I have an array of hashes:
[
{ :foo => 'foo', :bar => 2 },
{ :foo => 'foo', :bar => 3 },
{ :foo => 'foo', :bar => 5 },
]
I am trying to sort this array in descending order according to the value of :bar in each hash.
I am using sort_by to sort above array:
a.sort_by { |h| h[:bar] }
However, this sorts the array in ascending order. How do I make it sort in descending order?
One solution was to do following:
a.sort_by { |h| -h[:bar] }
But that negative sign does not seem appropriate.
It's always enlightening to do a benchmark on the various suggested answers. Here's what I found out:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
require 'benchmark'
ary = []
1000.times {
ary << {:bar => rand(1000)}
}
n = 500
Benchmark.bm(20) do |x|
x.report("sort") { n.times { ary.sort{ |a,b| b[:bar] <=> a[:bar] } } }
x.report("sort reverse") { n.times { ary.sort{ |a,b| a[:bar] <=> b[:bar] }.reverse } }
x.report("sort_by -a[:bar]") { n.times { ary.sort_by{ |a| -a[:bar] } } }
x.report("sort_by a[:bar]*-1") { n.times { ary.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar]*-1 } } }
x.report("sort_by.reverse!") { n.times { ary.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar] }.reverse } }
end
user system total real
sort 3.960000 0.010000 3.970000 ( 3.990886)
sort reverse 4.040000 0.000000 4.040000 ( 4.038849)
sort_by -a[:bar] 0.690000 0.000000 0.690000 ( 0.692080)
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.700000 0.000000 0.700000 ( 0.699735)
sort_by.reverse! 0.650000 0.000000 0.650000 ( 0.654447)
I think it's interesting that @Pablo's sort_by{...}.reverse! is fastest. Before running the test I thought it would be slower than "-a[:bar]" but negating the value turns out to take longer than it does to reverse the entire array in one pass. It's not much of a difference, but every little speed-up helps.
Please note that these results are different in Ruby 1.9
Here are results for Ruby 1.9.3p194 (2012-04-20 revision 35410) [x86_64-darwin10.8.0]:
user system total real
sort 1.340000 0.010000 1.350000 ( 1.346331)
sort reverse 1.300000 0.000000 1.300000 ( 1.310446)
sort_by -a[:bar] 0.430000 0.000000 0.430000 ( 0.429606)
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.420000 0.000000 0.420000 ( 0.414383)
sort_by.reverse! 0.400000 0.000000 0.400000 ( 0.401275)
These are on an old MacBook Pro. Newer, or faster machines, will have lower values, but the relative differences will remain.
Here's a bit updated version on newer hardware and the 2.1.1 version of Ruby:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
require 'benchmark'
puts "Running Ruby #{RUBY_VERSION}"
ary = []
1000.times {
ary << {:bar => rand(1000)}
}
n = 500
puts "n=#{n}"
Benchmark.bm(20) do |x|
x.report("sort") { n.times { ary.dup.sort{ |a,b| b[:bar] <=> a[:bar] } } }
x.report("sort reverse") { n.times { ary.dup.sort{ |a,b| a[:bar] <=> b[:bar] }.reverse } }
x.report("sort_by -a[:bar]") { n.times { ary.dup.sort_by{ |a| -a[:bar] } } }
x.report("sort_by a[:bar]*-1") { n.times { ary.dup.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar]*-1 } } }
x.report("sort_by.reverse") { n.times { ary.dup.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar] }.reverse } }
x.report("sort_by.reverse!") { n.times { ary.dup.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar] }.reverse! } }
end
