I am using VB.NET and I am trying to come up with some algorithm or some pseudo-code, or some VB.NET code that will let me do the following (hopefully I can explain this well):
I have 2 collection objects, Cob1 and Cob2. These collection objects store objects that implement an interface called ICob. ICob has 3 properties. A boolean IsSelected property, a property called Length, which returns a TimeSpan, and a Rating property, which is a short integer.
OK, now Cob1 has about 100 objects stored in the collection and Cob2 is an empty collection. What I want to do is select objects from Cob1 and copy them over to Cob2. I want the following rules obeyed when selecting the objects though:
I want to be able to specify a timespan and I want enough objects to be selected to fit into the timespan I specify (based on the Length property). So for example, if I pass a 10 minute timespan to my function, it should pick enough objects that fill the entire 10 minute window, or come as close to filling it as possible.
No objects should be selected twice.
Objects that have a higher rating (via the Rating property) should have a better chance at being picked then other objects.
No object that has been selected in the last 30 minutes should be selected again (so that each object will eventually get selected at least once), regardless of rating.
Can anyone give me some tips on how to achieve this? The tips can be in the form of mental processes, VB.NET example code, Pseudo-code or just about anything else that might help me.
Thanks
EDIT:
Maybe It would help to everyone if I revealed what I'm trying to do in real life.
I am writing software for a radio station that will automatically select the music and advertisments to play, kinda of like a computerized program manager.
The length represents the length of the sound byte (either a song or an advertisement) and the rating is just that. If the song is popular, it gets more airtime. If an advertiser pays more money, then it also gets more airtime.
So my program should pick songs that play for 20 minutes or so, then pick some advertisements to play for about 5 minutes or so.
Hopefully this helps a little.
Thanks for the input from everyone!
Alan
Note that:
The restriction 1 is from the classical knapsack problem, which works on sets, as requested by restriction 2.
Restriction 3 is rather vague. It is better to have higher value or higher coverage of the lifespan? If you don't specify a objective function to maximaze (or, to be precise, there are two: lifespan itself and rate), there are some pareto optimal solutions.
Restriction 4 is implementable by making a map object -> last time selected., in the form of black list.
Long story short: first I'd filter the set by blacklisting the object by restriction 4, and then apply a knapsack algorithm.
In order to implement 4., I believe you'll need to save the date/time when the Cob was last selected. Then, I'd do it in the following steps:
Filter out the ones that have not been selected within the last 30 minutes.
Sort by rating and set your "cursor" on the first item in the list.
Check the item's timespan. If short enough to fit in the specified time, select it. If not, goto 3 and proceed with the next item.
Check if your timespan has been filled. If yes, you are done. If no, goto 3 and proceed with the next item.
Related
Imagine a rail track, and my goal is to store every railcar that exists on that track. Each railcar has a position. Say there are 100 railcars on the track, so each railcar object would have a TrackPosition from 1-100.
That is essentially what we are doing right now, with a Track having child Railcars, and each Railcar has an integer TrackPosition.
When a new railcar is added, we simply take the # of cars in the track + 1 to save the position of the new car.
We are running into issues in a few different areas:
We would like to add cars concurrently using AWS Lambda. This presents a problem as two functions could hit the line of logic that calculates "total cars on track + 1" at the same time. When they go to save, both cars would have the same position. Locking that bit of code is not possible within AWS Lambda (as far as I can tell from what I've read). We've resolved this for the time being by setting the Lambdas to fire synchronously (concurrency set to 1), obviously not ideal for performance.
We would like to add a car into the middle of a track. This would involve taking any car with a greater position and incrementing them all. Not difficult to write some code to do this, but..
I'm wondering if I'm missing something fundamental within SQL that can achieve what I am after in a less error-prone way. The way I'm doing it seems naive. I've looked into Sequences, but I'm not sure if they would solve my concurrency issue.
Any insight would be greatly appreciated. We are using Entity Framework Core 2 with SQL Server.
While adding scriptability to my Mac program, I am struggling with the common programming problem of deleting items from an indexed array where the item indexes shift due to removal of items.
Let's say my app maintains a data store in which objects of type "Person" are stored. In the sdef, I've define the Cocoa Key allPersons to access these elements. My app declares an NSArray *allPersons.
That far, it works well. E.g, this script works well:
repeat with p in every person
get name of p
end repeat
The problem starts when I want to support deletion of items, like this:
repeat with p in (get every person)
delete p
end repeat
(I realize that I could just write "delete every person", which works fine, but I want to show how "repeat" makes things more complicated).
This does not work because AppleScript keep using the original item numbers to reference the items even after deleting some of them, which naturally shifts the items and their numbering.
