I have a variable called uids
var uids = [];
Then I write some value to it property
uids[16778923] = "3fd6335d-b0e4-4d77-b304-d30c651ed509"
But before it
if (!uids[user.id]) {
uids[user.id] = generateKey(user);
}
This thing behaves ok. If I try to get the value of it property
uids[currentUser.id]
It will give me a value of this property. If I try to call some methods like
Object.keys(uids);
It will give me, what I expected. And here the mystery comes...
uids;
RAM rest in piece. See the node eating ram
I am very confused now. What's wrong?
This is because you are creating a huge array and node will reserve memory for it - who knows what comes. I'd say that's a scenario where you would use a Map (or a plain object, but Map feels better here.
var uids = new Map();
var key = 456464564564654;
if (! uids.has(key)) {
uids.set(key, generateKey(user))
}
You are creating an empty array (length is zero), then you assign some value to an arbitrary index. This will make the array grow as big as the index and assign the value to that index. Look at this example using node.js REPL:
> var a = []
undefined
> a[5] = "something"
'something'
> a
[ , , , , , 'something' ]
> a.length
6
Instead of creating an array, you could create a Map() or an common javascript object (singleton). Javascript objects behave like Maps but only Strings can be used as keys. If you assign a Number to be key, javascript will convert it to String automatically.
Personally, I would go with objects because they perform better. Instantiating an object takes longer than instantiating a Map (and it doesn't seem like you need to create several groups of "uids"), but once done, adding new keys and retrieving values from any key in faster when using common objects. At least that's how things go in my node.js v6.7.0 on ubuntu 14.04 but you could try for yourself. And it would also make the least alteration to your code.
var uids = {} // common/ordinary empty javascript object instead of array.
if (!uids[user.id]) { // getting value from one key works the same.
uids[user.id] = generateKey(user) // assignment works the same.
}
////
uids[16778923] = "3fd6335d-b0e4-4d77-b304-d30c651ed509" // key will be "16778923".
uids[16778923] // getting value for key "16778923" can be done using 16778923 instead of "16778923".
////
uids[currentUser.id] // still returning values like this.
Object.keys(uids) // still returning an array of keys like this. but they are all Strings.
Related
Basically I have a complex object that retrieves the GPT API (google publisher tag) with this function:
googletag.pubads().getSlots();
The object value is something like this:
I need to know if there is a way to compare the value of each property with an X value without getting a problem of recursivity (because the object is huge and i need to to that validation several times)
Also, I tried to convert that object into a JSON with JSON.stringify(), and then tried to get the value with a regex, faster, but with this option, I have the problem with Cyclic Object Value.
Any suggestions ?
it's more simple. try it to convert it into an array and later use a filter for comparative with your value.
var objGoogle = {};
var arrayObjectGoogle = [objGoogle];
var filter = arrayObjectGoogle.filter(function(obj){
obj.yourAttr == yourValue; });
this will give you a second array with the values found it. later, index the array for pick up the value do you need.
I'm trying out the new Set object in node 4.1.2 and I'm seeing that the values, keys, and entries methods all always return empty objects. For example:
var x = new Set
x.add(1)
x.add(2)
x.values() // returns {}
Is this expected behavior? I can't imagine it is.
ES6 has added some new tricks including iteration protocols. You may want to take a look at Iteration Protocols on MDN to get a tighter grasp on how to utilize them. for(item in array) is still around, but you can use the new for ... of on certain things.
Considering your code:
var x = new Set
x.add(1)
x.add(2)
x.values()
Let us say that, where var y = x.values();, y is an iterator;
In order to iterate over said iterator, you use a for(let item of iterable){} loop. In this instance, you would be using:
for(let z of x){
console.log(z);
}
Which would print out:
1
2
The values are there, it's just that util.inspect() was not showing them. This was fixed already in master with 88533881d, which was post-v4.1.2. So you will see the fix whenever v4.1.3 gets released.
I'm making a web app where a user gets data from PHP, and the data consists of MySQL rows, so I want to save the used ones in a global variable, something like a buffer, to prevent extra AJAX requests.
I'm doing this right now :
window.ray = []; // global variable
$(function(){
data = getDataWithAjax(idToSearch);
window.ray[data.id] = data.text;
});
but when the id is big, say 10 for now, window.ray becomes this :
,,,,,,,,42
so it contains 9 unnecessary spots. Or does it? Is it only visible when I'm doing console.log(window.ray);
If this is inefficient, I want to find a way like PHP, where I can assign only indices that I want, like :
$array['420'] = "abc";
$array['999'] = "xyz";
Is my current way as efficient as PHP, or does it actually contain unnecessary memory spots?
Thanks for any help !
Use an object instead of an array. The object will let you use the id as the key and be more efficient for non-sequential id values.
window.ray = {}; // global variable
$(function(){
data = getDataWithAjax(idToSearch);
window.ray[data.id] = data.text;
});
You can then access any element by the id:
var text = window.ray[myId];
If you are assigning values directly by property name, then it doesn't make any difference in terms of performance whether you use an Array or an Object. The property names of Arrays are strings, just like Objects.
In the following:
var a = [];
a[1000] = 'foo';
then a is (a reference to) an array with length 1,001 (always at least one greater than the highest index) but it only has one numeric member, the one called '1000', there aren't 1,000 other empty members, e.g.:
a.hasOwnProperty['999']; // false
Arrays are just Objects with a special, self–adjusting length property and some mostly generic methods that can be applied to any suitable object.
