I have a task I found on CodeWars and I managed to solve it, however, after submitting is says:
Execution timed out: (12000 ms)
When I try to test the function is passed, but I guess it is too slow.
Before you condemn me for not finding the answer on my own. I don't really care about submitting that as a response, but I have no idea how to make it faster and that is why I am here.
Here is the function:
const ls = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10]
const partsSums = (ls) => {
const sum = []
for(let i = 0, len = ls.length; i < len + 1; i++) {
let result = ls.slice(i).reduce( (accumulator, currentValue) => accumulator + currentValue, 0)
sum.push(result)
}
return sum
}
Here are the instructions:
Let us consider this example (array written in general format):
ls = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10]
Its following parts:
ls = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10]
ls = [1, 3, 6, 10]
ls = [3, 6, 10]
ls = [6, 10]
ls = [10]
ls = []
The corresponding sums are (put together in a list): [20, 20, 19, 16,
10, 0]
The function parts_sums (or its variants in other languages) will take
as parameter a list ls and return a list of the sums of its parts as
defined above.
For this kind of array maipulations, you better not use build in methods, like slice or reduce, because they are slow in comparison to a for loop, or any other looping approaches.
This approach takes a sinlge loop and uses the index for getting a value of the given array and takes the last sum of the new array.
Some speed tests on Codewars: Sums of Parts:
5621 ms with sparse array sum = []; sum[i] = 0; (the first version of this answer),
3452 ms with Array(i + 1).fill(0) and without sum[i] = 0;,
1261 ms with Array(i + 1) and sum[i] = 0; (find below),
3733 ms with Icepickle's first attempt.
const
partsSums = (ls) => {
let i = ls.length;
const sum = Array(i + 1);
sum[i] = 0;
while (i--) sum[i] = sum[i + 1] + ls[i];
return sum;
},
ls = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10];
console.log(...partsSums(ls));
You can still take a more functional approach but optimise the way you're doing the calculations.
Here is the idea - since you're trying to sum all items, then sum all but the first, then sum all but the second, etc., mathematically equivalent to getting the sum then subtracting from it each number in order and keeping the total.
[sum([41, 42, 43]), sum([42, 43]), sum([43]), sum([])]
is the same as:
total = sum([41, 42, 43])
[total - 0, total - 0 - 41, total - 0 - 41 - 42, total - 0 - 41 - 42- 43]
is the same as:
total = sum([41, 42, 43])
[total -= 0, total -= 41, total -= 42, total -= 43]
Generalised, this looks like:
total = sum([a1, a2, ..., aN])
[total -= 0, total -= a1, total -= a2, ..., total -= aN]
Using the trusty Array#reduce we can derive the sum once. Then we can derive the new array using Array.map using ls.map(num => total -= num).
The only problem here is that we get one less item - we don't calculate the initial total -= 0 which has to exist for all items. One way to do it is to append it to the start [0].concat(ls) will create the correct array to map over. However, since we already know what the value there would be, we can skip this step and directly substitute with total (after all the result of total -= 0 is total and leaves total unchanged). So, we can directly use [total].concat(ls.map(num => total -= num)) to start with total and add the rest of the items. to the end.
const ls = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10]
const partsSums = (ls) => {
let total = ls.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0);
return [total]
.concat(
ls.map(num => total -= num)
);
}
console.log(partsSums(ls));
Personally, I would just use the previous sum to calculate the next, I don't see any need to re-iterate all the previous sums, so, I would probably go for a basic loop and then reverse the results, like so
function partsSums(ls) {
const result = [0];
if (ls.length === 0) {
return result;
}
for (let i = ls.length, q = 0; i--; q++) {
result.push(result[q] + ls[i]);
}
return result.reverse();
}
or, without reversing, look more like Nina's solution (except for predefining the length of the array)
function partsSums(ls) {
const len = ls.length;
const result = new Array(len+1);
result[len] = 0;
for (let i = len; i--;) {
result[i] = result[i+1] + ls[i];
}
return result;
}
Both also seem to run faster than Nina's on codewars nodejs engine, in the first part probably because of push, in the second one, probably because the array's length is defined from the start, for more information see this question
A solution using normal for loop along the time of execution .