So, considering we have 3 Persons, "Adam", "Bonny" and "Clyde", this will happen:
get every person
--> {person 1, person 2, person 3}
delete person 1
delete person 2
delete person 3
--> error number -1719 from person 3
After deleting item 1 (Adam), the other items get renumbered to item 1 and 2. The second iteration deletes item 2 (which is now Clyde), and the third iteration attempts to delete item 3, which doesn't exist any more at that point.
How do I solve this?
Can I force the scripting engine to not address the items by their index number but instead by their unique ID so that this won't happen?
It's not your ObjC code, it's your misunderstanding of how repeat with VAR in EXPR loops work. (Not really your fault either: they're 1. counterintuitive, and 2. poorly explained.) When it first encounters your repeat statement, AppleScript sends your app a count event to get the number of items specified by EXPR, which in this case is an object specifier (query) that identifies all of the person elements in whatever. It then uses that information to generate its own sequence of by-index object specifiers, counting from 1 up to the result of the aforementioned count:
person 1 of whatever
person 2 of whatever
...
person N of whatever
What you need to realize is that an object specifier is a first-class query, not an object pointer (not that Apple tell you this either): it describes a request, not an object. Ignore the purloined jargon: Apple event IPC's nearest living relatives are RDBMSes, not Cocoa or SOAP or any of the OO messaging crud that modern developers so fixate on as The One True Way To Do... well, EVERYTHING.
It's only when that query is sent to your application in an Apple event that it's evaluated against the relational graph your Apple event IPC View-Controller – aka "Apple Event Object Model" – presents as an idealized, user-friendly representation of your Model's user date that it actually resolves to a specific Model object, or objects, with which the event handler should perform the requested operation.
Thus, when the delete command in your repeat loop tells your app to delete person 1 of whatever, all your remaining elements move down by one. But on the next iteration the repeat loop still generates the object specifier person 2 of whatever, which your script then sends off to your app, which resolves it to the second item in the collection – which was originally the third item, of course, until you shifted them all about.
Or, to borrow a phrase:
Nothing in AppleScript makes sense except in light of relational queries.
..
In fact, Apple events' query-based approach it actually makes a lot of sense considering it was originally designed to be efficient over very high-latency connections (i.e. System 7's abysmally inefficient process switcher), allowing a single Apple event carrying one or more complex queries to manipulate many objects at once. It's even quite elegant [when it works right], but is quite undone by idiots at Cupertino who think the best way to make programmers not hate the technology is to lie even harder about how it actually works.
So here, I suggest you go read this, which is not the best explanation either but still a damn sight better than anything you'll get from those muppets. And this, by its original designer that explains a lot of the rationale for creating a high-level coarse-grained query-based IPC system instead of the usual low-level fine-grained OO message passing crap.
Oh, and once you've done that, you might want to consider try running this instead:
delete every person whose name is "bob"
which is pretty much the whole point of creating a thick declarative-y abstraction that does all the work so the user doesn't have to.
And when nothing but an imperative client-side loop will do, you either want to get a list of by-ID object specifiers (which are the closest things to safe, persistent pointers that AEOMs can do) from the app first and then iterate over that, or at least use your own iterator loop that counts over elements in reverse:
repeat with i from (count every person) to 1 by -1
tell person i
..
end tell
end repeat
so that, assuming it's iterating over an ordered array on the server side, will delete from last to first, and so avoid the embarrassing off-by-N errors of your original script.
HTH
re: "If you want your scripable elements to be deletable, make sure you use NSUniqueIDSpecifiers to identify them."
Yes, Apple recommends using formUniqueId or formName for object specifiers, but you can't always do that. For instance, in the Text Suite, you really only have indexing to work with; e.g. character 1, word 3, paragraph 7, etc. You don't have unique IDs for text elements. In addition to deletion, ordering can be affected by other Standard Suite commands: open, close, duplicate, make, and move.
The app implementer is a programmer, but so is the scripter. So it is reasonable to expect the scripter to solve some problems themselves. For instance, if the app has 5 persons, and the scripter wants to delete persons 2 and 4, they can easily do so even with indexed deletion:
delete person 4
delete person 2
Deleting from the end of an ordered list forward solves the problem. AS also supports negative indexes, which can be used for the same purpose:
delete person -2
delete person -4
The key to solving this lies in implementing the objectSpecifier method correctly so that it does return an NSUniqueIDSpecifier.
My code did so far only return an index specifier and that was wrong for this purpose. I guess that had I posted my code (which is, unfortunately, too complex for that), someone may have noticed my mistake.