One feature of sparse arrays (i.e. where the numeric properties from 0 to length aren't contiguous) is that a for loop will loop over every value, including the missing ones. That can be avoided and significant performance gains realised by using a for..in loop and using a hasOwnProperty test, just like an Object.
But if you aren't going to use any of the special features of an Array, you might as well just use an Object as suggested by jfriend00.
I'm using a specific game making framework but I think the question applies to javascript
I was trying to make a narration script so the player can see "The orc hits you." at the bottom of his screen. I wanted to show the last 4 messages at one time and possibly allow the player to look back to see 30-50 messages in a log if they want. To do this I set up and object and an array to push the objects into.
So I set up some variables like this initially...
servermessage: {"color1":"yellow", "color2":"white", "message1":"", "message2":""},
servermessagelist: new Array(),
and when I use this command (below) multiple times with different data called by an event by manipulating servermessage.color1 ... .message1 etc...
servermessagelist.push(servermessage)
it overwrites the entire array with copies of that data... any idea why or what I can do about it.
So if I push color1 "RED" and message1 "Rover".. the data is correct then if I push
color1"yellow" and message1 "Bus" the data is two copies of .color1:"yellow" .message1:"Bus"
When you push servermessage into servermessagelist you're really (more or less) pushing a reference to that object. So any changes made to servermessage are reflected everywhere you have a reference to it. It sounds like what you want to do is push a clone of the object into the list.
Declare a function as follows:
function cloneMessage(servermessage) {
var clone ={};
for( var key in servermessage ){
if(servermessage.hasOwnProperty(key)) //ensure not adding inherited props
clone[key]=servermessage[key];
}
return clone;
}
Then everytime you want to push a message into the list do:
servermessagelist.push( cloneMessage(servermessage) );
When you add the object to the array, it's only a reference to the object that is added. The object is not copied by adding it to the array. So, when you later change the object and add it to the array again, you just have an array with several references to the same object.
Create a new object for each addition to the array:
servermessage = {"color1":"yellow", "color2":"white", "message1":"", "message2":""};
servermessagelist.push(servermessage);
servermessage = {"color1":"green", "color2":"red", "message1":"", "message2":"nice work"};
servermessagelist.push(servermessage);
There are two ways to use deep copy the object before pushing it into the array.
1. create new object by object method and then push it.
servermessagelist = [];
servermessagelist.push(Object.assign({}, servermessage));
Create an new reference of object by JSON stringigy method and push it with parse method.
servermessagelist = [];
servermessagelist.push(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(servermessage));
This method is useful for nested objects.
servermessagelist: new Array() empties the array every time it's executed. Only execute that code once when you originally initialize the array.
I also had same issue. I had bit complex object that I was pushing in to the array. What I did; I Convert JSON object as String using JSON.stringify() and push in to the Array.
When it is returning from the array I just convert that String to JSON object using JSON.parse().
This is working fine for me though it is bit far more round solution.
Post here If you guys having alternative options
I do not know why a JSON way of doing this has not been suggested yet.
You can first stringify the object and then parse it again to get a copy of the object.
let uniqueArr = [];
let referencesArr = [];
let obj = {a: 1, b:2};
uniqueArr.push(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)));
referencesArr.push(obj);
obj.a = 3;
obj.c = 5;
uniqueArr.push(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)));
referencesArr.push(obj);
//You can see the differences in the console logs
console.log(uniqueArr);
console.log(referencesArr);
This solution also work on the object containing nested keys.
Before pushing, stringify the obj by
JSON.stringify(obj)
And when you are using, parse by
JSON.parse(obj);
As mentioned multiple times above, the easiest way of doing this would be making it a string and converting it back to JSON Object.
this.<JSONObjectArray>.push(JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(<JSONObject>)));
Works like a charm.
I thought I knew how to declare javascript arrays but in this script I am getting an infinite loop of undefined elements in the array.
I declare three arrays of numbers, two of which have multiple values and one which has a single value.
I have a switch statement that assigns one of the three arrays to a new variable name cluster_array
When I run a for loop through cluster_array, I get an infinite loop and every element if undefined
What am I missing?
<script type="text/javascript">
var ga_west_cluster = new Array(10,11,12,14,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,295,296);
// original bad array
var ga_east_cluster = new Array(84);
// added an extra (dummy) value and it works fine
var ga_east_cluster = new Array(1,84);
var sc_cluster = new Array(93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103);
</script>
Here is the alert text:
var test_message = "cluster data\n";
for(var k=0;k<cluster_array.length;k++)
test_message += "value: "+cluster_array[k]+"\n";
Don't initialize arrays like that. Always do this instead:
var myarray = [value, value, value, ... ];
The "Array()" constructor is terribly designed. The single-argument form, when the argument is a number, is interpreted as a request to "initialize" an array with that many "empty" values. It's a pointless thing to do, so in general you're much better off using the array constant notation (as in my example above).
It doesn't seem to happen anymore in modern browsers, but I'd swear that there was a time that at least some browsers would actually allocate memory for the single-argument constructor, which was not really useful but dangerous to code that might accidentally pass in a single very large number.