Hi everybody: i want to take a picture and retrieve the main color analyzing its palette (i think this should be the easiest way), but i don't know really where to start.
Assuming you have a raw 24 bit RGB image and you want to find the number of times each color appears:
there are really 2 simple ways of doing this:
my favourite is just to create an array of ints for each possible color, then just index into that array and ++ that method does use like 64 meg of memory tho.
another method is to create a linked list, adding to it each time a new color is encountered, the structs stored in the list would store the color and the number of times encountered, its slow to do all the accumulating cause you have to search the whole list for each pixel, but it would be quicker to sort by number of times used, as only colors actually used are in the list (making it more ideal for small images too)
I like a compromise between the two:
take say, red and green to index into an array of linked lists, that way the array is only 256k (assuming it just stores a pointer to the list) and the lists to search will be relatively short because its only the blue variants of the Red,Green color. if you were only interested in the SINGLE MOST used color, I would just store this in a "max color" variable, that I would compare with each time I iterated over a pixel and incremented a color, that way you don't have to go through the whole structure searching for the most used at the end.
struct Pixel
{
byte R,G,B;
}
const int noPixels = 1024*768; // this is whatever the number of pixels you have is
Pixel pixels[noPixels]; // this is your raw array of pixels
unsinged int mostUsedCount = 0;
Pixel mostUsedColor;
struct ColorNode
{
ColorNode* next;
unsigned int count;
byte B;
}
ColorNode* RG = new ColorNode[256*256];
memset(RG,0,sizeof(ColorNode)*256*256);
for(int i = 0; i<noPixels; i++)
{
int idx = pixels[i].R + pixels[i].G*256;
ColorNode*t;
for(t=RG[idx]; t; t = t->next)
{
if(t->B == pixels[i].B)
{
break;
}
}
if(!t)
{
t = new ColorNode;
t->next = RG[idx];
RG[idx] = t;
t->B = pixels[i].B;
t->count = 0;
}
t->count++;
if(t->count > mostUsedCount)
{
mostUsedCount = t->count;
mostUsedColor = pixels[i];
}
}
you might consider using a Binary Tree, or Tree of some kind too, rather than just searching through a list like that. but I'm not too knowledgeable on that type of thing...
Oh yeah... I forgot about memory management.
you could just go through the whole array and delete all the nodes that need deleting, but that would be boring.
if possible, allocate all the memory you would possibly need at the beginning, that would be 256k + sizeof(ColorNode) *noPixels ~= 256 + 2 to 3 times the size of your raw image data.
that way you can just pull nodes out using a simple stack method, and then delete everything in one foul swoop.
another thing you could do is also add the nodes to another link list for ALL allocated nodes as well, this increases the iterating process, adds data to Color node, and just saves having to iterate through the entire array to find lists to delete.
Related
I have some code and when it executes, it throws a IndexOutOfRangeException, saying,
Index was outside the bounds of the array.
What does this mean, and what can I do about it?
Depending on classes used it can also be ArgumentOutOfRangeException
An exception of type 'System.ArgumentOutOfRangeException' occurred in mscorlib.dll but was not handled in user code Additional information: Index was out of range. Must be non-negative and less than the size of the collection.
What Is It?
This exception means that you're trying to access a collection item by index, using an invalid index. An index is invalid when it's lower than the collection's lower bound or greater than or equal to the number of elements it contains.
When It Is Thrown
Given an array declared as:
byte[] array = new byte[4];
You can access this array from 0 to 3, values outside this range will cause IndexOutOfRangeException to be thrown. Remember this when you create and access an array.
Array Length
In C#, usually, arrays are 0-based. It means that first element has index 0 and last element has index Length - 1 (where Length is total number of items in the array) so this code doesn't work:
array[array.Length] = 0;
Moreover please note that if you have a multidimensional array then you can't use Array.Length for both dimension, you have to use Array.GetLength():
int[,] data = new int[10, 5];
for (int i=0; i < data.GetLength(0); ++i) {
for (int j=0; j < data.GetLength(1); ++j) {
data[i, j] = 1;
}
}
Upper Bound Is Not Inclusive
In the following example we create a raw bidimensional array of Color. Each item represents a pixel, indices are from (0, 0) to (imageWidth - 1, imageHeight - 1).
