As per the title, I'm trying to find a way to programmatically determine the longest portion of similarity between several strings.
Example:
file:///home/gms8994/Music/t.A.T.u./
file:///home/gms8994/Music/nina%20sky/
file:///home/gms8994/Music/A%20Perfect%20Circle/
Ideally, I'd get back file:///home/gms8994/Music/, because that's the longest portion that's common for all 3 strings.
Specifically, I'm looking for a Perl solution, but a solution in any language (or even pseudo-language) would suffice.
From the comments: yes, only at the beginning; but there is the possibility of having some other entry in the list, which would be ignored for this question.
Edit: I'm sorry for mistake. My pity that I overseen that using my variable inside countit(x, q{}) is big mistake. This string is evaluated inside Benchmark module and #str was empty there. This solution is not as fast as I presented. See correction below. I'm sorry again.
Perl can be fast:
use strict;
use warnings;
package LCP;
sub LCP {
return '' unless #_;
return $_[0] if #_ == 1;
my $i = 0;
my $first = shift;
my $min_length = length($first);
foreach (#_) {
$min_length = length($_) if length($_) < $min_length;
}
INDEX: foreach my $ch ( split //, $first ) {
last INDEX unless $i < $min_length;
foreach my $string (#_) {
last INDEX if substr($string, $i, 1) ne $ch;
}
}
continue { $i++ }
return substr $first, 0, $i;
}
# Roy's implementation
sub LCP2 {
return '' unless #_;
my $prefix = shift;
for (#_) {
chop $prefix while (! /^\Q$prefix\E/);
}
return $prefix;
}
1;
Test suite:
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
Test::LCP->runtests;
package Test::LCP;
use base 'Test::Class';
use Test::More;
use Benchmark qw(:all :hireswallclock);
sub test_use : Test(startup => 1) {
use_ok('LCP');
}
sub test_lcp : Test(6) {
is( LCP::LCP(), '', 'Without parameters' );
is( LCP::LCP('abc'), 'abc', 'One parameter' );
is( LCP::LCP( 'abc', 'xyz' ), '', 'None of common prefix' );
is( LCP::LCP( 'abcdefgh', ('abcdefgh') x 15, 'abcdxyz' ),
'abcd', 'Some common prefix' );
my #str = map { chomp; $_ } <DATA>;
is( LCP::LCP(#str),
'file:///home/gms8994/Music/', 'Test data prefix' );
is( LCP::LCP2(#str),
'file:///home/gms8994/Music/', 'Test data prefix by LCP2' );
my $t = countit( 1, sub{LCP::LCP(#str)} );
diag("LCP: ${\($t->iters)} iterations took ${\(timestr($t))}");
$t = countit( 1, sub{LCP::LCP2(#str)} );
diag("LCP2: ${\($t->iters)} iterations took ${\(timestr($t))}");
}
__DATA__
file:///home/gms8994/Music/t.A.T.u./
file:///home/gms8994/Music/nina%20sky/
file:///home/gms8994/Music/A%20Perfect%20Circle/
Test suite result:
1..7
ok 1 - use LCP;
ok 2 - Without parameters
ok 3 - One parameter
ok 4 - None of common prefix
ok 5 - Some common prefix
ok 6 - Test data prefix
ok 7 - Test data prefix by LCP2
# LCP: 22635 iterations took 1.09948 wallclock secs ( 1.09 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.09 CPU) # 20766.06/s (n=22635)
# LCP2: 17919 iterations took 1.06787 wallclock secs ( 1.07 usr + 0.00 sys = 1.07 CPU) # 16746.73/s (n=17919)
That means that pure Perl solution using substr is about 20% faster than Roy's solution at your test case and one prefix finding takes about 50us. There is not necessary using XS unless your data or performance expectations are bigger.
The reference given already by Brett Daniel for the Wikipedia entry on "Longest common substring problem" is very good general reference (with pseudocode) for your question as stated. However, the algorithm can be exponential. And it looks like you might actually want an algorithm for longest common prefix which is a much simpler algorithm.
