I'm baffled that I can't find a quick answer to this. I'm essentially looking for a datastructure in Java which implements the java.util.List interface, but which stores its members in a sorted order. I know that you can use a normal ArrayList and use Collections.sort() on it, but I have a scenario where I am occasionally adding and often retrieving members from my list and I don't want to have to sort it every time I retrieve a member in case a new one has been added. Can anyone point me towards such a thing which exists in the JDK or even 3rd party libraries?
EDIT: The datastructure will need to preserve duplicates.
ANSWER's SUMMARY: I found all of this very interesting and learned a lot. Aioobe in particular deserves mention for his perseverance in trying to achieve my requirements above (mainly a sorted java.util.List implementation which supports duplicates). I have accepted his answer as the most accurate for what I asked and most thought provoking on the implications of what I was looking for even if what I asked wasn't exactly what I needed.
The problem with what I asked for lies in the List interface itself and the concept of optional methods in an interface. To quote the javadoc:
The user of this interface has precise control over where in the list each element is inserted.
Inserting into a sorted list doesn't have precise control over insertion point. Then, you have to think how you will handle some of the methods. Take add for example:
public boolean add(Object o)
Appends the specified element to the end of this list (optional operation).
You are now left in the uncomfortable situation of either
1) Breaking the contract and implementing a sorted version of add
2) Letting add add an element to the end of the list, breaking your sorted order
3) Leaving add out (as its optional) by throwing an UnsupportedOperationException and implementing another method which adds items in a sorted order.
Option 3 is probably the best, but I find it unsavory having an add method you can't use and another sortedAdd method which isn't in the interface.
Other related solutions (in no particular order):
add(Object obj) method and bizarrely has a no effect method for add(int index, Object obj). General consensus suggests throw new UnsupportedOperationException() might be a better choice in this scenario.Warning: This class breaks the contract required by ListThis question is related to
java
data-structures
sorted
Here is a "minimal" solution.
class SortedArrayList<T> extends ArrayList<T> {
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public void insertSorted(T value) {
add(value);
Comparable<T> cmp = (Comparable<T>) value;
for (int i = size()-1; i > 0 && cmp.compareTo(get(i-1)) < 0; i--)
Collections.swap(this, i, i-1);
}
}
The insert runs in linear time, but that would be what you would get using an ArrayList anyway (all elements to the right of the inserted element would have to be shifted one way or another).
Inserting something non-comparable results in a ClassCastException. (This is the approach taken by PriorityQueue as well: A priority queue relying on natural ordering also does not permit insertion of non-comparable objects (doing so may result in ClassCastException).)
List.addNote that overriding List.add (or List.addAll for that matter) to insert elements in a sorted fashion would be a direct violation of the interface specification. What you could do, is to override this method to throw an UnsupportedOperationException.
From the docs of List.add:
boolean add(E e)
Appends the specified element to the end of this list (optional operation).
Same reasoning applies for both versions of add, both versions of addAll and set. (All of which are optional operations according to the list interface.)
SortedArrayList<String> test = new SortedArrayList<String>();
test.insertSorted("ddd"); System.out.println(test);
test.insertSorted("aaa"); System.out.println(test);
test.insertSorted("ccc"); System.out.println(test);
test.insertSorted("bbb"); System.out.println(test);
test.insertSorted("eee"); System.out.println(test);
....prints:
[ddd]
[aaa, ddd]
[aaa, ccc, ddd]
[aaa, bbb, ccc, ddd]
[aaa, bbb, ccc, ddd, eee]
Since the currently proposed implementations which do implement a sorted list by breaking the Collection API, have an own implementation of a tree or something similar, I was curios how an implementation based on the TreeMap would perform. (Especialy since the TreeSet does base on TreeMap, too)
If someone is interested in that, too, he or she can feel free to look into it:
Its part of the core library, you can add it via Maven dependency of course. (Apache License)
Currently the implementation seems to compare quite well on the same level than the guava SortedMultiSet and to the TreeList of the Apache Commons library.
But I would be happy if more than only me would test the implementation to be sure I did not miss something important.
Best regards!
Have a look at SortedList
This class implements a sorted list. It is constructed with a comparator that can compare two objects and sort objects accordingly. When you add an object to the list, it is inserted in the correct place. Object that are equal according to the comparator, will be in the list in the order that they were added to this list. Add only objects that the comparator can compare.
When the list already contains objects that are equal according to the comparator, the new object will be inserted immediately after these other objects.
It might be a bit too heavyweight for you, but GlazedLists has a SortedList that is perfect to use as the model of a table or JList
You can try Guava's TreeMultiSet.