Color[,] pixels = new Color[imageWidth, imageHeight];
for (int x = 0; x <= imageWidth; ++x) {
for (int y = 0; y <= imageHeight; ++y) {
pixels[x, y] = backgroundColor;
}
}
This code will then fail because array is 0-based and last (bottom-right) pixel in the image is pixels[imageWidth - 1, imageHeight - 1]:
pixels[imageWidth, imageHeight] = Color.Black;
In another scenario you may get ArgumentOutOfRangeException for this code (for example if you're using GetPixel method on a Bitmap class).
Arrays Do Not Grow
An array is fast. Very fast in linear search compared to every other collection. It is because items are contiguous in memory so memory address can be calculated (and increment is just an addition). No need to follow a node list, simple math! You pay this with a limitation: they can't grow, if you need more elements you need to reallocate that array (this may take a relatively long time if old items must be copied to a new block). You resize them with Array.Resize<T>(), this example adds a new entry to an existing array:
Array.Resize(ref array, array.Length + 1);
Don't forget that valid indices are from 0 to Length - 1. If you simply try to assign an item at Length you'll get IndexOutOfRangeException (this behavior may confuse you if you think they may increase with a syntax similar to Insert method of other collections).
Special Arrays With Custom Lower Bound
First item in arrays has always index 0. This is not always true because you can create an array with a custom lower bound:
var array = Array.CreateInstance(typeof(byte), new int[] { 4 }, new int[] { 1 });
In that example, array indices are valid from 1 to 4. Of course, upper bound cannot be changed.
Wrong Arguments
If you access an array using unvalidated arguments (from user input or from function user) you may get this error:
private static string[] RomanNumbers =
new string[] { "I", "II", "III", "IV", "V" };
public static string Romanize(int number)
{
return RomanNumbers[number];
}
Unexpected Results
This exception may be thrown for another reason too: by convention, many search functions will return -1 (nullables has been introduced with .NET 2.0 and anyway it's also a well-known convention in use from many years) if they didn't find anything. Let's imagine you have an array of objects comparable with a string. You may think to write this code:
// Items comparable with a string
Console.WriteLine("First item equals to 'Debug' is '{0}'.",
myArray[Array.IndexOf(myArray, "Debug")]);
// Arbitrary objects
Console.WriteLine("First item equals to 'Debug' is '{0}'.",
myArray[Array.FindIndex(myArray, x => x.Type == "Debug")]);
This will fail if no items in myArray will satisfy search condition because Array.IndexOf() will return -1 and then array access will throw.
Next example is a naive example to calculate occurrences of a given set of numbers (knowing maximum number and returning an array where item at index 0 represents number 0, items at index 1 represents number 1 and so on):
static int[] CountOccurences(int maximum, IEnumerable<int> numbers) {
int[] result = new int[maximum + 1]; // Includes 0
foreach (int number in numbers)
++result[number];
return result;
}
Of course, it's a pretty terrible implementation but what I want to show is that it'll fail for negative numbers and numbers above maximum.
How it applies to List<T>?
Same cases as array - range of valid indexes - 0 (List's indexes always start with 0) to list.Count - accessing elements outside of this range will cause the exception.
Note that List<T> throws ArgumentOutOfRangeException for the same cases where arrays use IndexOutOfRangeException.
Unlike arrays, List<T> starts empty - so trying to access items of just created list lead to this exception.
var list = new List<int>();
Common case is to populate list with indexing (similar to Dictionary<int, T>) will cause exception:
list[0] = 42; // exception
list.Add(42); // correct
IDataReader and Columns
Imagine you're trying to read data from a database with this code:
using (var connection = CreateConnection()) {
using (var command = connection.CreateCommand()) {
command.CommandText = "SELECT MyColumn1, MyColumn2 FROM MyTable";
using (var reader = command.ExecuteReader()) {
while (reader.Read()) {
ProcessData(reader.GetString(2)); // Throws!
}
}
}
}
GetString() will throw IndexOutOfRangeException because you're dataset has only two columns but you're trying to get a value from 3rd one (indices are always 0-based).