Here's the one I use for longest common prefix (and a ref to original URL):
use strict; use warnings;
sub longest_common_prefix {
# longest_common_prefix( $|# ): returns $
# URLref: http://linux.seindal.dk/2005/09/09/longest-common-prefix-in-perl
# find longest common prefix of scalar list
my $prefix = shift;
for (#_) {
chop $prefix while (! /^\Q$prefix\E/);
}
return $prefix;
}
my #str = map {chomp; $_} <DATA>;
print longest_common_prefix(#ARGV), "\n";
__DATA__
file:///home/gms8994/Music/t.A.T.u./
file:///home/gms8994/Music/nina%20sky/
file:///home/gms8994/Music/A%20Perfect%20Circle/
If you truly want a LCSS implementation, refer to these discussions (Longest Common Substring and Longest Common Subsequence) at PerlMonks.org. Tree::Suffix would probably be the best general solution for you and implements, to my knowledge, the best algorithm. Unfortunately recent builds are broken. But, a working subroutine does exist within the discussions referenced on PerlMonks in this post by Limbic~Region (reproduced here with your data).
#URLref: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=549876
#by Limbic~Region
use Algorithm::Loops 'NestedLoops';
use List::Util 'reduce';
use strict; use warnings;
sub LCS{
my #str = #_;
my #pos;
for my $i (0 .. $#str) {
my $line = $str[$i];
for (0 .. length($line) - 1) {
my $char= substr($line, $_, 1);
push #{$pos[$i]{$char}}, $_;
}
}
my $sh_str = reduce {length($a) < length($b) ? $a : $b} #str;
my %map;
CHAR:
for my $char (split //, $sh_str) {
my #loop;
for (0 .. $#pos) {
next CHAR if ! $pos[$_]{$char};
push #loop, $pos[$_]{$char};
}
my $next = NestedLoops([#loop]);
while (my #char_map = $next->()) {
my $key = join '-', #char_map;
$map{$key} = $char;
}
}
my #pile;
for my $seq (keys %map) {
push #pile, $map{$seq};
for (1 .. 2) {
my $dir = $_ % 2 ? 1 : -1;
my #offset = split /-/, $seq;
$_ += $dir for #offset;
my $next = join '-', #offset;
while (exists $map{$next}) {
$pile[-1] = $dir > 0 ?
$pile[-1] . $map{$next} : $map{$next} . $pile[-1];
$_ += $dir for #offset;
$next = join '-', #offset;
}
}
}
return reduce {length($a) > length($b) ? $a : $b} #pile;
}
my #str = map {chomp; $_} <DATA>;
print LCS(#str), "\n";
__DATA__
file:///home/gms8994/Music/t.A.T.u./
file:///home/gms8994/Music/nina%20sky/
file:///home/gms8994/Music/A%20Perfect%20Circle/
It sounds like you want the k-common substring algorithm. It is exceptionally simple to program, and a good example of dynamic programming.
My first instinct is to run a loop, taking the next character from each string, until the characters are not equal. Keep a count of what position in the string you're at and then take a substring (from any of the three strings) from 0 to the position before the characters aren't equal.
In Perl, you'll have to split up the string first into characters using something like
#array = split(//, $string);
(splitting on an empty character sets each character into its own element of the array)
Then do a loop, perhaps overall:
$n =0;
#array1 = split(//, $string1);
#array2 = split(//, $string2);
#array3 = split(//, $string3);
while($array1[$n] == $array2[$n] && $array2[$n] == $array3[$n]){
$n++;
}
$sameString = substr($string1, 0, $n); #n might have to be n-1
Or at least something along those lines. Forgive me if this doesn't work, my Perl is a little rusty.
If you google for "longest common substring" you'll get some good pointers for the general case where the sequences don't have to start at the beginning of the strings.
Eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_common_substring_problem.
Mathematica happens to have a function for this built in:
http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/LongestCommonSubsequence.html (Note that they mean contiguous subsequence, ie, substring, which is what you want.)