var arr = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10];
function giveList(array){
var sum=0;
for(let i=0;i<array.length;i++){
sum=sum+array[i];
}
var result = [];
result.push(sum);
var temp;
for(let i=0;i<array.length;i++){
temp=sum-array[i];
result.push(temp);
sum=sum-array[i];
}
return result;
}
console.time();
console.log(giveList(arr));
console.timeEnd();
const partsSums = (ls, sum = 0) =>
[...ls, 0].reverse().map(x => sum = x + sum).reverse();
Takes around 1100 ms when I run it on CodeWars, which is slightly faster than other answers.
The repeated operation is too more. e.g: when you compute sum of [3, 6, 10], the up step [1, 3, 6, 10] already compute。 So you can think in another direction, back to end compute the sum of array
const ls = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10];
function partSums(ls) {
const len = ls.length;
const dp = [];
if(len === 0) { return [0] }
dp[len] = 0;
dp[len - 1] = ls[len - 1];
for (let i = len - 2; i >= 0; i--) {
dp[i] = dp[i + 1] + ls[i];
}
return dp;
}
Related
Given an array [[1, 7, 3, 8],[3, 2, 9, 4],[4, 3, 2, 1]],
how can I find the sum of its repeating elements? (In this case, the sum would be 10.)
Repeated values are - 1 two times, 3 three times, 2 two times, and 4 two times
So, 1 + 3 + 2 + 4 = 10
Need to solve this problem in the minimum time
There are multiple ways to solve this but time complexity is a major issue.
I try this with the recursion function
How can I optimize more
`
var uniqueArray = []
var sumArray = []
var sum = 0
function sumOfUniqueValue (num){
for(let i in num){
if(Array.isArray(num[i])){
sumOfUniqueValue(num[i])
}
else{
// if the first time any value will be there then push in a unique array
if(!uniqueArray.includes(num[i])){
uniqueArray.push(num[i])
}
// if the value repeats then check else condition
else{
// we will check that it is already added in sum or not
// so for record we will push the added value in sumArray so that it will added in sum only single time in case of the value repeat more then 2 times
if(!sumArray.includes(num[i])){
sumArray.push(num[i])
sum+=Number(num[i])
}
}
}
}
}
sumOfUniqueValue([[1, 7, 3, 8],[1, 2, 9, 4],[4, 3, 2, 7]])
console.log("Sum =",sum)
`
That's a real problem, I am just curious to solve this problem so that I can implement it in my project.
If you guys please mention the time it will take to complete in ms or ns then that would be really helpful, also how the solution will perform on big data set.
Thanks
I would probably use a hash table instead of an array search with .includes(x) instead...
And it's also possible to use a classical for loop instead of recursive to reduce call stack.
function sumOfUniqueValue2 (matrix) {
const matrixes = [matrix]
let sum = 0
let hashTable = {}
for (let i = 0; i < matrixes.length; i++) {
let matrix = matrixes[i]
for (let j = 0; j < matrix.length; j++) {
let x = matrix[j]
if (Array.isArray(x)) {
matrixes.push(x)
} else {
if (hashTable[x]) continue;
if (hashTable[x] === undefined) {
hashTable[x] = false;
continue;
}
hashTable[x] = true;
sum += x;
}
}
}
return sum
}
const sum = sumOfUniqueValue2([[1, 7, 3, 8],[[[[[3, 2, 9, 4]]]]],[[4, 3, 2, 1]]]) // 10
console.log("Sum =", sum)
This is probably the fastest way...