Please note that this behavior is shared with most IDataReader implementations (SqlDataReader, OleDbDataReader and so on).
You can get the same exception also if you use the IDataReader overload of the indexer operator that takes a column name and pass an invalid column name.
Suppose for example that you have retrieved a column named Column1 but then you try to retrieve the value of that field with
var data = dr["Colum1"]; // Missing the n in Column1.
This happens because the indexer operator is implemented trying to retrieve the index of a Colum1 field that doesn't exist. The GetOrdinal method will throw this exception when its internal helper code returns a -1 as the index of "Colum1".
Others
There is another (documented) case when this exception is thrown: if, in DataView, data column name being supplied to the DataViewSort property is not valid.
How to Avoid
In this example, let me assume, for simplicity, that arrays are always monodimensional and 0-based. If you want to be strict (or you're developing a library), you may need to replace 0 with GetLowerBound(0) and .Length with GetUpperBound(0) (of course if you have parameters of type System.Array, it doesn't apply for T[]). Please note that in this case, upper bound is inclusive then this code:
for (int i=0; i < array.Length; ++i) { }
Should be rewritten like this:
for (int i=array.GetLowerBound(0); i <= array.GetUpperBound(0); ++i) { }
Please note that this is not allowed (it'll throw InvalidCastException), that's why if your parameters are T[] you're safe about custom lower bound arrays:
void foo<T>(T[] array) { }
void test() {
// This will throw InvalidCastException, cannot convert Int32[] to Int32[*]
foo((int)Array.CreateInstance(typeof(int), new int[] { 1 }, new int[] { 1 }));
}
Validate Parameters
If index comes from a parameter you should always validate them (throwing appropriate ArgumentException or ArgumentOutOfRangeException). In the next example, wrong parameters may cause IndexOutOfRangeException, users of this function may expect this because they're passing an array but it's not always so obvious. I'd suggest to always validate parameters for public functions:
static void SetRange<T>(T[] array, int from, int length, Func<i, T> function)
{
if (from < 0 || from>= array.Length)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("from");
if (length < 0)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("length");
if (from + length > array.Length)
throw new ArgumentException("...");
for (int i=from; i < from + length; ++i)
array[i] = function(i);
}
If function is private you may simply replace if logic with Debug.Assert():
Debug.Assert(from >= 0 && from < array.Length);
Check Object State
Array index may not come directly from a parameter. It may be part of object state. In general is always a good practice to validate object state (by itself and with function parameters, if needed). You can use Debug.Assert(), throw a proper exception (more descriptive about the problem) or handle that like in this example:
class Table {
public int SelectedIndex { get; set; }
public Row[] Rows { get; set; }
public Row SelectedRow {
get {
if (Rows == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("...");
// No or wrong selection, here we just return null for
// this case (it may be the reason we use this property
// instead of direct access)
if (SelectedIndex < 0 || SelectedIndex >= Rows.Length)
return null;
return Rows[SelectedIndex];
}
}
Validate Return Values
In one of previous examples we directly used Array.IndexOf() return value. If we know it may fail then it's better to handle that case:
int index = myArray[Array.IndexOf(myArray, "Debug");
if (index != -1) { } else { }
How to Debug
In my opinion, most of the questions, here on SO, about this error can be simply avoided. The time you spend to write a proper question (with a small working example and a small explanation) could easily much more than the time you'll need to debug your code. First of all, read this Eric Lippert's blog post about debugging of small programs, I won't repeat his words here but it's absolutely a must read.
You have source code, you have exception message with a stack trace. Go there, pick right line number and you'll see:
array[index] = newValue;
You found your error, check how index increases. Is it right? Check how array is allocated, is coherent with how index increases? Is it right according to your specifications? If you answer yes to all these questions, then you'll find good help here on StackOverflow but please first check for that by yourself. You'll save your own time!
A good start point is to always use assertions and to validate inputs. You may even want to use code contracts. When something went wrong and you can't figure out what happens with a quick look at your code then you have to resort to an old friend: debugger. Just run your application in debug inside Visual Studio (or your favorite IDE), you'll see exactly which line throws this exception, which array is involved and which index you're trying to use. Really, 99% of the times you'll solve it by yourself in a few minutes.