If you only care about the longest common prefix then it should be much faster to just loop for i from 0 till the ith characters don't all match and return substr(s, 0, i-1).
From http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=33780
my #strings =
(
'file:///home/gms8994/Music/t.A.T.u./',
'file:///home/gms8994/Music/nina%20sky/',
'file:///home/gms8994/Music/A%20Perfect%20Circle/',
);
my $common_part = undef;
my $sep = chr(0); # assuming it's not used legitimately
foreach my $str ( #strings ) {
# First time through loop -- set common
# to whole
if ( !defined $common_part ) {
$common_part = $str;
next;
}
if ("$common_part$sep$str" =~ /^(.*).*$sep\1.*$/)
{
$common_part = $1;
}
}
print "Common part = $common_part\n";
Faster than above, uses perl's native binary xor function, adapted from perlmongers solution (the $+[0] didn't work for me):
sub common_suffix {
my $comm = shift #_;
while ($_ = shift #_) {
$_ = substr($_,-length($comm)) if (length($_) > length($comm));
$comm = substr($comm,-length($_)) if (length($_) < length($comm));
if (( $_ ^ $comm ) =~ /(\0*)$/) {
$comm = substr($comm, -length($1));
} else {
return undef;
}
}
return $comm;
}
sub common_prefix {
my $comm = shift #_;
while ($_ = shift #_) {
$_ = substr($_,0,length($comm)) if (length($_) > length($comm));
$comm = substr($comm,0,length($_)) if (length($_) < length($comm));
if (( $_ ^ $comm ) =~ /^(\0*)/) {
$comm = substr($comm,0,length($1));
} else {
return undef;
}
}
return $comm;
}
Related
Having heard about Perl for year I decided to give it a few hours of my time to see how much I could pick up. I got through the basics fine and then got to loops. As a test I wanted to see if I could build a script to recurse through all alphanumerical values of up to 4 characters. I had written a PHP code that did the same thing some time ago so I took the same concept and used it. However when I run the script it puts "a" as the first 3 values and then only loops through the last digit. Anyone see what I am doing wrong?
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
$chars = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
$chars .= "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
$chars .= "0123456789";
#charset = split(//, $chars);
$charset_length = scalar(#charset);
sub recurse
{
($width, $position, $base_string) = #_;
for ($i = 0; $i < $charset_length; ++$i) {
$base = $base_string . $charset[$i];
if ($position < $width - 1) {
$pos = $position + 1;
recurse($width, $pos, $base);
}
print $base;
print "\n";
}
}
recurse(4, 0, '');
This is what I get when I run it:
aaaa
aaab
aaac
aaad
aaae
aaaf
aaag
aaah
aaai
aaaj
aaak
aaal
aaam
aaan
aaao
aaap
aaaq
aaar
aaas
aaat
aaau
aaav
aaaw
aaax
aaay
aaaz
aaaA
aaaB
aaaC
aaaD
aaaE
aaaF
aaaG
aaaH
aaaI
aaaJ
aaaK
aaaL
aaaM
aaaN
aaaO
aaaP
aaaQ
aaaR
aaaS
aaaT
aaaU
aaaV
aaaW
aaaX
aaaY
aaaZ
aaa0
aaa1
aaa2
aaa3
aaa4
aaa5
aaa6
aaa7
aaa8
aaa9
aaa9
aaa9
aaa9
You've been bitten by non strict scoping, this code does what it should (note the use strict at the top and the subsequent use of my to guarantee variable scoping).
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $chars = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
$chars .= "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";
$chars .= "0123456789";
my #charset = split(//, $chars);
my $charset_length = scalar(#charset);
sub recurse {
my ($width, $position, $base_string) = #_;
for (my $i = 0; $i < $charset_length; ++$i) {
my $base = $base_string . $charset[$i];
if ($position < $width - 1) {
my $pos = $position + 1;
recurse($width, $pos, $base);
}
print $base;
print "\n";
}
}
recurse(4, 0, '');
Already well answered, but a more idiomatic approach would be:
use strict;
use warnings;
sub recurse {
my ($width, $base_string, $charset) = #_;
if (length $base_string) {
print "$base_string\n";
}
if (length($base_string) < $width) {
$recurser->($base_string . $_) for #$charset;
}
}
my #charset = ('a'..'z', 'A'..'Z', '0'..'9');
recurse(4, '', \#charset);
There's no need to pass position; it's implicit in the width of the base string passed in. The charset, on the other hand, should be passed in rather than having the subroutine use an external variable.