But if i could choose a more cleaner solution that is easier to understand then i would have used flat + sort first, chances are that the built in javascript engine can optimize this routes instead of running in the javascript main thread.
function sumOfUniqueValue (matrix) {
const numbers = matrix.flat(Infinity).sort()
const len = numbers.length
let sum = 0
for (let i = 1; i < len; i++) {
if (numbers[i] === numbers[i - 1]) {
sum += numbers[i]
for (i++; i < len && numbers[i] === numbers[i - 1]; i++);
}
}
return sum
}
const sum = sumOfUniqueValue2([[1, 7, 3, 8],[[[[[3, 2, 9, 4]]]]],[[4, 3, 2, 1]]]) // 10
console.log("Sum =", sum)
You could use an objkect for keeping trak of seen values, like
seen[value] = undefined // value is not seen before
seen[value] = false // value is not counted/seen once
seen[value] = true // value is counted/seen more than once
For getting a value, you could take two nested loops and visit every value.
Finally return sum.
const
sumOfUniqueValue = (values, seen = {}) => {
let sum = 0;
for (const value of values) {
if (Array.isArray(value)) {
sum += sumOfUniqueValue(value, seen);
continue;
}
if (seen[value]) continue;
if (seen[value] === undefined) {
seen[value] = false;
continue;
}
seen[value] = true;
sum += value;
}
return sum;
},
sum = sumOfUniqueValue([[1, 7, 3, 8], [3, 2, 9, 4], [4, 3, 2, 1]]);
console.log(sum);
Alternatively take a filter and sum the values. (it could be more performat with omitting same calls.)
const
data = [[1, 7, 3, 8], [3, 2, 9, 4, 2], [4, 3, 2, 1]],
sum = data
.flat(Infinity)
.filter((v, i, a) => a.indexOf(v) !== a.lastIndexOf(v) && i === a.indexOf(v))
.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0);
console.log(sum);
You can flatten the array, filter-out single-instance values, and sum the result:
const data = [
[ 1, 7, 3, 8 ],
[ 3, 2, 9, 4 ],
[ 4, 3, 2, 1 ]
];
const numbers = new Set( data.flat(Infinity).filter(
(value, index, arr) => arr.lastIndexOf(value) != index)
);
const sum = [ ...numbers ].reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0);
Another approach could be the check the first and last index of the number in a flattened array, deciding whether or not it ought to be added to the overall sum:
let sum = 0;
const numbers = data.flat(Infinity);
for ( let i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++ ) {
const first = numbers.indexOf( numbers[ i ] );
const last = numbers.lastIndexOf( numbers[ i ] );
if ( i == first && i != last ) {
sum = sum + numbers[ i ];
}
}
// Sum of numbers in set
console.log( sum );
I am working through some problems on CodeSignal. I came across this one, arrayMaxConsecutiveSum. I got it to pass almost all tests, but it is timing out on the last one. If I move the test into custom tests, it passes there, so I'm not sure what to do. How do I code it better so that it doesn't time out?
Problem:
Given array of integers, find the maximal possible sum of some of its k consecutive elements.
Example: For inputArray = [2, 3, 5, 1, 6] and k = 2, the output should be
arrayMaxConsecutiveSum(inputArray, k) = 8. All possible sums of 2 consecutive elements are:
2 + 3 = 5;
3 + 5 = 8;
5 + 1 = 6;
1 + 6 = 7.
Thus, the answer is 8.
function arrayMaxConsecutiveSum(inputArray, k) {
let max = 0;
for(let i = 0; i < inputArray.length; i++){
let sum = 0;
let newArr = inputArray.slice(i, i + k);
sum = newArr.reduce((accumulator, currentVal) => accumulator + currentVal);
if(sum > max){
max = sum;
}
}
return max;
}
Error: Tests passed: 19/20. Execution time limit exceeded on test 20: Program exceeded the execution time limit. Make sure that it completes execution in a few seconds for any possible input.
Your current algorithm is O(n ^ 2) because it requires a nested loop.
You can make it O(n) by using a rolling sum instead. Start with the sum of elements 0 to k, then on each iteration, subtract the earliest element that makes up the sum and add the next element not included in the sum yet.