# >> Running Ruby 2.1.1
# >> n=500
# >> user system total real
# >> sort 0.670000 0.000000 0.670000 ( 0.667754)
# >> sort reverse 0.650000 0.000000 0.650000 ( 0.655582)
# >> sort_by -a[:bar] 0.260000 0.010000 0.270000 ( 0.255919)
# >> sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.250000 0.000000 0.250000 ( 0.258924)
# >> sort_by.reverse 0.250000 0.000000 0.250000 ( 0.245179)
# >> sort_by.reverse! 0.240000 0.000000 0.240000 ( 0.242340)
New results running the above code using Ruby 2.2.1 on a more recent Macbook Pro. Again, the exact numbers aren't important, it's their relationships:
Running Ruby 2.2.1
n=500
user system total real
sort 0.650000 0.000000 0.650000 ( 0.653191)
sort reverse 0.650000 0.000000 0.650000 ( 0.648761)
sort_by -a[:bar] 0.240000 0.010000 0.250000 ( 0.245193)
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.240000 0.000000 0.240000 ( 0.240541)
sort_by.reverse 0.230000 0.000000 0.230000 ( 0.228571)
sort_by.reverse! 0.230000 0.000000 0.230000 ( 0.230040)
Updated for Ruby 2.7.1 on a Mid-2015 MacBook Pro:
Running Ruby 2.7.1
n=500
user system total real
sort 0.494707 0.003662 0.498369 ( 0.501064)
sort reverse 0.480181 0.005186 0.485367 ( 0.487972)
sort_by -a[:bar] 0.121521 0.003781 0.125302 ( 0.126557)
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.115097 0.003931 0.119028 ( 0.122991)
sort_by.reverse 0.110459 0.003414 0.113873 ( 0.114443)
sort_by.reverse! 0.108997 0.001631 0.110628 ( 0.111532)
...the reverse method doesn't actually return a reversed array - it returns an enumerator that just starts at the end and works backwards.
The source for Array#reverse is:
static VALUE
rb_ary_reverse_m(VALUE ary)
{
long len = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
VALUE dup = rb_ary_new2(len);
if (len > 0) {
const VALUE *p1 = RARRAY_CONST_PTR_TRANSIENT(ary);
VALUE *p2 = (VALUE *)RARRAY_CONST_PTR_TRANSIENT(dup) + len - 1;
do *p2-- = *p1++; while (--len > 0);
}
ARY_SET_LEN(dup, RARRAY_LEN(ary));
return dup;
}
do *p2-- = *p1++; while (--len > 0); is copying the pointers to the elements in reverse order if I remember my C correctly, so the array is reversed.
Regarding the benchmark suite mentioned, these results also hold for sorted arrays.
sort_by/reverse it is:
# foo.rb
require 'benchmark'
NUM_RUNS = 1000
# arr = []
arr1 = 3000.times.map { { num: rand(1000) } }
arr2 = 3000.times.map { |n| { num: n } }.reverse
Benchmark.bm(20) do |x|
{ 'randomized' => arr1,
'sorted' => arr2 }.each do |label, arr|
puts '---------------------------------------------------'
puts label
x.report('sort_by / reverse') {
NUM_RUNS.times { arr.sort_by { |h| h[:num] }.reverse }
}
x.report('sort_by -') {
NUM_RUNS.times { arr.sort_by { |h| -h[:num] } }
}
end
end
And the results:
$: ruby foo.rb
user system total real
---------------------------------------------------
randomized
sort_by / reverse 1.680000 0.010000 1.690000 ( 1.682051)
sort_by - 1.830000 0.000000 1.830000 ( 1.830359)
---------------------------------------------------
sorted
sort_by / reverse 0.400000 0.000000 0.400000 ( 0.402990)
sort_by - 0.500000 0.000000 0.500000 ( 0.499350)
You could do:
a.sort{|a,b| b[:bar] <=> a[:bar]}
For those folks who like to measure speed in IPS ;)
require 'benchmark/ips'
ary = []
1000.times {
ary << {:bar => rand(1000)}
}
Benchmark.ips do |x|
x.report("sort") { ary.sort{ |a,b| b[:bar] <=> a[:bar] } }
x.report("sort reverse") { ary.sort{ |a,b| a[:bar] <=> b[:bar] }.reverse }
x.report("sort_by -a[:bar]") { ary.sort_by{ |a| -a[:bar] } }
x.report("sort_by a[:bar]*-1") { ary.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar]*-1 } }
x.report("sort_by.reverse!") { ary.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar] }.reverse }
x.compare!
