I know about SortedSet, but in my case I need something that implements List, and not Set. So is there an implementation out there, in the API or elsewhere?
It shouldn't be hard to implement myself, but I figured why not ask people here first?
This question is related to
java
list
collections
duplicates
Why not encapsulate a set with a list, sort like:
new ArrayList( new LinkedHashSet() )
This leaves the other implementation for someone who is a real master of Collections ;-)
So here's what I did eventually. I hope this helps someone else.
class NoDuplicatesList<E> extends LinkedList<E> {
@Override
public boolean add(E e) {
if (this.contains(e)) {
return false;
}
else {
return super.add(e);
}
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends E> collection) {
Collection<E> copy = new LinkedList<E>(collection);
copy.removeAll(this);
return super.addAll(copy);
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection<? extends E> collection) {
Collection<E> copy = new LinkedList<E>(collection);
copy.removeAll(this);
return super.addAll(index, copy);
}
@Override
public void add(int index, E element) {
if (this.contains(element)) {
return;
}
else {
super.add(index, element);
}
}
}
I just made my own UniqueList in my own little library like this:
package com.bprog.collections;//my own little set of useful utilities and classes
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
/**
*
* @author Jonathan
*/
public class UniqueList {
private HashSet masterSet = new HashSet();
private ArrayList growableUniques;
private Object[] returnable;
public UniqueList() {
growableUniques = new ArrayList();
}
public UniqueList(int size) {
growableUniques = new ArrayList(size);
}
public void add(Object thing) {
if (!masterSet.contains(thing)) {
masterSet.add(thing);
growableUniques.add(thing);
}
}
/**
* Casts to an ArrayList of unique values
* @return
*/
public List getList(){
return growableUniques;
}
public Object get(int index) {
return growableUniques.get(index);
}
public Object[] toObjectArray() {
int size = growableUniques.size();
returnable = new Object[size];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
returnable[i] = growableUniques.get(i);
}
return returnable;
}
}
I have a TestCollections class that looks like this:
package com.bprog.collections;
import com.bprog.out.Out;
/**
*
* @author Jonathan
*/
public class TestCollections {
public static void main(String[] args){
UniqueList ul = new UniqueList();
ul.add("Test");
ul.add("Test");
ul.add("Not a copy");
ul.add("Test");
//should only contain two things
Object[] content = ul.toObjectArray();
Out.pl("Array Content",content);
}
}
Works fine. All it does is it adds to a set if it does not have it already and there's an Arraylist that is returnable, as well as an object array.
The documentation for collection interfaces says:
Set — a collection that cannot contain duplicate elements.
List — an ordered collection (sometimes called a sequence). Lists can contain duplicate elements.
So if you don't want duplicates, you probably shouldn't use a list.
So here's what I did eventually. I hope this helps someone else.
class NoDuplicatesList<E> extends LinkedList<E> {
@Override
public boolean add(E e) {
if (this.contains(e)) {
return false;
}
else {
return super.add(e);
}
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends E> collection) {
Collection<E> copy = new LinkedList<E>(collection);
copy.removeAll(this);
return super.addAll(copy);
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection<? extends E> collection) {
Collection<E> copy = new LinkedList<E>(collection);
copy.removeAll(this);
return super.addAll(index, copy);
}
@Override
public void add(int index, E element) {
if (this.contains(element)) {
return;
}
else {
super.add(index, element);
}
}
}
NOTE: it does not take subList implementation into account.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Set;
public class UniqueList<T> extends ArrayList<T> {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
/** Unique elements SET */
private final Set<T> set=new HashSet();
/** Used by addAll methods */
private Collection<T> addUnique(Collection<? extends T> col) {
Collection<T> unique=new ArrayList();
for(T e: col){
if (set.add(e)) unique.add(e);
}
return unique;
}
@Override
public boolean add(T e) {
return set.add(e) ? super.add(e) : false;
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends T> col) {
return super.addAll(addUnique(col));
}
@Override
public void add(int index, T e) {
if (set.add(e)) super.add(index, e);
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection<? extends T> col) {
return super.addAll(index, addUnique(col));
}
}
You should seriously consider dhiller's answer:
new ArrayList(set) (or a new LinkedList(set), whatever).I think that the solution you posted with the NoDuplicatesList has some issues, mostly with the contains() method, plus your class does not handle checking for duplicates in the Collection passed to your addAll() method.
in add method, why not using HashSet.add() to check duplicates instead of HashSet.consist().
HashSet.add() will return true if no duplicate and false otherwise.
You should seriously consider dhiller's answer:
new ArrayList(set) (or a new LinkedList(set), whatever).I think that the solution you posted with the NoDuplicatesList has some issues, mostly with the contains() method, plus your class does not handle checking for duplicates in the Collection passed to your addAll() method.