If this happens in production then you'd better to add assertions in incriminated code, probably we won't see in your code what you can't see by yourself (but you can always bet).
The VB.NET side of the story
Everything that we have said in the C# answer is valid for VB.NET with the obvious syntax differences but there is an important point to consider when you deal with VB.NET arrays.
In VB.NET, arrays are declared setting the maximum valid index value for the array. It is not the count of the elements that we want to store in the array.
' declares an array with space for 5 integer
' 4 is the maximum valid index starting from 0 to 4
Dim myArray(4) as Integer
So this loop will fill the array with 5 integers without causing any IndexOutOfRangeException
For i As Integer = 0 To 4
myArray(i) = i
Next
The VB.NET rule
This exception means that you're trying to access a collection item by index, using an invalid index. An index is invalid when it's lower than the collection's lower bound or greater than equal to the number of elements it contains. the maximum allowed index defined in the array declaration
Simple explanation about what a Index out of bound exception is:
Just think one train is there its compartments are D1,D2,D3.
One passenger came to enter the train and he have the ticket for D4.
now what will happen. the passenger want to enter a compartment that does not exist so obviously problem will arise.
Same scenario: whenever we try to access an array list, etc. we can only access the existing indexes in the array. array[0] and array[1] are existing. If we try to access array[3], it's not there actually, so an index out of bound exception will arise.
To easily understand the problem, imagine we wrote this code:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string[] test = new string[3];
test[0]= "hello1";
test[1]= "hello2";
test[2]= "hello3";
for (int i = 0; i <= 3; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(test[i].ToString());
}
}
Result will be:
hello1
hello2
hello3
Unhandled Exception: System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array.
Size of array is 3 (indices 0, 1 and 2), but the for-loop loops 4 times (0, 1, 2 and 3). So when it tries to access outside the bounds with (3) it throws the exception.
A side from the very long complete accepted answer there is an important point to make about IndexOutOfRangeException compared with many other exception types, and that is:
Often there is complex program state that maybe difficult to have control over at a particular point in code e.g a DB connection goes down so data for an input cannot be retrieved etc... This kind of issue often results in an Exception of some kind that has to bubble up to a higher level because where it occurs has no way of dealing with it at that point.
IndexOutOfRangeException is generally different in that it in most cases it is pretty trivial to check for at the point where the exception is being raised. Generally this kind of exception get thrown by some code that could very easily deal with the issue at the place it is occurring - just by checking the actual length of the array. You don't want to 'fix' this by handling this exception higher up - but instead by ensuring its not thrown in the first instance - which in most cases is easy to do by checking the array length.
Another way of putting this is that other exceptions can arise due to genuine lack of control over input or program state BUT IndexOutOfRangeException more often than not is simply just pilot (programmer) error.
These two exceptions are common in various programming languages and as others said it's when you access an element with an index greater than the size of the array. For example:
var array = [1,2,3];
/* var lastElement = array[3] this will throw an exception, because indices
start from zero, length of the array is 3, but its last index is 2. */
The main reason behind this is compilers usually don't check this stuff, hence they will only express themselves at runtime.
Similar to this:
Why don't modern compilers catch attempts to make out-of-bounds access to arrays?
I would like to know how to read a binary file into memory (writing it to memory like an "Array Buffer" from JavaScript), and write to different parts of memory 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit etc. values, even 5 bit or 10 bit values.
extension Binary {
static func readFileToMemory(_ file) -> ArrayBuffer {
let data = NSData(contentsOfFile: "/path/to/file/7CHands.dat")!
var dataRange = NSRange(location: 0, length: ?)
var ? = [Int32](count: ?, repeatedValue: ?)
data.getBytes(&?, range: dataRange)
}
static func writeToMemory(_ buffer, location, value) {
buffer[location] = value
}
static func readFromMemory(_ buffer, location) {
return buffer[location]
}
}
I have looked at a bunch of places but haven't found a standard reference.
https://github.com/nst/BinUtils/blob/master/Sources/BinUtils.swift
https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/stdlib/public/core/ArrayBuffer.swift
https://github.com/uraimo/Bitter/blob/master/Sources/Bitter/Bitter.swift
In Swift, how do I read an existing binary file into an array?