So, I guess the rule is: If you want your scripable elements to be deletable, make sure you use NSUniqueIDSpecifiers to identify them. For read-only element arrays, using an NSIndexSpecifier is (probably) safe, though, if your element array has persistent ordering behavior.
Update
As #foo points out, it's also important that the repeat command fetches the references to the items by using … in (get every person) and not just … in every person, because only the former leads to addressing the items by their id whereas the latter keeps indexing them as item N.
I am learning Redis and using an existing app (e.g. converting pieces of it) for practice.
I'm really struggling to understand first IF and then (if applicable) HOW to use Redis in one particular use-case ... apologies if this is super basic, but I'm so new that I'm not even sure if I'm asking correctly :/
Scenario:
Images are received by a server and info like time_taken and resolution is saved in a database entry. Images are then associated (e.g. "belong_to") with one Event ... all very straight-forward for a RDBS.
I'd like to use a Redis to maintain a list of the 50 most-recently-uploaded image objects for each Event, to be delivered to the client when requested. I'm thinking that a Sorted Set might be appropriate, but here are my concerns:
First, I'm not sure if a Sorted Set can/should be used in this associative manner? Can it reference other objects in Redis? Or is there just a better way to do this altogether?
Secondly, I need the ability to delete elements that are greater than X minutes old. I know about the EXPIRE command for keys, but I can't use this because not all images need to expire at the same periodicity, etc.
This second part seems more like a query on a field, which makes me think that Redis cannot be used ... but then I've read that I could maybe use the Sorted Set score to store a timestamp and find "older than X" in that way.
Can someone provide come clarity on these two issues? Thank you very much!
UPDATE
Knowing that the amount of data I need to store for each image is small and will be delivered to the client's browser, can is there anything wrong with storing it in the member "field" of a sorted set?
For example Sorted Set => event:14:pictures <time_taken> "{id:3,url:/images/3.png,lat:22.8573}"
This saves the data I need and creates a rapidly-updatable list of the last X pictures for a given event with the ability to, if needed, identify pictures that are greater than X minutes old ...
First, I'm not sure if a Sorted Set can/should be used in this
associative manner? Can it reference other objects in Redis?
Why do you need to reference other objects? An event may have n image objects, each with a time_taken and image data; a sorted set is perfect for this. The image_id is the key, the score is time_taken, and the member is the image data as json/xml, whatever; you're good to go there.
Secondly, I need the ability to delete elements that are greater than
X minutes old
If you want to delete elements greater than X minutes old, use ZREMRANGEBYSCORE:
ZREMRANGEBYSCORE event:14:pictures -inf (currentTime - X minutes)
-inf is just another way of saying the oldest member without knowing the oldest members time, but for the top range you need to calculate it based on current time before using this command ( the above is just an example)
I am making an application that represents a cell phone bill using Core Data. I have three entities: Bill, Line, and Calls. Bills can have many lines, and lines can have many calls. All of this is set up with relationships. Right now, I have a table view that displays all of the bills. When you double click on a bill, a sheet comes down with a popup box that lists all of the lines on the bill. Below the popup box is a box that has many labels that display various information about that line. Below that information I want to list the top 5 numbers called by that line in that month. Lines has a to-many relationship with Calls, which has two fields, number and minutes. I have all of the calls for the selected line loaded into an NSArrayController with a sort descriptor that properly arranges the values. How do I populate 5 labels with the top 5 values of this array controller?
EDIT: The array of calls is already unique, when I gather the data, I combine all the individual calls into total minutes per number for each month. I just need to sort and display the first 5 records of this combined array.
I may be wrong (and really hope I am), but it looks like you'll need to use brute force on this one. There are no set / array operators that can help, nor does NSPredicate appear to help.
I think this is actually a bit tricky and it looks like you'll have to do some coding. The Core Data Programming Guide says:
If you execute a fetch directly, you
should typically not add
Objective-C-based predicates or sort
descriptors to the fetch request.
Instead you should apply these to the
results of the fetch. If you use an
array controller, you may need to
subclass NSArrayController so you can
have it not pass the sort descriptors
to the persistent store and instead do
the sorting after your data has been
fetched.
I think this applies to your case because it's important to consider whether sorting or filtering takes place first in a fetch request (when the fetch requests predicate and sort descriptors are set). This is because you'll be tempted to use the #distinctUnionOfObjects set/array operator. If the list is collapsed to uniques before sorting, it won't help. If it's applied after sorting, you can just set the fetch request's limit to 5 and there're your results.
Given the documentation, I don't know that this is how it will work. Also, in this case, it might be easier to avoid NSArrayController for this particular problem and just use NSTableViewDataSource protocol, but that's beyond the scope of this Q&A.