end
And results:
Warming up --------------------------------------
sort 93.000 i/100ms
sort reverse 91.000 i/100ms
sort_by -a[:bar] 382.000 i/100ms
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 398.000 i/100ms
sort_by.reverse! 397.000 i/100ms
Calculating -------------------------------------
sort 938.530 (± 1.8%) i/s - 4.743k in 5.055290s
sort reverse 901.157 (± 6.1%) i/s - 4.550k in 5.075351s
sort_by -a[:bar] 3.814k (± 4.4%) i/s - 19.100k in 5.019260s
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 3.732k (± 4.3%) i/s - 18.706k in 5.021720s
sort_by.reverse! 3.928k (± 3.6%) i/s - 19.850k in 5.060202s
Comparison:
sort_by.reverse!: 3927.8 i/s
sort_by -a[:bar]: 3813.9 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error
sort_by a[:bar]*-1: 3732.3 i/s - same-ish: difference falls within error
sort: 938.5 i/s - 4.19x slower
sort reverse: 901.2 i/s - 4.36x slower
What about:
a.sort {|x,y| y[:bar]<=>x[:bar]}
It works!!
irb
>> a = [
?> { :foo => 'foo', :bar => 2 },
?> { :foo => 'foo', :bar => 3 },
?> { :foo => 'foo', :bar => 5 },
?> ]
=> [{:bar=>2, :foo=>"foo"}, {:bar=>3, :foo=>"foo"}, {:bar=>5, :foo=>"foo"}]
>> a.sort {|x,y| y[:bar]<=>x[:bar]}
=> [{:bar=>5, :foo=>"foo"}, {:bar=>3, :foo=>"foo"}, {:bar=>2, :foo=>"foo"}]
Simple Solution from ascending to descending and vice versa is:
STRINGS
str = ['ravi', 'aravind', 'joker', 'poker']
asc_string = str.sort # => ["aravind", "joker", "poker", "ravi"]
asc_string.reverse # => ["ravi", "poker", "joker", "aravind"]
DIGITS
digit = [234,45,1,5,78,45,34,9]
asc_digit = digit.sort # => [1, 5, 9, 34, 45, 45, 78, 234]
asc_digit.reverse # => [234, 78, 45, 45, 34, 9, 5, 1]
Just a quick thing, that denotes the intent of descending order.
descending = -1
a.sort_by { |h| h[:bar] * descending }
(Will think of a better way in the mean time) ;)
a.sort_by { |h| h[:bar] }.reverse!
I see that we have (beside others) basically two options:
a.sort_by { |h| -h[:bar] }
and
a.sort_by { |h| h[:bar] }.reverse
While both ways give you the same result when your sorting key is unique, keep in mind that the reverse way will reverse the order of keys that are equal.
Example:
a = [{foo: 1, bar: 1},{foo: 2,bar: 1}]
a.sort_by {|h| -h[:bar]}
=> [{:foo=>1, :bar=>1}, {:foo=>2, :bar=>1}]
a.sort_by {|h| h[:bar]}.reverse
=> [{:foo=>2, :bar=>1}, {:foo=>1, :bar=>1}]
While you often don't need to care about this, sometimes you do. To avoid such behavior you could introduce a second sorting key (that for sure needs to be unique at least for all items that have the same sorting key):
a.sort_by {|h| [-h[:bar],-h[:foo]]}
=> [{:foo=>2, :bar=>1}, {:foo=>1, :bar=>1}]
a.sort_by {|h| [h[:bar],h[:foo]]}.reverse
=> [{:foo=>2, :bar=>1}, {:foo=>1, :bar=>1}]
Source: Stackoverflow.com