Swift - writing a byte stream to file
https://apple.github.io/swift-nio/docs/current/NIO/Structs/ByteBuffer.html
https://github.com/Cosmo/BinaryKit/blob/master/Sources/BinaryKit.swift
https://github.com/vapor-community/bits/blob/master/Sources/Bits/Data%2BBytesConvertible.swift
https://academy.realm.io/posts/nate-cook-tryswift-tokyo-unsafe-swift-and-pointer-types/
https://medium.com/#gorjanshukov/working-with-bytes-in-ios-swift-4-de316a389a0c
I would like for this to be as low-level as possible. So perhaps using UnsafeMutablePointer, UnsafePointer, or UnsafeMutableRawPointer.
Saw this as well:
let data = NSMutableData()
var goesIn: Int32 = 42
data.appendBytes(&goesIn, length: sizeof(Int32))
println(data) // <2a000000]
var comesOut: Int32 = 0
data.getBytes(&comesOut, range: NSMakeRange(0, sizeof(Int32)))
println(comesOut) // 42
I would basically like to allocate a chunk of memory and be able to read and write from it. Not sure how to do that. Perhaps using C is the best way, not sure.
Just saw this too:
let rawData = UnsafeMutablePointer<UInt8>.allocate(capacity: width * height * 4)
If you're looking for low level code you'll need to use UnsafeMutableRawPointer. This is a pointer to a untyped data. Memory is accessed in bytes, so 8 chunks of at least 8 bits. I'll cover multiples of 8 bits first.
Reading a File
To read a file this way, you need to manage file handles and pointers yourself. Try the the following code:
// Open the file in read mode
let file = fopen("/Users/joannisorlandos/Desktop/ownership", "r")
// Files need to be closed manually
defer { fclose(file) }
// Find the end
fseek(file, 0, SEEK_END)
// Count the bytes from the start to the end
let fileByteSize = ftell(file)
// Return to the start
fseek(file, 0, SEEK_SET)
// Buffer of 1 byte entities
let pointer = UnsafeMutableRawPointer.allocate(byteCount: fileByteSize, alignment: 1)
// Buffer needs to be cleaned up manually
defer { pointer.deallocate() }
// Size is 1 byte
let readBytes = fread(pointer, 1, fileByteSize, file)
let errorOccurred = readBytes != fileByteSize
First you need to open the file. This can be done using Swift strings since the compiler makes them into a CString itself.
Because cleanup is all for us on this low level, a defer is put in place to close the file at the end.
Next, the file is set to seek the end of the file. Then the distance between the start of the file and the end is calculated. This is used later, so the value is kept.
Then the program is set to return to the start of the file, so the application starts reading from the start.
To store the file, a pointer is allocated with the amount of bytes that the file has in the file system. Note: This can change inbetween the steps if you're extremely unlucky or the file is accessed quite often. But I think for you, this is unlikely.
The amount of bytes is set, and aligned to one byte. (You can learn more about memory alignment on Wikipedia.
Then another defer is added to make sure no memory leaks at the end of this code. The pointer needs to be deallocated manually.
The file's bytes are read and stored in the pointer. Do note that this entire process reads the file in a blocking manner. It can be more preferred to read files asynchronously, if you plan on doing that I'll recommend looking into a library like SwiftNIO instead.
errorOccurred can be used to throw an error or handle issues in another manner.
From here, your buffer is ready for manipulation. You can print the file if it's text using the following code:
print(String(cString: pointer.bindMemory(to: Int8.self, capacity: fileByteSize)))
From here, it's time to learn how to read manipulate the memory.
Manipulating Memory
The below demonstrates reading byte 20..<24 as an Int32.
let int32 = pointer.load(fromByteOffset: 20, as: Int32.self)
I'll leave the other integers up to you. Next, you can alos put data at a position in memory.
pointer.storeBytes(of: 40, toByteOffset: 30, as: Int64.self)
This will replace byte 30..<38 with the number 40. Note that big endian systems, although uncommon, will store information in a different order from normal little endian systems. More about that here.