So, here's one way to do it:
Create a predicate to filter for the
selected bill's line items.*
Create a sort descriptor to sort the
line items by their telephone number
(which are hopefully in a
standardized format internally, else
trouble awaits) via #"call.number" in your case.
Create a fetch request for the line
item entity, with the predicate and
sort descriptors then execute it**.
With those sorted results, it would be nice if you could collapse and "unique" them easily, and again, you'll be tempted to use #distinctUnionOfObjects. Unfortunately, set/array operators won't be any help here (you can't use them directly on NSArray/NSMutableArray or NSSet/NSMutableSet instances). Brute force it is, then.
I'd create a topFive array and loop through the results, adding the number to topFive if it's not there already, until topFive has 5 items or until I'm out of results.
Displaying it in your UI (using Bindings or not) is, as I said, beyond the scope of this Q&A, so I'll leave it there. I'd LOVE to hear if there's a better way to do this - it's definitely one of those "looks like it should be easy but it's not" kind of things. :-)
*You could also use #unionOfObjects in your key path during the fetch itself to get the numbers of the calls of the line items of the selected bill, which would probably be more efficient a fetch, but I'm getting tired of typing, and you get the idea. ;-)
**In practice I'd probably limit the fetch request to something reasonable - some bills (especially for businesses and teenagers) can be quite large.
Whenever I have some records/objects that I want to be in a certain order, I usually create a field called Ordinal.
I often wonder if it would be better to use an integer or a decimal value for the ordinal field.
This is a consideration when moving an object to a different position in the order:
If you use consecutive integers, you have to do some serious reworking of all of the ordinals (or at least the ordinals that fall before the original position of the object being moved).
If you use integers but space them out (maybe at 1000 intervals), then you can just change the ordinal to a mid point value between the surrounding objects where you want to move the object. This could fail if somewhere down the line you end up with consecutive integers.
If you use decimal numbers you could just find the average of the surround object's ordinals and use that for the object to be moved.
Maybe it would be possible to use a string, but I could see that getting pretty goofy.
I'm sure there are other considerations I haven't thought of.
What do you use and why?
"This could fail if somewhere down the line you end up with consecutive integers."
For this (probably rare and thus not performance important) case, you could implement a renumber method that spaces out again. When I used to program in COMAL (anyone know that language?), you could do this very thing with line numbers.
Decimals seem to solve your problem pretty well. Since Decimals are just base 10 floats, you actually have a lot of digits available. Unless you've seen cases where you've gotten out to quite a few digits and had reason to suspect a reason for an unlimited number of digits being necessary, I'd let it ride.
If you really need an alternative and don't see a need to stick with a basic data bype, you might go with tumbler arithmetic. The basic idea is that it's a place notation that is infinitely expandable at each position. Pretty simple conceptually.
I used to use a decimal type for a field of this kind to order records in a table, which we actually exposed to the customer so that they could set their own order. Although it sounds cheesy our customers liked it; they found it very intuitive. They caught on very quickly that they could use numbers like 21.5 to move something between 21 and 22.
Maybe it's because they were accountants.
I use integers and just rearrange as necessary when a new item needs to be inserted in the middle of the order. Since you can create the necessary gap with a single update statement, it's fairly trivial. However, I've only ever done this on lookup tables of a few dozen rows at most, obviously this scales a bit poorly. But I would say that if you need a solution to this problem for a large number of rows, the process(es) for maintaining the order should be proceduralized anyway, which makes the choice of data type largely moot.
I remember this being a similar question to a previous post. It can be found here:
SQL Server Priority Ordering
The linked list would still work, but this is a much easier solution if you don't want to track a parent child relationship.
Sounds like what you want is a linked list. That way you always know what comes next and you don't have to guess. So the position field would be a pointer to the object following it.
The problem I have always had with using arbitrary numbers for position, is that it can quickly fall to entropy. What if more items get added and the number become consecutive etc. etc. It can quickly become unmanageable if the list of items changes position.
To implement this in sql server table, add another field with the same data type as the primary key. If the field is null then it is the bottom element in the list. If you are storing multiple lists in the same table you will probably want to add another field called ListID which designates all rows with the same ListID pertain to the same list. So something like this.
Table:
ID INT
ListID INT
Child INT
Pararent Row For first list:
1, 1, 2
First Child
2, 1, 3
Second Child
3, 1, NULL
Parent Row for second list:
4, 2, 5
First Child
5, 2, 6
Second Child
6, 2, NULL
You'll probably have to do an insert and an update every time you add a row, which can be a little tedious, but it will always make the list line up.
Is the "certain order" based on data outside of the table? If so, why not include it so you can do the sorting dynamically? If it's already in the table, adding a field is redundant.