For example, with a k of 2:
start out with the sum of elements [0] and [1]
subtract [0], add [2], compare the new sum
subtract [1], add [3], compare the new sum
and so on.
function arrayMaxConsecutiveSum(inputArray, k) {
let rollingSum = inputArray.slice(0, k).reduce((a, b) => a + b);
let max = rollingSum;
for(let i = 0; i < inputArray.length - k; i++){
rollingSum += inputArray[i + k] - inputArray[i];
max = Math.max(max, rollingSum);
}
return max;
}
console.log(arrayMaxConsecutiveSum([2, 3, 5, 1, 6], 2));
function arrayMaxConsecutiveSum(inputArray, k) {
var max = inputArray.slice(0,k).reduce((a,b)=>a+b);
var cur = max;
for(var i = k; i < inputArray.length; i++) {
cur = cur + inputArray[i] - inputArray[i-k];
if(cur>max)
max = cur
}
return max
}
console.log(arrayMaxConsecutiveSum([2, 3, 5, 1, 6], 2));
My function should return the missing element in a given array range.
So i first sorted the array and checked if the difference between i and i+1 is not equal to 1, i'm returning the missing element.
// Given an array A such that:
// A[0] = 2
// A[1] = 3
// A[2] = 1
// A[3] = 5
// the function should return 4, as it is the missing element.
function solution(A) {
A.sort((a,b) => {
return b<a;
})
var len = A.length;
var missing;
for( var i = 0; i< len; i++){
if( A[i+1] - A[i] >1){
missing = A[i]+1;
}
}
return missing;
}
I did like above, but how to write it more efficiently??
You could use a single loop approach by using a set for missing values.
In the loop, delete each number from the missing set.
If a new minimum value is found, all numbers who are missing are added to the set of missing numbers, except the minimum, as well as for a new maximum numbers.
The missing numbers set contains at the end the result.
function getMissing(array) {
var min = array[0],
max = array[0],
missing = new Set;
array.forEach(v => {
if (missing.delete(v)) return; // if value found for delete return
if (v < min) while (v < --min) missing.add(min); // add missing min values
if (v > max) while (v > ++max) missing.add(max); // add missing max values
});
return missing.values().next().value; // take the first missing value
}
console.log(getMissing([2, 3, 1, 5]));
console.log(getMissing([2, 3, 1, 5, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10]));
console.log(getMissing([3, 4, 5, 6, 8]));
Well, from the question (as it's supposed to return a single number) and all the existing solution (examples at least), it looks like list is unique. For that case I think we can sumthe entire array and then subtracting with the expected sum between those numbers will generate the output.
sum of the N natural numbers
1 + 2 + ....... + i + ... + n we can evaluate by n * (n+1) / 2
now assume, in our array min is i and max is n
so to evaluate i + (i+1) + ..... + n we can
A = 1 + 2 + ..... + (i-1) + i + (i+1) + .... n (i.e. n*(n+1)/2)
B = 1 + 2 + ..... + (i-1)
and
C = A - B will give us the sum of (i + (i+1) + ... + n)
Now, we can iterate the array once and evaluate the actual sum (assume D), and C - D will give us the missing number.
