The reason this problem came up was to check if a word contained duplicate letters. The approach I wanted to take was:
var word = "will"
var x = new Set(word)
if(x.size == word.length){
console.log("no duplicates")
}else{
console.log("duplicates")
}
I know when you create a Set the value can only occur once. Trying to determine if this was an efficient approach I'm not sure if when you create a Set if it iterates or does it use some sort of hash table.
If you are worried about performance, I would recommend using jsPerf and comparing any other ways of doing this that you may have already think about.
Try to use your specific scenario since it may depend on the engine that is running the code and the actual scenario that is running.
take this as an example
https://jsperf.com/dedupe-a-list
Related
I am currently learning JavaScript and I am wondering what is the role of the variables (var).
In the example bellow, on the last two lines we first define a variable "monCompte" in which we call "john.demandeCaissier(1234)". Then we use console.log(monCompte) to print the result on the screen. What I don't understand is why do we first need to define the variable "monCompte" to call "john.demandeCaissier(1234)". Why can't we just do something such as:
console.log(john.demandeCaissier(1234));
Example
function Personne(prenom,nom,age) {
this.prenom = prenom;
this.nom = nom;
this.age = age;
var compteEnBanque = 7500;
this.demandeCaissier = function(mdp) {
if (mdp == 1234) {
return compteEnBanque;
}
else {
return "Mot de passe faux.";
}
};
}
var john = new Personne('John','Smith',30);
var monCompte = john.demandeCaissier(1234);
console.log(monCompte);
Thank you for you answers.
Yes, you can inline your function call and avoid the need for a variable. However, if an error occurs on that line, it becomes harder to debug:
var monCompte = john.demandeCaissier(1234);
console.log(monCompte);
vs
console.log(john.demandeCaissier(1234));
in the second example, there are several different modes of failure that would not be apparent in a debugging session. When split over two lines, some of those failures become easier to track down.
Second, if you wanted to reuse the value returned by john.demandeCaissier(1234) (the author might have shown this), then a variable becomes very useful indeed.
In my opinion, it's a worthy pursuit to perform only a single operation per line. Fluent-style advocates might disagree here, but it really does make debugging considerably easier.
You could definitely do that, but in more complex programs you will need to store variables for several reasons:
Shortening Long Expressions
Imagine if you saw this code somewhere:
console.log((parseInt(parseFloat(lev_c + end_lev_c)) - parseInt(parseFloat(lev_c + start_lev_c)) + 1));
BTW I got that from here
Wouldn't it be so much simpler just to split that expression up into different variables?
Storing Data
Let's say that you take some input from the user. How would you refer to it later? You cannot use a literal value because you don't know what the user entered, so do you just call the input function again? No, because then it would take the input a second time. What you do is you store the input from the user in a variable and refer to it later on in the code. That way, you can retrieve the value at any time in the program.
If you are a beginner, you might not see any use for variables, but when you start writing larger programs you will start to use variables literally in almost every line of code.
Variables exist to store data. They're useful because instead of invoking an operation over and over again, which is criminally inefficient, they allow you to invoke an operation once, and then use that result where necessary.
And that's for all languages, not just JavaScript.
Variables are structures that store some value (or values). They're only that and you could probably do all your code (or the majority of it) without them.
They help you organize and add some readability to your code. Example:
alert(sumNumbers(askNumber()+askNumber()));
takes a lot more effort to read/understand then this:
var firstNumber = askNumber();
var secondNumber = askNumber();
var total = sumNumbers(firstNumber + secondNumber);
alert(total);
Sure it's longer but it's more readable. Of course you don't have to use var for everything, in this case I could just hide the total.
Another common use for variables is "caching" a value.
If you had a function that sums like 1 million values, if you keep calling it for everything, your code would always have to do all that hard work.
On the other hand, if you store it on a variable the first time you call it, every other time you need that value again, you could just use the variable, since its a "copy" of that calculation and the result is already there.
Using select2 plugin (http://select2.github.io/select2/)
This searches through all option values for the $selectstring variable and then selects the ones found. If its searching over 200 option values it takes about 5-6 seconds...im trying to reduce this.
Is there a way to speed up my search element for containing-string code?
Is it true that using a for loop instead of $.each would be better performance?
jquery:
$('#selectbutton').click(function() {
var selectstring = $('#selectstring').val();
if (!selectstring.trim())
return false;
stringVal.push($('#projadd\\[\\]').val());
$('#projadd\\[\\]').find('option').each(function(){
if($(this).is(':contains(' + selectstring + ')')){
stringVal.push($(this).val());
}
$('#projadd\\[\\]').val(stringVal).trigger("change");
});
$('#selectstring').val('');
});
The problem here is not the .each() but your code in general. You are creating a lot of jQuery object when there is no need to it. You are also assigning a value to an element multiple times in the each when it should be outside of it.