Multiset<Integer> ms=TreeMultiset.create(Arrays.asList(1,2,3,1,1,-1,2,4,5,100));
System.out.println(ms);
I had the same problem. So I took the source code of java.util.TreeMap and wrote IndexedTreeMap. It implements my own IndexedNavigableMap:
public interface IndexedNavigableMap<K, V> extends NavigableMap<K, V> {
K exactKey(int index);
Entry<K, V> exactEntry(int index);
int keyIndex(K k);
}
The implementation is based on updating node weights in the red-black tree when it is changed. Weight is the number of child nodes beneath a given node, plus one - self. For example when a tree is rotated to the left:
private void rotateLeft(Entry<K, V> p) {
if (p != null) {
Entry<K, V> r = p.right;
int delta = getWeight(r.left) - getWeight(p.right);
p.right = r.left;
p.updateWeight(delta);
if (r.left != null) {
r.left.parent = p;
}
r.parent = p.parent;
if (p.parent == null) {
root = r;
} else if (p.parent.left == p) {
delta = getWeight(r) - getWeight(p.parent.left);
p.parent.left = r;
p.parent.updateWeight(delta);
} else {
delta = getWeight(r) - getWeight(p.parent.right);
p.parent.right = r;
p.parent.updateWeight(delta);
}
delta = getWeight(p) - getWeight(r.left);
r.left = p;
r.updateWeight(delta);
p.parent = r;
}
}
updateWeight simply updates weights up to the root:
void updateWeight(int delta) {
weight += delta;
Entry<K, V> p = parent;
while (p != null) {
p.weight += delta;
p = p.parent;
}
}
And when we need to find the element by index here is the implementation that uses weights:
public K exactKey(int index) {
if (index < 0 || index > size() - 1) {
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException();
}
return getExactKey(root, index);
}
private K getExactKey(Entry<K, V> e, int index) {
if (e.left == null && index == 0) {
return e.key;
}
if (e.left == null && e.right == null) {
return e.key;
}
if (e.left != null && e.left.weight > index) {
return getExactKey(e.left, index);
}
if (e.left != null && e.left.weight == index) {
return e.key;
}
return getExactKey(e.right, index - (e.left == null ? 0 : e.left.weight) - 1);
}
Also comes in very handy finding the index of a key:
public int keyIndex(K key) {
if (key == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
Entry<K, V> e = getEntry(key);
if (e == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
if (e == root) {
return getWeight(e) - getWeight(e.right) - 1;//index to return
}
int index = 0;
int cmp;
index += getWeight(e.left);
Entry<K, V> p = e.parent;
// split comparator and comparable paths
Comparator<? super K> cpr = comparator;
if (cpr != null) {
while (p != null) {
cmp = cpr.compare(key, p.key);
if (cmp > 0) {
index += getWeight(p.left) + 1;
}
p = p.parent;
}
} else {
Comparable<? super K> k = (Comparable<? super K>) key;
while (p != null) {
if (k.compareTo(p.key) > 0) {
index += getWeight(p.left) + 1;
}
p = p.parent;
}
}
return index;
}
You can find the result of this work at http://code.google.com/p/indexed-tree-map/
TreeSet/TreeMap (as well as their indexed counterparts from the indexed-tree-map project) do not allow duplicate keys , you can use 1 key for an array of values. If you need a SortedSet with duplicates use TreeMap with values as arrays. I would do that.
You could subclass ArrayList, and call Collections.sort(this) after any element is added - you would need to override two versions of add, and two of addAll, to do this.
Performance would not be as good as a smarter implementation which inserted elements in the right place, but it would do the job. If addition to the list is rare, the cost amortised over all operations on the list should be low.
Lists typically preserve the order in which items are added. Do you definitely need a list, or would a sorted set (e.g. TreeSet<E>) be okay for you? Basically, do you need to need to preserve duplicates?
Aioobe's approach is the way to go. I would like to suggest the following improvement over his solution though.
class SortedList<T> extends ArrayList<T> {
public void insertSorted(T value) {
int insertPoint = insertPoint(value);
add(insertPoint, value);
}
/**
* @return The insert point for a new value. If the value is found the insert point can be any
* of the possible positions that keeps the collection sorted (.33 or 3.3 or 33.).
*/
private int insertPoint(T key) {
int low = 0;
int high = size() - 1;
while (low <= high) {
int mid = (low + high) >>> 1;
Comparable<? super T> midVal = (Comparable<T>) get(mid);
int cmp = midVal.compareTo(key);
if (cmp < 0)
low = mid + 1;
else if (cmp > 0)
high = mid - 1;
else {
return mid; // key found
}
}
return low; // key not found
}
}
aioobe's solution gets very slow when using large lists. Using the fact that the list is sorted allows us to find the insert point for new values using binary search.
I would also use composition over inheritance, something along the lines of
SortedList<E> implements List<E>, RandomAccess, Cloneable, java.io.Serializable
I think the choice between SortedSets/Lists and 'normal' sortable collections depends, whether you need sorting only for presentation purposes or at almost every point during runtime. Using a sorted collection may be much more expensive because the sorting is done everytime you insert an element.
If you can't opt for a collection in the JDK, you can take a look at the Apache Commons Collections
Just make a new class like this:
public class SortedList<T> extends ArrayList<T> {
private final Comparator<? super T> comparator;
public SortedList() {
super();
this.comparator = null;
}
public SortedList(Comparator<T> comparator) {
super();
this.comparator = comparator;
}
@Override
public boolean add(T item) {
int index = comparator == null ? Collections.binarySearch((List<? extends Comparable<? super T>>)this, item) :
Collections.binarySearch(this, item, comparator);
if (index < 0) {
index = index * -1 - 2;
}
super.add(index+1, item);
return true;
}
@Override
public void add(int index, T item) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("'add' with an index is not supported in SortedArrayList");
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends T> items) {
boolean allAdded = true;
for (T item : items) {
allAdded = allAdded && add(item);
}
return allAdded;
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection<? extends T> items) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException("'addAll' with an index is not supported in SortedArrayList");
}
}
You can test it like this:
List<Integer> list = new SortedArrayList<>((Integer i1, Integer i2) -> i1.compareTo(i2));
for (Integer i : Arrays.asList(4, 7, 3, 8, 9, 25, 20, 23, 52, 3)) {
list.add(i);
}
System.out.println(list);
Source: Stackoverflow.com