforward.

I do not play Yahtzee, but I do play cards, and it would appear the algorithm might be similar. This routine, written in ActionScript (my JavaScript is a bit rusty) has been compiled but not tested. It should accept 5 cards for input, and return a message for either straights greater than 3 cards or pairs or higher.
private function checkCards(card1:int,card2:int,card3:int,card4:int,card5:int):String
{
// Assumes that the 5 cards have a value between 0-12 (Ace-King)
//The key to the routine is using the card values as pointers into an array of possible card values.
var aryCardValues:Array = new Array(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
aryCardValues[card1] += 1;
aryCardValues[card1] += 1;
aryCardValues[card1] += 1;
aryCardValues[card1] += 1;
aryCardValues[card1] += 1;
var aryCardNames:Array = new Array("Ace", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10", "Jack", "Queen", "King");
var strOutMessage:String;
var intCardCount:int = 0;
var strSeperator:String;
var strHighCard:String;
for (var i:int = 0;i < aryCardValues.length;i++)
{
//Check for runs of three of a kind or greater.
if (aryCardValues[i] >= 2)
{
strOutMessage = strOutMessage + strSeperator + i + "-" + aryCardNames[i] + "s";
strSeperator = " & ";
}
//Check for values in a straight.
if (aryCardValues[i] > 0)
{
intCardCount++;
if (intCardCount > 3)strHighCard = aryCardNames[i];
}
else
{
if (intCardCount < 3)intCardCount = 0;
}
}
if (intCardCount > 3) strOutMessage = intCardCount + " run " + strHighCard + " High."
return strOutMessage;
}
It may not be as concise as the regular expressions used above, but it might be more readable and easily modified. One change that could be made is to pass in an array of cards rather than discrete variables for each card.

Javascript sort on on part of string

I have an array of strings that consist of an optional two-letter string signifying spring or fall, followed by a four-digit year, i.e. as one of the following examples:
var example_data = ["HT2014", "VT2013", "2017"];
I'd like to sort this array so that it is primarily sorted on the year (i.e. the four digits, as numbers) and then (if the years are equal) it is sorted so that VT is first, HT is in the middle and entries that do not specify spring or fall are last.
If I've understood the JavaScript sort() function correctly, I should be able to implement a sortFunction that tells me which of two objects should be first, and then just make a call to data.sort(sortFunction).
I've also started working on such a sortFunction, and come up with the following:
function specialSort(a,b) {
var as = a.split("T");
var bs = b.split("T");
if (as[1] != bs[1]) {
return as[1] - bs[1];
} else {
// The year is equal.
// How do I sort on term?
}
}
As the comments signify, I have no clue on what to do to get the sorting on "HT", "VT" and "" correct (except maybe a ridiculous series of nested ifs...). (Also, I know the above code will fail for the third item in the example data, since "2017.split("T") will only have 1 element. I'll deal with that...)
Is this a good approach? If yes - how do I complete the function to do what I want? If no - what should I do instead?

It could be shorter, but this approach calculates a sorting key first, which is then used to sort the array.
Generating the sorting key is very explicit and easy to understand, which always helps me when creating a sort algorithm.
// sorting key = <year> + ('A' | 'B' | 'C')
function getitemkey(item)
{
var parts = item.match(/^(HT|VT)?(\d{4})$/);
switch (parts[1]) {
case 'VT': return parts[2] + 'A'; // VT goes first
case 'HT': return parts[2] + 'B'; // HT is second
}
return parts[2] + 'C'; // no prefix goes last
}
function cmp(a, b)
{
var ka = getitemkey(a),
kb = getitemkey(b);
// simple key comparison
if (ka > kb) {
return 1;
} else if (ka < kb) {
return -1;
}
return 0;
}
["HT2014", "VT2013", "2017", 'HT2013', '2013'].sort(cmp);

I'd use a regular expression with captures and compare on the parts
function compare(a, b) {
var re = /([HV]T)?(\d\d\d\d)/;
var ma = re.exec(a);
var mb = re.exec(b);
// compare the years
if (ma[2] < mb[2])
return -1;
if (ma[2] > mb[2])
return 1;
// years are equal, now compare the prefixes
if (ma[1] == mb[1])
return 0;
if (ma[1] == 'VT')
return -1;
if (mb[1] == 'VT')
return 1;
if (ma[1] == 'HT')
return -1;
return 1;
}

I'll deal with that...
You can do that by getting the last item from the array, instead of the second:
var lastCmp = as.pop() - bs.pop();
if (lastCmp) // != 0
return lastCmp;
else
// compare on as[0] / bs[0], though they might be undefined now
how do I complete the function to do what I want?
You will need a comparison index table. Similiar to #Jack's switch statement, it allows you to declare custom orderings:
var orderingTable = {
"V": 1,
"H": 2
// …
},
def = 3;
var aindex = orderingTable[ as[0] ] || def, // by as[0]
bindex = orderingTable[ bs[0] ] || def; // by bs[0]
return aindex - bindex;
If you don't want a table like this, you can use an array as well:
var ordering = ["V", "H" /*…*/];
var *index = ordering.indexOf(*key)+1 || ordering.length+1;

I took the liberty of using underscore:
var example_data = ["2002","HT2014", "VT2013", "2017", "VT2002", "HT2013"];
var split = _.groupBy(example_data, function(val){ return val.indexOf('T') === -1});
var justYears = split[true].sort();
var yearAndTerm = split[false].sort(function(a,b){
var regex = /([HV])T(\d\d\d\d)/;
var left = regex.exec(a);
var right = regex.exec(b);
return left[2].localeCompare(right[2]) || right[1].localeCompare(left[1]);
});
var sorted = yearAndTerm.concat(justYears);
console.log(sorted);
Here is the fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/8KHGu/ :)