Modifying Bits
As you notes, you're also interested in modifying five or ten bits at a time. To do so, you'll need to mix the previous information with the new information.
var data32bits = pointer.load(fromByteOffset: 20, as: Int32.self)
var newData = 0b11111000
In this case, you'll be interested in the first 5 bits and want to write them over bit 2 through 7. To do so, first you'll need to shift the bits to a position that matches the new position.
newData = newData >> 2
This shifts the bits 2 places to the right. The two left bits that are now empty are therefore 0. The 2 bits on the right that got shoved off are not existing anymore.
Next, you'll want to get the old data from the buffer and overwrite the new bits.
To do so, first move the new byte into a 32-bits buffer.
var newBits = numericCast(newData) as Int32
The 32 bits will be aligned all the way to the right. If you want to replace the second of the four bytes, run the following:
newBits = newBits << 16
This moves the fourth pair 16 bit places left, or 2 bytes. So it's now on position 1 starting from 0.
Then, the two bytes need to be added on top of each other. One common method is the following:
let oldBits = data32bits & 0b11111111_11000001_11111111_11111111
let result = oldBits | newBits
What happens here is that we remove the 5 bits with new data from the old dataset. We do so by doing a bitwise and on the old 32 bits and a bitmap.
The bitmap has all 1's except for the new locations which are being replaced. Because those are empty in the bitmap, the and operator will exclude those bits since one of the two (old data vs. bitmap) is empty.
AND operators will only be 1 if both sides of the operator are 1.
Finally, the oldBits and the newBits are merged with an OR operator. This will take each bit on both sides and set the result to 1 if the bits at both positions are 1.
This will merge successfully since both buffers contain 1 bits that the other number doesn't set.
Say ...
you have about 20 Thing
very often, you do a complex calculation running through a loop of say 1000 items. The end result is a varying number around 20 each time
you don't know how many there will be until you run through the whole loop
you then want to quickly (and of course elegantly!) access the result set in many places
for performance reasons you don't want to just make a new array each time. note that unfortunately there's a differing amount so you can't just reuse the same array trivially.
What about ...
var thingsBacking = [Thing](repeating: Thing(), count: 100) // hard limit!
var things: ArraySlice<Thing> = []
func fatCalculation() {
var pin: Int = 0
// happily, no need to clean-out thingsBacking
for c in .. some huge loop {
... only some of the items (roughly 20 say) become the result
x = .. one of the result items
thingsBacking[pin] = Thing(... x, y, z )
pin += 1
}
// and then, magic of slices ...
things = thingsBacking[0..<pin]
(Then, you can do this anywhere... for t in things { .. } )
What I am wondering, is there a way you can call to an ArraySlice<Thing> to do that in one step - to "append to" an ArraySlice and avoid having to bother setting the length at the end?
So, something like this ..
things = ... set it to zero length
things.quasiAppend(x)
things.quasiAppend(x2)
things.quasiAppend(x3)
With no further effort, things now has a length of three and indeed the three items are already in the backing array.
I'm particularly interested in performance here (unusually!)
Another approach,
var thingsBacking = [Thing?](repeating: Thing(), count: 100) // hard limit!
and just set the first one after your data to nil as an end-marker. Again, you don't have to waste time zeroing. But the end marker is a nuisance.
Is there a more better way to solve this particular type of array-performance problem?
Based on MartinR's comments, it would seem that for the problem
the data points are incoming and
you don't know how many there will be until the last one (always less than a limit) and
you're having to redo the whole thing at high Hz
It would seem to be best to just:
(1) set up the array
var ra = [Thing](repeating: Thing(), count: 100) // hard limit!
(2) at the start of each run,
.removeAll(keepingCapacity: true)
(3) just go ahead and .append each one.
(4) you don't have to especially mark the end or set a length once finished.
It seems it will indeed then use the same array backing. And it of course "increases the length" as it were each time you append - and you can iterate happily at any time.
Slices - get lost!
