Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- JMP User Community
- :
- Discussions
- :
- Fastest way to edit lists of strings

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Feb 6, 2017 10:06 AM
(975 views)

I'm trying to filter a list of lists of strings. As an example:

I've got 2 lists, for filter 1, I'd like to concatenate the two lists iff the 2nd list doesn't match the first lists characters after the third. So for instance "a3232", "32" would violate this, but "a32323", "32" would not.

for filter 2 I'd like to remove hyphens (or whatever character fits your fancy).

I've made a quick example function that returns the filtered list but in real code this takes quite some time.

Wondering if anyone has had any luck doing similar things faster.

```
Names Default to here(1);
x = {{"a2232", "b12", "c-", "d3341234", "e12647859"}, {"32", "32", "54", "", "64"}};
filterfunc = function({bothlists},
{DEFAULT LOCAL},
f = Expr(column(dt, "1")[]||column(dt, "2")[]);
dt = New Table("Test", private,
New Column("1", character, set values(bothlists[1])),
New Column("2", character, set values(bothlists[2])),
//New Column("First 3", character, Formula(Left(column(dt, "1")[], 3))),
New Column("Remainder", character, Formula(Right(column(dt, "1")[], length(column(dt, "1")[])-3))),
New Column("Filter", character ),
);
filter1 = 1; // filter to remove duplicates from of remainder
//after the first 3 of column 1 and the total of column 2
filter2 = 1; //filter to remove hyphens
if(filter1,
Substitute into(f,
Expr(column(dt, "2")[]),
Expr(if(Column(dt, "Remainder")[] != column(dt, "2")[],
column(dt, "2")[],
""
))
)
);
if(filter2,
Substitute into(f,
nameexpr(f),
EvalExpr(Substitute(Expr(nameexpr(f)), "-", ""))
)
);
Column(dt, "Filter") << Formula(nameexpr(f));
dt << Run Formulas;
values = Column(dt, "Filter") << Get Values;
close(dt, no save);
values;
);
st = HPTime(); //start of routine
filtered_stuff = filterfunc(x);
tot = HPTime() - st;
show(tot);
```

I've thought about premaking the filter selections but as the number of filters add up this becomes a 2^n problem I think and I'm worried about start up time.

5 REPLIES

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Feb 6, 2017 12:41 PM
(966 views)

I think the over-abundance of evals etc have made this code difficult for me to understand so I've created a simplified version.

Here is the simplified code, just focusing on the 2nd filter, using your coding structure:

```
t1 = HpTime();
bothlists = {{"a2232", "b12", "c-", "d3341234", "e12647859"}, {"32", "32", "54", "", "64"}};
dt = New Table("Test",Private,
New Column("1", character, Set Values(bothlists[1])),
New Column("2", character, Set Values(bothlists[2])),
New Column("Filter", character)
);
f = Expr(column(dt, "1")[]||column(dt, "2")[]);
Substitute into(f,
nameexpr(f),
EvalExpr(Substitute(Expr(nameexpr(f)), "-", ""))
);
Column(dt, "Filter") << Formula(nameexpr(f));
dt << Run Formulas;
values = Column(dt, "Filter") << Get Values;
t2 = HpTime();
show(t2-t1);
show(values);
```

On my computer the HP Time Difference is about **2000**.

Next, I rewrote the code to avoid the use of expressions and evals etc:

```
t1 = HpTime();
bothlists = {{"a2232", "b12", "c-", "d3341234", "e12647859"}, {"32", "32", "54", "", "64"}};
dt = New Table("Test", Private,
New Column("1", character, Set Values(bothlists[1])),
New Column("2", character, Set Values(bothlists[2])),
New Column("Filter", character)
);
Column(dt, "Filter") << Formula(
Substitute( :Name( "1" ) || :Name( "2" ), "-", "" )
);
dt << Run Formulas;
values = Column(dt, "Filter") << Get Values;
t2 = HpTime();
show(t2-t1);
show(values);
```

This has about a 25% performance improvement with the reported HP TIme Difference being ~**1500**.

Tables are expensive things to use, even if private, so here is some code that doesn't use them:

```
t1 = HpTime();
bothlists = {{"a2232", "b12", "c-", "d3341234", "e12647859"}, {"32", "32", "54", "", "64"}};
lst = {};
For (i=1,i<=NItems(bothlists[1]),i++,
lst[i] = Substitute( bothlists[1][i] || bothlists[2][i], "-", "" )
);
t2 = HpTime();
show(t2-t1);
show(lst);
```

The reported HP Time Difference for this code is less than **100**.

-Dave

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Feb 6, 2017 1:33 PM
(955 views)

Which version of JMP are you using? I know lists got enhanced in 13 but I've got a list of 1,000,000 items so doing them in a for loop was really slow (I'm running 12.2).

Also, I've got to do all the filters simultaneously so I have to build my filter expression first dynamically then I have to evaluate it.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Feb 6, 2017 3:56 PM
(932 views)

I increased the number of items in the lists to 1 million. The first method took 14 seconds, the second method 7 seconds and the third method 5 seconds. This is with version 13, so it looks like they've done a good job of improving the performance of large lists.

-Dave

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Feb 6, 2017 4:11 PM
(928 views)

One plus point of iterating over items in a list is that you can construct a dialog window showing progress:

Slow calculations are much more acceptable to users when they know how long they have to wait, and when they have an option to abort if the completion time is longer than they anticipated.

-Dave

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Get Direct Link
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

Feb 6, 2017 4:33 PM
(925 views)

This isn't a calculation really, it's more of a gui element so speed needs to be fast. Here are my results when I tried it.

Running it with a loop in JMP 13.1: 7.7 seconds

Running with the data table in JMP 13 3.3 seconds

Running with loop in JMP 12.2: 2+ minutes

running with data table in JMP 12.2: 3.5 seconds

I don't know how you got such a speed increase with the loop.