Alternatively, since the width and character set stay constant, generate a closure that references them:
use strict;
use warnings;
sub make_recurser {
my ($width, $charset) = #_;
my $recurser;
$recurser = sub {
my ($base_string) = #_;
if (length $base_string) {
print "$base_string\n";
}
if (length($base_string) < $width) {
$recurser->($base_string . $_) for #$charset;
}
}
}
my #charset = ('a'..'z', 'A'..'Z', '0'..'9');
my $recurser = make_recurser(4, \#charset);
$recurser->('');
Alternatively, just:
print "$_\n" for glob(('{' . join(',', 'a'..'z', 'A'..'Z', '0'..'9') . '}') x 4);
It has to do with the scope of the variables, you're still changing the same vars when you're calling the recursion. The keyword 'my' declares the variables local to the subroutine.
(http://perl.plover.com/FAQs/Namespaces.html)
I always use perl with 'use strict;' declared, forcing me to decide on the scope of the variables.
sub recurse {
my ($width, $position, $base_string) = #_;
for (my $i = 0; $i < $charset_length; ++$i) {
my $base = $base_string . $charset[$i];
if ($position < $width - 1) {
my $pos = $position + 1;
recurse($width, $pos, $base);
}
print $base;
print " ";
}
}
You seem to be running into some scoping issues. Perl is very flexible, so it is taking a guess at what you want because you haven't told it what you want. One of the first things you'll learn is to add use strict; as for your first statement after the shebang. It will point out the variables that are not being explicitly defined, as well as any variables that are accessed before being created (helps with misspelled variables, etc).
If you make your code look like this, you'll see why you are getting your errors:
sub recurse {
($width, $position, $base_string) = #_;
for ($i = 0; $i < $charset_length; ++$i) {
$base = $base_string . $charset[$i];
if ($position < $width - 1) {
$pos = $position + 1;
recurse($width, $pos, $base);
}
# print "$base\n";
}
print "$position\n";
}
This should output:
3
3
3
3
Because you are not scoping $position correctly with my, you aren't getting a new variable each recurse, you are re-using the same one. Toss a use strict; in there, and fix the errors you get, and the code should be good.
I realize that you're just tinkering with recursion. But as long as you're having fun comparing implementations between two languages you may as well also see how the CPAN can extend your tool set.
If you don't care about the order, you can generate all 13,388,280 permutations of ( 'a'..'z', 'A..'Z', '0'..'9' ) taken four at a time with the CPAN module, Algorithm::Permute
Here is an example of how that code may look.
use strict;
use warnings;
use Algorithm::Permute;
my $p = Algorithm::Permute->new(
[ 'a' .. 'z', 'A' .. 'Z', '0' .. '9' ], # Set of...
4 # <---- at a time.
);
while ( my #res = $p->next ) {
print #res, "\n";
}
The new() method accepts an array ref that enumerates the character set or list of what to permute. Its second argument is how many at a time to include in the permutation. So you're essentially taking 62 items 4 at a time. Then use the next() method to iterate through the permutations. The rest is just window dressing.
The same thing could be reduced to the following Perl one-liner:
perl -MAlgorithm::Permute -e '$p=Algorithm::Permute->new(["a".."z","A".."Z",0..9],4);print #r, "\n" while #r=$p->next;'
There is also a section on permutation, along with additional examples in perlfaq4. It includes several examples and lists some additional modules that handle the details for you. One of Perl's strengths is the size and completeness of the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network (the CPAN).