I currently have the deck of cards coded, but it is unshuffled. This is for programming the card game of War if it helps. I need to shuffle the deck, but whenever I do, it will only shuffle together the card numbers and the suits, not the full card. For example, I have A identified as an ace and the suits come after each number. A normal card would be "AH" (an ace of hearts) or "6D" (a six of diamonds). Instead, it will output "5A" as one of the cards, as in a 5 of aces. I don't know how to fix this, but the code that I currently have is this:
card_nums = ('A23456789TJQK')';
card_suits = ('HDSC')';
unshuffled_deck = [repmat(card_nums,4,1),repmat(card_suits,13,1)];
disp(unshuffled_deck)
shuffled_deck = unshuffled_deck(randperm(numel(unshuffled_deck)));
disp(shuffled_deck)
I would appreciate any help with this, and thank you very much for your time!
You're creating a random permutation of all of the elements from both columns of unshuffled_deck combined. Instead you need to create a random permutation of the rows of unshuffled_deck:
shuffled_deck = unshuffled_deck(randperm(size(unshuffled_deck,1)),:);
The call to size gives you the number of rows in the deck array, then we get a random permutation of the row indices, and copy the row (value, suit) as a single entity.
Here's a version using a structure array in response to #Carl Witthoft's comment. I was afraid it would add too much complexity to the solution, but it really isn't bad:
card_nums = ('A23456789TJQK')';
card_suits = ('HDSC')';
deck_nums = repmat(card_nums,4,1);
deck_suits = repmat(card_suits,13,1);
cell_nums = cellstr(deck_nums).'; %// Change strings to cell arrays...
cell_suits = cellstr(deck_suits).'; %// so we can use them in struct
%// Construct a struct array with fields 'value' and 'suit'
unshuffled_deck = struct('value',cell_nums,'suit',cell_suits);
disp('unshuffled deck:');
disp([unshuffled_deck.value;unshuffled_deck.suit]);
%// Shuffle the deck using the number of elements in the structure array
shuffled_deck = unshuffled_deck(randperm(numel(unshuffled_deck)));
disp('shuffled deck:');
disp([shuffled_deck.value; shuffled_deck.suit]);
Here's a test run:
unshuffled deck:
A23456789TJQKA23456789TJQKA23456789TJQKA23456789TJQK
HDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSCHDSC
shuffled deck:
4976TT93KTJQJATK953A75QA82Q6226K5J784J4A3372486K859Q
CHSSSHCDSCSSHDDCDSHHCDHSDDCDHCCHHCHHHDDCSCDSSCHDSCSD
To access an individual card, you can do:
>> shuffled_deck(2)
ans =
scalar structure containing the fields:
value = 9
suit = H
Or you can access the individual fields:
>> shuffled_deck(2).value
ans = 9
>> shuffled_deck(2).suit
ans = H
Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to simply index the struct array and get, for instance, 9H as you would in a regular array using disp(shuffled_deck(2,:)). In this case, the only option I know of is to explicitly concatenate each field:
disp([shuffled_deck(2).value,shuffled_deck(2).suit]);
In a collection with a field image that contains images (BinData). I want to find out how many % of the DB are used by the images. What is the most efficient way to calculate the total size of all images?
I want to avoid fetching all images from the DB server, so I came up with this code:
mapper = Code("""
function() {
var n = 0;
if (this.image) {
n = this.image.length();
}
emit('sizes', n);
}
""")
reducer = Code("""
function(key, sizes) {
var total = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < sizes.length; i++) {
total += sizes[i];
}
}
return total;
""")
result = db.files.map_reduce(mapper, reducer, "image_sizes")
During the execution memory usage of mongodb gets quite high, it looks as if the whole data is loaded into memory. How can this be optimized? Also, does it make sense to call this.image.length() in order to find out how many Bytes the images occupy on the harddrive?
You can not avoid loading all the data into memory. MongoDB treats a document as its atomic unit, and by querying all documents, it will pull in all documents into memory.
As an alternative, what might possibly help you is just to see how many bytes a collection takes up, but that of course only works if the only thing you have stored in your collection are images. On the shell, you can do this with:
db.files.stats()
Which has the field storageSize that shows you how much storage is needed for your images approximately. This is not nearly as accurate as going through all your images though.