In this jsfiddle(http://jsfiddle.net/3NUJE/3/), I'm changing the data key bound to an object by passing a different string:
// Create rectangles
var rects = chart
.selectAll('rect')
.data(data, function(d) {return d + 'a'})
...
// Update data -- all should be removed
d3.selectAll('rect')
.data([5,6], function(d) { return(d + 'b'); })
.exit()
.transition()
.delay(2000)
.remove();
Unfortunately, these are bound to the same key (ie, 5 and 6 don't get removed)-- is it possible to differentiate them without changing the data array that I pass?
The key function that you can pass to .data() is executed for both the new data elements and the ones that are bound already. That is, when you bind data and use a key function, the key returned by that function isn't stored with the data. This means that it doesn't matter what you change the key function to for your second call, as long as the actual data is the only thing that changes the new data will match existing data.
For example for data element 5 the key function returns 5b. For the data already bound to the elements it returns 1b, 4b, 5b, etc. The two 5b match.
You could pass objects with more attributes instead of numbers and then use another attribute (which would have to be different for the new data) as a key.
Related
Starting with complex reduce sample
I have trimmed it down to a single chart and I am trying to understand how the reduce works
I have made comments in the code that were not in the example denoting what I think is happening based on how I read the docs.
function groupArrayAdd(keyfn) {
var bisect = d3.bisector(keyfn); //set the bisector value function
//elements is the group that we are reducing,item is the current item
//this is a the reduce function being supplied to the reduce call on the group runAvgGroup for add below
return function(elements, item) {
//get the position of the key value for this element in the sorted array and put it there
var pos = bisect.right(elements, keyfn(item));
elements.splice(pos, 0, item);
return elements;
};
}
function groupArrayRemove(keyfn) {
var bisect = d3.bisector(keyfn);//set the bisector value function
//elements is the group that we are reducing,item is the current item
//this is a the reduce function being supplied to the reduce call on the group runAvgGroup for remove below
return function(elements, item) {
//get the position of the key value for this element in the sorted array and splice it out
var pos = bisect.left(elements, keyfn(item));
if(keyfn(elements[pos])===keyfn(item))
elements.splice(pos, 1);
return elements;
};
}
function groupArrayInit() {
//for each key found by the key function return this array?
return []; //the result array for where the data is being inserted in sorted order?
}
I am not quite sure my perception of how this is working is quite right. Some of the magic isn't showing itself. Am I correct that elements is the group the reduce function is being called on ? also the array in groupArrayInit() how is it being indirectly populated?
Part of me feels that the functions supplied to the reduce call are really array.map functions not array.reduce functions but I just can't quite put my finger on why. having read the docs I am just not making a connection here.
Any help would be appreciated.
Also have I missed Pens/Fiddles that are created for all these examples? like this one
http://dc-js.github.io/dc.js/examples/complex-reduce.html which is where I started with this but had to download the csv and manually convert to Json.
--------------Update
I added some print statements to try to clarify how the add function is working
function groupArrayAdd(keyfn) {
var bisect = d3.bisector(keyfn); //set the bisector value function
//elements is the group that we are reducing,item is the current item
//this is a the reduce function being supplied to the reduce call on the group runAvgGroup for add below
return function(elements, item) {
console.log("---Start Elements and Item and keyfn(item)----")
console.log(elements) //elements grouped by run?
console.log(item) //not seeing the pattern on what this is on each run
console.log(keyfn(item))
console.log("---End----")
//get the position of the key value for this element in the sorted array and put it there
var pos = bisect.right(elements, keyfn(item));
elements.splice(pos, 0, item);
return elements;
};
}
and to print out the group's contents
console.log("RunAvgGroup")
console.log(runAvgGroup.top(Infinity))
which results in
Which appears to be incorrect b/c the values are not sorted by key (the run number)?
And looking at the results of the print statements doesn't seem to help either.
This looks basically right to me. The issues are just conceptual.
Crossfilter’s group.reduce is not exactly like either Array.reduce or Array.map. Group.reduce defines methods for handling adding new records to a group or removing records from a group. So it is conceptually similar to an incremental Array.reduce that supports an reversal operation. This allows filters to be applied and removed.
Group.top returns your list of groups. The value property of these groups should be the elements value that your reduce functions return. The key of the group is the value returned by your group accessor (defined in the dimension.group call that creates your group) or your dimension accessor if you didn’t define a group accessor. Reduce functions work only on the group values and do not have direct access to the group key.
So check those values in the group.top output and hopefully you’ll see the lists of elements you expect.
I am trying to create an empty map, that will be then populated within a for loop. Not sure how to proceed in Rascal. For testing purpose, I tried:
rascal>map[int, list[int]] x;
ok
Though, when I try to populate "x" using:
rascal>x += (1, [1,2,3])
>>>>>>>;
>>>>>>>;
^ Parse error here
I got a parse error.
To start, it would be best to assign it an initial value. You don't have to do this at the console, but this is required if you declare the variable inside a script. Also, if you are going to use +=, it has to already have an assigned value.
rascal>map[int,list[int]] x = ( );
map[int, list[int]]: ()
Then, when you are adding items into the map, the key and the value are separated by a :, not by a ,, so you want something like this instead:
rascal>x += ( 1 : [1,2,3]);
map[int, list[int]]: (1:[1,2,3])
rascal>x[1];
list[int]: [1,2,3]
An easier way to do this is to use similar notation to the lookup shown just above:
rascal>x[1] = [1,2,3];
map[int, list[int]]: (1:[1,2,3])
Generally, if you are just setting the value for one key, or are assigning keys inside a loop, x[key] = value is better, += is better if you are adding two existing maps together and saving the result into one of them.