Let's create the same with each step at first (not optimal for performance, but more readable) then we will try to do in a single iteration
let input1 = [2, 3, 1, 5],
input2 = [2, 3, 1, 5, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10],
input3 = [3, 4, 5, 6, 8];
let sumNatural = n => n * (n + 1) / 2;
function findMissing(array) {
let min = Math.min(...array),
max = Math.max(...array),
sum = array.reduce((a,b) => a+b),
expectedSum = sumNatural(max) - sumNatural(min - 1);
return expectedSum - sum;
}
console.log('Missing in Input1: ', findMissing(input1));
console.log('Missing in Input2: ', findMissing(input2));
console.log('Missing in Input3: ', findMissing(input3));
Now, lets try doing all in a single iteration (as we were iterating 3 times for max, min and sum)
let input1 = [2, 3, 1, 5],
input2 = [2, 3, 1, 5, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10],
input3 = [3, 4, 5, 6, 8];
let sumNatural = n => n * (n + 1) / 2;
function findMissing(array) {
let min = array[0],
max = min,
sum = min,
expectedSum;
// assuming the array length will be minimum 2
// in order to have a missing number
for(let idx = 1;idx < array.length; idx++) {
let each = array[idx];
min = Math.min(each, min); // or each < min ? each : min;
max = Math.max(each, max); // or each > max ? each : max;
sum+=each;
}
expectedSum = sumNatural(max) - sumNatural(min - 1);
return expectedSum - sum;
}
console.log('Missing in Input1: ', findMissing(input1));
console.log('Missing in Input2: ', findMissing(input2));
console.log('Missing in Input3: ', findMissing(input3));
Instead of sorting, you could put each value into a Set, find the minimum, and then iterate starting from the minimum, checking if the set has the number in question, O(N). (Sets have guaranteed O(1) lookup time)
const input1 = [2, 3, 1, 5];
const input2 = [2, 3, 1, 5, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10];
const input3 = [3, 4, 5, 6, 8];
function findMissing(arr) {
const min = Math.min(...arr);
const set = new Set(arr);
return Array.from(
{ length: set.size },
(_, i) => i + min
).find(numToFind => !set.has(numToFind));
}
console.log(findMissing(input1));
console.log(findMissing(input2));
console.log(findMissing(input3));
If the array is items and the difference between missing and present diff is 1:
const missingItem = items => [Math.min(...items)].map(min => items.filter(x =>
items.indexOf(x-diff) === -1 && x !== min)[0]-diff)[0]
would give complexity of O(n^2).
It translates to: find the minimum value and check if there isn't a n-diff value member for every value n in the array, which is also not the minimum value. It should be true for any missing items of size diff.
To find more than 1 missing element:
([Math.min(...items)].map(min => items.filter(x =>
items.indexOf(x-diff) === -1 && x !== min))[0]).map(x => x-diff)
would give O((m^2)(n^2)) where m is the number of missing members.
Found this old question and wanted to take a stab at it. I had a similar thought to https://stackoverflow.com/users/2398764/koushik-chatterjee in that I think you can optimize this by knowing that there's always only going to be one missing element. Using similar methodology but not using a max will result in this:
function getMissing(arr) {
var sum = arr.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0);
var lowest = Math.min(...arr);
var realSum = (arr.length) * (arr.length + 1) / 2 + lowest * arr.length;
return realSum - sum + lowest;
}
With the same inputs as above. I ran it in jsperf on a few browsers and it is faster then the other answers.
https://jsperf.com/do-calculation-instead-of-adding-or-removing.
First sum everything, then calculate the lowest and calculate what the sum would be for integers if that happened to be the lowest. So for instance if we have 2,3,4,5 and want to sum them that's the same as summing 0,1,2,3 and then adding the lowest number + the amount of numbers in this case 2 * 4 since (0+2),(1+2),(2+2),(3+2) turns it back into the original. After that we can calculate the difference but then have to increase it once again by the lowest. To offset the shift we did.
You can use while loop as well, like below -
function getMissing(array) {
var tempMin = Math.min(...array);
var tempMax = tempMin + array.length;
var missingNumber = 0;
while(tempMin <= tempMax){
if(array.indexOf(tempMin) === -1) {
missingNumber = tempMin;
}
tempMin++;
}
return missingNumber;
}
console.log(getMissing([2, 3, 1, 5]));
console.log(getMissing([2, 3, 1, 5, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10]));
console.log(getMissing([3, 4, 5, 6, 8]));
My approach is based on in place sorting of the array which is O(N) and without using any other data structure.
Find the min element in the array.
Sort in place.
Again loop the array and check if any element is misplaced, that is the answer!
function getMissing(ar) {
var mn = Math.min(...ar);
var size = ar.length;
for(let i=0;i<size;i++){
let cur = ar[i];
// this ensures each element is in its right place
while(cur != mn +i && (cur - mn < size) && cur != ar[cur- mn]) {
// swap
var tmp = cur;
ar[i] = ar[cur-mn];
ar[cur-mn] = tmp;
}
}
for(let i=0; i<size; i++) {
if(ar[i] != i+mn) return i+mn;
}
}
console.log(getMissing([2, 3, 1, 5]));
console.log(getMissing([2, 3, 1, 5, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10]));
console.log(getMissing([3, 4, 5, 6, 8]));
I am using Math.min to get the smallest number out of an array of numbers. However, I also need to get the second smallest number as well. Wondering if there is a way to do this using Math.min as well, otherwise looking for the best way to get this number.