Off the top of my head, lists allow duplicates. You could quickly implement a UniqueArrayList and override all the add / insert functions to check for contains() before you call the inherited methods. For personal use, you could only implement the add method you use, and override the others to throw an exception in case future programmers try to use the list in a different manner.
Here is what I did and it works.
Assuming I have an ArrayList to work with the first thing I did was created a new LinkedHashMap.
LinkedHashSet<E> hashSet = new LinkedHashSet<E>()
Then I attempt to add my new element to the LinkedHashSet. The add method does not alter the LinkedHasSet and returns false if the new element is a duplicate. So this becomes a condition I can test before adding to the ArrayList.
if (hashSet.add(E)) arrayList.add(E);
This is a simple and elegant way to prevent duplicates from being added to an array list. If you want you can encapsulate it in and override of the add method in a class that extends the ArrayList. Just remember to deal with addAll by looping through the elements and calling the add method.
The documentation for collection interfaces says:
Set — a collection that cannot contain duplicate elements.
List — an ordered collection (sometimes called a sequence). Lists can contain duplicate elements.
So if you don't want duplicates, you probably shouldn't use a list.
You should seriously consider dhiller's answer:
new ArrayList(set) (or a new LinkedList(set), whatever).I think that the solution you posted with the NoDuplicatesList has some issues, mostly with the contains() method, plus your class does not handle checking for duplicates in the Collection passed to your addAll() method.
The documentation for collection interfaces says:
Set — a collection that cannot contain duplicate elements.
List — an ordered collection (sometimes called a sequence). Lists can contain duplicate elements.
So if you don't want duplicates, you probably shouldn't use a list.
I just made my own UniqueList in my own little library like this:
package com.bprog.collections;//my own little set of useful utilities and classes
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
/**
*
* @author Jonathan
*/
public class UniqueList {
private HashSet masterSet = new HashSet();
private ArrayList growableUniques;
private Object[] returnable;
public UniqueList() {
growableUniques = new ArrayList();
}
public UniqueList(int size) {
growableUniques = new ArrayList(size);
}
public void add(Object thing) {
if (!masterSet.contains(thing)) {
masterSet.add(thing);
growableUniques.add(thing);
}
}
/**
* Casts to an ArrayList of unique values
* @return
*/
public List getList(){
return growableUniques;
}
public Object get(int index) {
return growableUniques.get(index);
}
public Object[] toObjectArray() {
int size = growableUniques.size();
returnable = new Object[size];
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
returnable[i] = growableUniques.get(i);
}
return returnable;
}
}
I have a TestCollections class that looks like this:
package com.bprog.collections;
import com.bprog.out.Out;
/**
*
* @author Jonathan
*/
public class TestCollections {
public static void main(String[] args){
UniqueList ul = new UniqueList();
ul.add("Test");
ul.add("Test");
ul.add("Not a copy");
ul.add("Test");
//should only contain two things
Object[] content = ul.toObjectArray();
Out.pl("Array Content",content);
}
}
Works fine. All it does is it adds to a set if it does not have it already and there's an Arraylist that is returnable, as well as an object array.
So here's what I did eventually. I hope this helps someone else.
class NoDuplicatesList<E> extends LinkedList<E> {
@Override
public boolean add(E e) {
if (this.contains(e)) {
return false;
}
else {
return super.add(e);
}
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends E> collection) {
Collection<E> copy = new LinkedList<E>(collection);
copy.removeAll(this);
return super.addAll(copy);
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection<? extends E> collection) {
Collection<E> copy = new LinkedList<E>(collection);
copy.removeAll(this);
return super.addAll(index, copy);
}
@Override
public void add(int index, E element) {
if (this.contains(element)) {
return;
}
else {
super.add(index, element);
}
}
}
I needed something like that, so I went to the commons collections and used the SetUniqueList, but when I ran some performance test, I found that it seems not optimized comparing to the case if I want to use a Set and obtain an Array using the Set.toArray() method.
The SetUniqueTest took 20:1 time to fill and then traverse 100,000 Strings comparing to the other implementation, which is a big deal difference.
So, if you worry about the performance, I recommend you to use the Set and Get an Array instead of using the SetUniqueList, unless you really need the logic of the SetUniqueList, then you'll need to check other solutions...