I also like this solution sometimes, where you instead of joining maps just update the value of a certain key:
m = ();
for (...whatever...) {
m[key]?[] += [1,2,3];
}
In this code, when the key is not yet present in the map, then it starts with the [] empty list and then concatenates [1,2,3] to it, or if the key is present already, let's say it's already at [1,2,3], then this will create [1,2,3,1,2,3] at the specific key in the map.
I'm messing around a bit with F# and I'm not quite sure if I'm doing this correctly. In C# this could be done with an IDictionary or something similar.
type School() =
member val Roster = Map.empty with get, set
member this.add(grade: int, studentName: string) =
match this.Roster.ContainsKey(grade) with
| true -> // Can I do something like this.Roster.[grade].Insert([studentName])?
| false -> this.Roster <- this.Roster.Add(grade, [studentName])
Is there a way to insert into the map if it contains a specified key or am I just using the wrong collection in this case?
The F# Map type is a mapping from keys to values just like ordinary .NET Dictionary, except that it is immutable.
If I understand your aim correctly, you're trying to keep a list of students for each grade. The type in that case is a map from integers to lists of names, i.e. Map<int, string list>.
The Add operation on the map actually either adds or replaces an element, so I think that's the operation you want in the false case. In the true case, you need to get the current list, append the new student and then replace the existing record. One way to do this is to write something like:
type School() =
member val Roster = Map.empty with get, set
member this.Add(grade: int, studentName: string) =
// Try to get the current list of students for a given 'grade'
let studentsOpt = this.Roster.TryFind(grade)
// If the result was 'None', then use empty list as the default
let students = defaultArg studentsOpt []
// Create a new list with the new student at the front
let newStudents = studentName::students
// Create & save map with new/replaced mapping for 'grade'
this.Roster <- this.Roster.Add(grade, newStudents)
This is not thread-safe (because calling Add concurrently might not update the map properly). However, you can access school.Roster at any time, iterate over it (or share references to it) safely, because it is an immutable structure. However, if you do not care about that, then using standard Dictionary would be perfectly fine too - depends on your actual use case.
I have made a Map which includes several Dictionaries. Everytime I receive a data, I will find the corresponding dictionary in the Map, and then add new information in this dictionary.
But the problem is every time I try to add information , it won't add it only in the corresponding dictionary, instead it will add it into all the dictionaries in the map.
please , i am becoming crazy.
while datareceive do
let refdictionary = ref totalmap.[index] //totalmap has a lot of Dictionary, which is indexed by "index"
let dictionnarydata = totalmap.[index]
if dictionnarydata.ContainsKey(key1) then
........
else
refdic.Value.Add(key1,num) //if the corresponding dictionary does not have such information, then add it in it
()
As mentioned in the comments, if you are learning functional programming, then the best approach is to use immutable data structures - here, you could use a map that maps the index to a nested map (which contains the key value information that you need).
Try playing with something like the following sample:
// Add new item (key, num pair) to the map at the specified index
// Since totalMap is immutable, this returns a new map!
let addData index (key:int) (num:int) (totalmap:Map<_, Map<_, _>>) =
// We are assuming that the value for index is defined
let atIndex = totalmap.[index]
let newAtIndex =
// Ignore information if it is already there, otherwise add
if atIndex.ContainsKey key then atIndex
else atIndex.Add(key, num)
// Using the fact that Add replaces existing items, we
// can just add new map in place of the old one
totalmap.Add(index, newAtIndex)
Using the above function, you can now create initial map and then add various information to it:
// Create an int-indexed map containing empty maps as values
let totalmap = Map.ofSeq [ for i in 0 .. 10 -> i, Map.empty ]
totalmap
|> addData 0 1 42
|> addData 0 1 32
|> addData 1 10 1
I have two lists. lst contains ViewState Data i.e All the records of the gridview & second lstRank contains the list of integer(i.e ID) for only those records which are marked as checked (i.e Gridview contains a columns for checkbox). Now i want to update the lst bool status depending upon integer ID of lstRank. How it can be achieved by lambda expression
List<Tuple<int, string, bool>> lst = (List<Tuple<int, string,bool>>)ViewState["gvData"];
List<int> lstRank = gvDetails.Rows.OfType<GridViewRow>().Where(s => ((CheckBox)s.FindControl("chkSelect")).Checked)
.Select(s => Convert.ToInt32(((Label)s.FindControl("lblRankCD")).Text)).ToList();
Your question isn't clear, but I'm guessing you want to change lst's contents so that the boolean values are true if the int exists in lstRank, or false if not?
Obviously, tuples are immutable, so if you want to change one of the values, you would have to generate new tuple instances. It's not clear what you mean when you say you specifically want to do this with a lambda expression, but I assume you probably mean that you don't want a solution that involves an explicit loop. So how about this:
lst = lst.Select(oldValues =>
Tuple.Create(oldValues.Item1,
oldValues.Item2,
lstRank.Contains(oldValues.Item3))).ToList();
If lstRank is large, you might want to optimize by first building a HashSet out of it, since you'll be doing a lot of Contains calls.