Here's what I have:
var arr = [15, 37, 9, 21, 55];
var min = Math.min.apply(null, arr.filter(Boolean));
var secondMin; // Get second smallest number from array here
console.log('Smallest number: ' + min);
console.log('Second smallest number: ' + secondMin);
just to make that thread completed: the fastest way is to iterate all the elements just like you can do to find minimum. But up to your needs there will be two variables used: first minimum (candidate) and second one.
This logic is O(N) while sorting approach is O(N lg(N)).
But maybe you shouldn't care if this is just for practice.
In case repeatition should be processed as independant value(just like it would be for .sort(...)[1]) then it should <= be used instead of <.
var arr = [15, 37, 9, 21, 55];
var min = Infinity, secondMin = Infinity;
for (var i= 0; i< arr.length; i++) {
if (arr[i]< min) {
secondMin = min;
min = arr[i];
} else if (arr[i]< secondMin) {
secondMin = arr[i];
}
}
console.log('Smallest number: ' + min);
console.log('Second smallest number: ' + secondMin);
I see you are using Array.filter (but why?) on your first min. So, if we are using ES6 features you can find the second lowest value by first removing min from the array.
var secondMin = Math.min.apply(null, arr.filter(n => n != min));
edit: for clarity, unless you are doing something very clever with Array.filter(Boolean) while calculating the first min, you should just pass it the array without filtering:
var min = Math.min.apply(null, arr);
If you are not worried about performance you could simply sort the array.
arr.sort(function(a, b) {
return a - b;
});
#skyboyer provides what is probably the fastest algorithm for finding the two smallest elements. Another type algorithm that runs in O(n) time is selection (in the general comp-sci definition, not how it is normally used in JavaScript), which will find the kth smallest element of an array and separate the elements into those larger and those smaller than the kth.
Even though most partitioning selection algorithms (quickselect, Floyd-Rivest, introselect) run in O(n) time, #skyboyer's answer will be faster because of the specific nature of the partition you are looking for, and because all those algorithms come with a heavy constant factor.
There is a javascript library implementing Floyd-Rivest, but named quickselect that can do the partitioning for you, in place:
quickselect(arr, 1)
arr will be rearranged so that arr[0] is the minimum, arr[1] is the second smallest element, and the remaining elements are in some arbitrary order.
ES6 solution with reduce (very performant) 🚀
const A = [8, 24, 3, 20, 1, 17]
const min = Math.min(...A)
const secondMin = A.reduce((pre, cur) => (cur < pre && cur !== min) ? cur : pre
, Infinity)
console.log(min, secondMin)
This the #skyboyer version that will handle repeats correctly:
function secondSmallest(x) {
if (x.length < 2) return 0;
let first = Number.MAX_VALUE;
let second = Number.MAX_VALUE;
for (let i = 0; i < x.length; i++) {
let current = x[i];
if (current < first) {
second = first;
first = current;
} else if (current < second && current !== first) {
second = current;
}
}
return second;
}
console.log(secondSmallest([1, 1, 1, 1, 2]));
console.log(secondSmallest([1, 2, 1, 1, 1]));
console.log(secondSmallest([6, 3, 4, 8, 4, 5]));
var arr=[1,1,1,1,1,-1,-2];
var firstmin=arr[0];
var secondmin=arr[1];
for(i=0;i<=arr.length;i++){
if(arr[i]<firstmin){
secondmin=firstmin;
firstmin=arr[i];
}else if(i>=1 && arr[i]<secondmin) {
secondmin=arr[i];
}
}
console.log(firstmin);
console.log(secondmin);`
var arr=[1,0,-1,-2,-8,5];
var firstmin=arr[0];
var secondmin=arr[1];
for(i=0;i<=arr.length;i++) {
if(arr[i]<firstmin){
secondmin=firstmin;
firstmin=arr[i];
}
else if(i>=1 && arr[i]<secondmin) {
secondmin=arr[i];
}
}
console.log(firstmin);
console.log(secondmin);
var arr = [15, 37, 9, 21, 55];
var min = Infinity, secondMin = Infinity;
for (var i= 0; i< arr.length; i++) {
if (arr[i]< min) {
secondMin = min;
min = arr[i];
} else if (arr[i]< secondMin) {
secondMin = arr[i];
}
}
console.log('Smallest number: ' + min);
console.log('Second smallest number: ' + secondMin);
A recursive approach with ternary operators would look like this. If the array has duplicates it would give you a non duplicated second min.