Try avoiding jQuery when you can easily do it vanilla. Also try avoiding :contain since it is a costly selector.
Go with a code that look like that :
$('#selectbutton').click(function() {
var selectstring = document.getElementById('selectstring').value; //Reduced the number of function call and doesn't create a jQuery object.
if (!selectstring.trim())
return false;
var $projadd = $('#projadd\\[\\]');//You use it more than 1 time? Cache it
stringVal.push($projadd.val());
$projadd.find('option').each(function(){
if(this.textContent.indexOf(selectstring) > -1){ //Don't use :contains, use native Javascript methods
stringVal.push(this.value); //Do not create jQuery object, acces value property. Accessing properties is always faster than calling a function.
}
});
$projadd.val(stringVal).trigger("change"); //Move it out of the .each, you only need to set the value once.
document.getElementById('selectstring').value = ''; //Same reason as above.
});
Is it true that using a for loop instead of $.each would be better performance?
Yes, but it's small part of time spent in your loop.
Is there a way to speed up my search element for containing-string code?
Yes, you can use searching in element textContent without jQuery.
$('#projadd\\[\\]').find('option').each(function(){
if(this.textContent.indexOf(selectstring) !== -1){
stringVal.push($(this).val());
}
$('#projadd\\[\\]').val(stringVal).trigger("change");
});
Anyway, this code is quite buggy because eg. .val(stringVal) sets element value to array (is it intended? I don't think so).
First of all try reducing the numbers of object fetching calls inside the loop.
then the baseline is this:
For loop is faster.
You may get at least 40% better performance using for loop with assigning values inside the loop.
Please see these online tests : http://jsperf.com/for-vs-foreach/75
Note: If you care about performance, first create a model of your script then test it in various conditions using some framework, jsperf for eg.
I've been searching around for a simple-lightweight hashing algorithm for JavaScript. I did find this numerically-based answer on Stack Overflow here.
Unfortunately, I am unable to use this since it's numerically based and I'll need to use this hash as a unique index elsewhere in my code. Often this function returns negative numbers and that would be a big no-no (try 'hello world!'.hashCode() from the snippet linked above to see what I mean).
I've been tempted to use the md5 hashing libraries out there for JS but they're simply to bulky for my purpose and encryption libraries (such as this) are overkill.
It's worth noting that the information within this hash isn't sensitive in anyway and it wouldn't necessarily matter if it was decrypted. The purpose of this function would be to simply generate fixed-length output data that acts as a shortened reference to the original data that I would pass in.
Any help, tips and comments are much appreciated :)
The solution proposed by Kooilnc, to use the absolute value, should do the tric for you. However, if you want to use a hashing function to generate a reference, i assume that the reference you get should be unique as to match the exact element it was generated from. If this is the case, be aware of collisions. Hashing function can create hashes that are similar even though the original messages are different and we call this a collision. If i remember correctly, SHA-1 is also available for java script and is not all that bulk. Good luck
I am unable to use this since it's numerically based and I'll need to use this hash as a unique index elsewhere in my code.
Hash functions are normally numerically based and are rarely perfect (produce unique keys). I think you need something different:
function GuidGen()
{
this.items = {};
this.size = 0;
}
GuidGen.prototype.get = function(str)
{
if (!(str in this.items))
{
this.items[str] = this.size++;
}
return this.items[str];
}
// usage:
id = new GuidGen();
id.get("hello world"); // 0
id.get("spam"); // 1
id.get("eggs"); // 2
id.get("hello world"); // 0
Here's an implementation details question for JavaScript gurus.
I have a UI with a number of fields in which the values of the fields depend in a complicated fashion on the values of seven bits of inputs. Exactly what should be displayed for any one of the possible 128 values that is changing regularly as users see more of the application?
Right now, I've for this being implemented as a decision tree through an if-then-else comb, but it's brittle under the requirements changes and sort of hard to get right.
One implementation approach I've thought about is to make an array of values from 0x0 to 0x7F and then store a closure at each location --
var tbl; // initialize it with the values
...
tbl[0x42] = function (){ doAThing(); doAnotherThing(); }
and then invoke them with
tbl[bitsIn]();
This, at least makes the decision logic into a bunch of assignments.