Testing code main method:
public static void main(String[] args) {
SetUniqueList pq = SetUniqueList.decorate(new ArrayList());
Set s = new TreeSet();
long t1 = 0L;
long t2 = 0L;
String t;
t1 = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 200000; i++) {
pq.add("a" + Math.random());
}
while (!pq.isEmpty()) {
t = (String) pq.remove(0);
}
t1 = System.nanoTime() - t1;
t2 = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 200000; i++) {
s.add("a" + Math.random());
}
s.clear();
String[] d = (String[]) s.toArray(new String[0]);
s.clear();
for (int i = 0; i < d.length; i++) {
t = d[i];
}
t2 = System.nanoTime() - t2;
System.out.println((double)t1/1000/1000/1000); //seconds
System.out.println((double)t2/1000/1000/1000); //seconds
System.out.println(((double) t1) / t2); //comparing results
}
Regards, Mohammed Sleem
Why not encapsulate a set with a list, sort like:
new ArrayList( new LinkedHashSet() )
This leaves the other implementation for someone who is a real master of Collections ;-)
Off the top of my head, lists allow duplicates. You could quickly implement a UniqueArrayList and override all the add / insert functions to check for contains() before you call the inherited methods. For personal use, you could only implement the add method you use, and override the others to throw an exception in case future programmers try to use the list in a different manner.
Why not encapsulate a set with a list, sort like:
new ArrayList( new LinkedHashSet() )
This leaves the other implementation for someone who is a real master of Collections ;-)
I needed something like that, so I went to the commons collections and used the SetUniqueList, but when I ran some performance test, I found that it seems not optimized comparing to the case if I want to use a Set and obtain an Array using the Set.toArray() method.
The SetUniqueTest took 20:1 time to fill and then traverse 100,000 Strings comparing to the other implementation, which is a big deal difference.
So, if you worry about the performance, I recommend you to use the Set and Get an Array instead of using the SetUniqueList, unless you really need the logic of the SetUniqueList, then you'll need to check other solutions...
Testing code main method:
public static void main(String[] args) {
SetUniqueList pq = SetUniqueList.decorate(new ArrayList());
Set s = new TreeSet();
long t1 = 0L;
long t2 = 0L;
String t;
t1 = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 200000; i++) {
pq.add("a" + Math.random());
}
while (!pq.isEmpty()) {
t = (String) pq.remove(0);
}
t1 = System.nanoTime() - t1;
t2 = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 200000; i++) {
s.add("a" + Math.random());
}
s.clear();
String[] d = (String[]) s.toArray(new String[0]);
s.clear();
for (int i = 0; i < d.length; i++) {
t = d[i];
}
t2 = System.nanoTime() - t2;
System.out.println((double)t1/1000/1000/1000); //seconds
System.out.println((double)t2/1000/1000/1000); //seconds
System.out.println(((double) t1) / t2); //comparing results
}
Regards, Mohammed Sleem
NOTE: it does not take subList implementation into account.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Set;
public class UniqueList<T> extends ArrayList<T> {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
/** Unique elements SET */
private final Set<T> set=new HashSet();
/** Used by addAll methods */
private Collection<T> addUnique(Collection<? extends T> col) {
Collection<T> unique=new ArrayList();
for(T e: col){
if (set.add(e)) unique.add(e);
}
return unique;
}
@Override
public boolean add(T e) {
return set.add(e) ? super.add(e) : false;
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends T> col) {
return super.addAll(addUnique(col));
}
@Override
public void add(int index, T e) {
if (set.add(e)) super.add(index, e);
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection<? extends T> col) {
return super.addAll(index, addUnique(col));
}
}
So here's what I did eventually. I hope this helps someone else.
class NoDuplicatesList<E> extends LinkedList<E> {
@Override
public boolean add(E e) {
if (this.contains(e)) {
return false;
}
else {
return super.add(e);
}
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends E> collection) {
Collection<E> copy = new LinkedList<E>(collection);
copy.removeAll(this);
return super.addAll(copy);
}
@Override
public boolean addAll(int index, Collection<? extends E> collection) {
Collection<E> copy = new LinkedList<E>(collection);
copy.removeAll(this);
return super.addAll(index, copy);
}
@Override
public void add(int index, E element) {
if (this.contains(element)) {
return;
}
else {
super.add(index, element);
}
}
}
Why not encapsulate a set with a list, sort like:
new ArrayList( new LinkedHashSet() )
This leaves the other implementation for someone who is a real master of Collections ;-)
You should seriously consider dhiller's answer:
new ArrayList(set) (or a new LinkedList(set), whatever).I think that the solution you posted with the NoDuplicatesList has some issues, mostly with the contains() method, plus your class does not handle checking for duplicates in the Collection passed to your addAll() method.
The documentation for collection interfaces says:
Set — a collection that cannot contain duplicate elements.
List — an ordered collection (sometimes called a sequence). Lists can contain duplicate elements.
So if you don't want duplicates, you probably shouldn't use a list.
in add method, why not using HashSet.add() to check duplicates instead of HashSet.consist().
HashSet.add() will return true if no duplicate and false otherwise.
Off the top of my head, lists allow duplicates. You could quickly implement a UniqueArrayList and override all the add / insert functions to check for contains() before you call the inherited methods. For personal use, you could only implement the add method you use, and override the others to throw an exception in case future programmers try to use the list in a different manner.
Source: Stackoverflow.com