For example if you have have [1, 1, 2] the second min would be 2 not 1.
function findMinimums(arr, min, secondMin, i) {
if (arr.length === i) {
return {
min,
secondMin
}
}
return findMinimums(
arr,
min = arr[i] < min ? arr[i] : min,
arr[i] < secondMin && min !== arr[i] ? arr[i] : secondMin,
++i
)
}
const arr = [5, 34, 5, 1, 6, 7, 9, 2, 1];
console.log(findMinimums(arr, arr[0], arr[1], 0))
var arr = [15, 37, 9, 21, 55];
const [secondMin, min] = arr.sort((a,b) => b - a).slice(-2)
console.log('Smallest number: ' + min);
console.log('Second smallest number: ' + secondMin);
function secondSmallest(arr){
let firstSmallest = Infinity, secondSmallest = Infinity;
// if the length is 1; return the element
if(arr.length == 1){
return arr[0]
}
for (let i= 0; i< arr.length; i++) {
if (arr[i]< firstSmallest) {
secondSmallest = firstSmallest;
firstSmallest = arr[i];
} else if (arr[i]< secondSmallest) {
secondSmallest = arr[i];
}
}
console.log(firstSmallest, secondSmallest)
return secondSmallest
}
function findTwoSmallestNumbersFromArray(num) {
let min = Math.min(...num)
let secondMin = Math.min(...num.filter(numbers => !min.toString().includes(numbers)))
console.log(min, secondMin)
}
Yes, it's possible. But rather than directly using Math.min() we have to use Math.min.apply(), as we know Math.min() wouldn't take an array. Here's the solution which will work even if there's duplicates of smallest number in the array.
const findSecondSmallest = function (arr) {
const smallest = Math.min.apply(null, arr);
/*
To remove duplicates too I compared the smallest number through loop.
Otherwise You can direcly set the value of smallest element to 'Infinity'
like this-
arr[arr.indexOf(smallest)] = Infinity;
*/
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (smallest === arr[i]) {
arr[i] = Infinity;
}
}
const secondSmallest = Math.min.apply(null, arr);
return secondSmallest;
};
console.log(findSecondSmallest([3, 3, 3, 5, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13])); //5
The Best way to get the second minimum value from an array.
let array = [5, 8, 3, 8, 2, 6, 7, 10, 2];
let minValue = Math.min(...array);
let secondMinVAlue = Math.min(...array.filter((v) => v !== minValue));
console.log(secondMinVAlue);
let num = [4,12,99,1,3,123,5];
let sort = num.sort((a,b) => {return a-b})
console.log(sort[1])
I found this JavaScript algorithm excercise:
Question:
From a unsorted array of numbers 1 to 100 excluding one number, how will you find that number?
The solution the author gives is:
function missingNumber(arr) {
var n = arr.length + 1,
sum = 0,
expectedSum = n * (n + 1) / 2;
for (var i = 0, len = arr.length; i < len; i++) {
sum += arr[i];
}
return expectedSum - sum;
}
I wanted to try and make it so you can find multiple missing numbers.