Question: is there a better way?
(Update: holy crap, how'd that line about 'ajax iphone tags' get in there? No wonder it was a little puzzling.)
Update
So what happened? Basically I took a fourth option, although similar to the one I've checked. The logic was sufficiently complex that I finally built a Python program to generate a truth table in the server (generating Groovy code, in fact, the host is a Grails application) and move the decision logic into the server completely. Now the JavaScript side simply interprets a JSON object that contains the values for the various fields.
Eventually, this will probably go through one more iteration, and become data in a database table, indexed by the vector of bits.
The table driven part certainly came out to be the way to go; there have already been a half dozen new changes in the specific requirements for display.
I see two options...
Common to both solutions are the following named functions:
function aThing() {}
function anotherThing() {}
function aThirdThing() {}
The switch way
function exec(bits) {
switch(bits) {
case 0x00: aThing(); anotherThing(); break;
case 0x01: aThing(); anotherThing(); aThirdThing(); break;
case 0x02: aThing(); aThirdThing(); break;
case 0x03: anotherThing(); aThirdThing(); break;
...
case 0x42: aThirdThing(); break;
...
case 0x7f: ... break;
default: throw 'There is only 128 options :P';
}
}
The map way
function exec(bits) {
var actions = map[bits];
for(var i=0, action; action=actions[i]; i++)
action();
}
var map = {
0x00: [aThing, anotherThing],
0x01: [aThing, anotherThing, aThirdThing],
0x02: [aThing, aThirdThing],
0x03: [anotherThing, aThirdThing],
...
0x42: [aThirdThing],
...
};
in both cases you'd call
exec(0x42);
Since the situation (as you have described) is so irregular, there doesn't seem to be a better way. Although, I can suggest an improvement to your jump table. You mentioned that you have errors and duplicates. So instead of explicitly assigning them to a closure, you can assign them to named functions so that you don't have to duplicate the explicit closure.
var doAThingAndAnother = function (){ doAThing(); doAnotherThing(); }
var tbl; // initialize it with the values
...
tbl[0x42] = doAThingAndAnother;
tbl[0x43] = doAThingAndAnother;
Not that much of an improvement, but it's the only thing I could think of! You seem to have covered most of the other issues. Since it looks like the requirements change so much, I think you might have to forgo elegance and have a design that is not as elegant, but is still easy to change.
Have you considered generating your decision tree on the server rather than writing it by hand? Use whatever representation is clean, easy to work with, and modify and then compile that to ugly yet efficient javascript for the client side.
A decision tree is fairly easy to represent as data and it is easy to understand and work with as a traditional tree data structure. You can store said tree in whatever form makes sense for you. Validating and modifying it as data should also be straight forward.
Then, when you need to use the decision tree, just compile/serialize it to JavaScript as a big if-the-else, switch, or hash mess. This should also be fairly straight forward and probably a lot easier than trying to maintain a switch with a couple hundred elements.
I've got a rough example of a JavaScript decision tree tool if you want to take a look:
http://jsfiddle.net/danw/h8CFe/
$('#element').method();
or
var element = $('#element');
element.method();
Without using a profiler, everyone is just guessing. I would suspect that the difference is so small it isn't worth worrying about. There are small costs to the second above the first like having to preform a lookup to find 'var element' to call the method on, but I would have thought finding '#element' and then calling the method is far more expensive.
However, if you then went on to do something else with element, the second would be faster
//Bad:
$('#element').foo();
$('#element').bar();
//Good:
var e = $('#element');
e.foo();
e.bar();
If you were using a loop where the value of $('#element') was used a lot, then caching it as in the 2nd version before the loop would help a lot.
For just this small snippet, it makes little difference.
Lookups via id (#) are pretty fast. I just tested your scenario on a small page with 2 div tags. Here is the code i used
var x = $("#div1");
var y = $("#div2");
var z = $("#div1");
every lookup took about 0.3ms on my laptop. The 2nd lookup for div1 executed the same internal jQuery methods as the first - indicating that there is no caching of already looked up objects
Performance becomes a bigger problem when you use other selectors like classname or more advanced jQuery selectors. I did some analysis on jQuery Selector Performance - check it out - hope it is helpful.
If you run only this code, no one should realy be faster. The second one might need more memory (because of the additional variable created).
If you want to be sure, why not test it yourself using a small selfwritten benchmark?
I think $('#element').method(); does not need as much memory as
var element = $('#element');
... because you bind #element to a variable.
Juste fore funne
\Indifferent:
$('#element').foo().bar();