My solution:
var someArr = [2, 5, 3, 1, 4, 7, 10, 15]
function findMissingNumbers(arr) {
var missingNumbersCount;
var missingNumbers = [];
arr.sort(function(a, b) {
return a - b;
})
for(var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if(arr[i+1] - arr[i] != 1 && arr[i+1] != undefined) {
missingNumbersCount = arr[i+1] - arr[i] - 1;
for(j = 1; j <= missingNumbersCount; j++) {
missingNumbers.push(arr[i] + j)
}
}
}
return missingNumbers
}
findMissingNumbers(someArr) // [6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14]
Is there a better way to do this? It has to be JavaScript, since that's what I'm practicing.
You could use a sparse array with 1-values at indexes that correspond to values in the input array. Then you could create yet another array with all numbers (with same length as the sparse array), and retain only those values that correspond to an index with a 1-value in the sparse array.
This will run in O(n) time:
function findMissingNumbers(arr) {
// Create sparse array with a 1 at each index equal to a value in the input.
var sparse = arr.reduce((sparse, i) => (sparse[i]=1,sparse), []);
// Create array 0..highest number, and retain only those values for which
// the sparse array has nothing at that index (and eliminate the 0 value).
return [...sparse.keys()].filter(i => i && !sparse[i]);
}
var someArr = [2, 5, 3, 1, 4, 7, 10, 15]
var result = findMissingNumbers(someArr);
console.log(result);
NB: this requires EcmaScript2015 support.
The simplest solution to this problem
miss = (arr) => {
let missArr=[];
let l = Math.max(...arr);
let startsWithZero = arr.indexOf(0) > -1 ? 0 : 1;
for(i = startsWithZero; i < l; i++) {
if(arr.indexOf(i) < 0) {
missArr.push(i);
}
}
return missArr;
}
miss([3,4,1,2,6,8,12]);
Something like this will do what you want.
var X = [2, 5, 3, 1, 4, 7, 10, 15]; // Array of numbers
var N = Array.from(Array(Math.max.apply(Math, X)).keys()); //Generate number array using the largest int from X
Array.prototype.diff = function(a) {
return this.filter(function(i) {return a.indexOf(i) < 0;}); //Return the difference
};
console.log(N.diff(X));
Option 1:
1. create a binary array
2. iterate over input array and for each element mark binary array true.
3. iterate over binary array and find out numbers of false.
Time complexity = O(N)
Space complexity = N
Option 2:
Sort input array O(nLogn)
iterate over sorted array and identify missing number a[i+1]-a[i] > 0
O(n)
total time complexity = O(nlogn) + O(n)
I think the best way to do this without any iterations for a single missing number would be to just use the sum approach.
const arr=[1-100];
let total=n*(n+1)/2;
let totalarray=array.reduce((t,i)=>t+i);
console.log(total-totalarray);
You can try this:
let missingNum= (n) => {
return n
.sort((a, b) => a - b)
.reduce((r, v, i, a) =>
(l => r.concat(Array.from({ length: v - l - 1 }, _ => ++l)))(a[i - 1]),
[]
)
}
console.log(missingNum([1,2,3,4,10]));
Solution to find missing numbers from unsorted array or array containing duplicate values.
Array.prototype.max = function() {
return Math.max.apply(null, this);
};
var array1 = [1, 3, 4, 7, 9];
var n = array1.length;
var totalElements = array1.max(); // Total count including missing numbers. Can use max
var d = new Uint8Array(totalElements)
for(let i=0; i<n; i++){
d[array1[i]-1] = 1;
}
var outputArray = [];
for(let i=0; i<totalElements; i++) {
if(d[i] == 0) {
outputArray.push(i+1)
}
}
console.log(outputArray.toString());
My solution uses the same logic as trincot's answer
The time complexity is O(n)
const check_miss = (n) => {
let temp = Array(Math.max(...n)).fill(0);
n.forEach((item) => (temp[item] = 1));
const missing_items = temp
.map((item, index) => (item === 0 ? index : -1))
.filter((item) => item !== -1);
console.log(missing_items);
};
n = [5, 4, 2, 1, 10, 20, 0];
check_miss(n);