I want Perl (5.8.8) to find out what word has the most letters in common with the other words in an array - but only letters that are in the same place. (And preferably without using libs.)
Take this list of words as an example:
BAKER
SALER
BALER
CARER
RUFFR
Her BALER is the word that has the most letters in common with the others. It matches BAxER in BAKER, xALER in SALER, xAxER in CARER, and xxxxR in RUFFR.
I want Perl to find this word for me in an arbitrary list of words with the same length and case. Seems I've hit the wall here, so help is much appreciated!
What I've tried until now
Don't really have much of a script at the moment:
use strict;
use warnings;
my #wordlist = qw(BAKER SALER MALER BARER RUFFR);
foreach my $word (#wordlist) {
my #letters = split(//, $word);
# now trip trough each iteration and work magic...
}
Where the comment is, I've tried several kinds of code, heavy with for-loops and ++ varables. Thus far, none of my attempts have done what I need it to do.
So, to better explain: What I need is to test word for word against the list, for each letterposition, to find the word that has the most letters in common with the others in the list, at that letter's position.
One possible way could be to first check which word(s) has the most in common at letter-position 0, then test letter-position 1, and so on, until you find the word that in sum has the most letters in common with the other words in the list. Then I'd like to print the list like a matrix with scores for each letterposition plus a total score for each word, not unlike what DavidO suggest.
What you'd in effect end up with is a matrix for each words, with the score for each letter position, and the sum total score fore each word in the matrix.
Purpose of the Program
Hehe, I might as well say it: The program is for hacking terminals in the game Fallout 3. :D My thinking is that it's a great way to learn Perl while also having fun gaming.
Here's one of the Fallout 3 terminal hacking tutorials I've used for research: FALLOUT 3: Hacking FAQ v1.2, and I've already made a program to shorten the list of words, like this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# See if one word has equal letters as the other, and how many of them are equal
use strict;
use warnings;
my $checkword = "APPRECIATION"; # the word to be checked
my $match = 4; # equal to the match you got from testing your checkword
my #checkletters = split(//, $checkword); #/
my #wordlist = qw(
PARTNERSHIPS
REPRIMANDING
CIVILIZATION
APPRECIATION
CONVERSATION
CIRCUMSTANCE
PURIFICATION
SECLUSIONIST
CONSTRUCTION
DISAPPEARING
TRANSMISSION
APPREHENSIVE
ENCOUNTERING
);
print "$checkword has $match letters in common with:\n";
foreach my $word (#wordlist) {
next if $word eq $checkword;
my #letters = split(//, $word);
my $length = #letters; # determine length of array (how many letters to check)
my $eq_letters = 0; # reset to 0 for every new word to be tested
for (my $i = 0; $i < $length; $i++) {
if ($letters[$i] eq $checkletters[$i]) {
$eq_letters++;
}
}
if ($eq_letters == $match) {
print "$word\n";
}
}
# Now to make a script on to find the best word to check in the first place...
This script will yield CONSTRUCTION and TRANSMISSION as its result, just as in the game FAQ. The trick to the original question, though (and the thing I didn't manage to find out on my own), is how to find the best word to try in the first place, i.e. APPRECIATION.
OK, I've now supplied my own solution based on your help, and consider this thread closed. Many, many thanks to all the contributers. You've helped tremendously, and on the way I've also learned a lot. :D
Here's one way. Having re-read your spec a couple of times I think it's what you're looking for.
It's worth mentioning that it's possible there will be more than one word with an equal top score. From your list there's only one winner, but it's possible that in longer lists, there will be several equally winning words. This solution deals with that. Also, as I understand it, you count letter matches only if they occur in the same column per word. If that's the case, here's a working solution:
use 5.012;
use strict;
use warnings;
use List::Util 'max';
my #words = qw/
BAKER
SALER
BALER
CARER
RUFFR
/;
my #scores;
foreach my $word ( #words ) {
my $score;
foreach my $comp_word ( #words ) {
next if $comp_word eq $word;
foreach my $pos ( 0 .. ( length $word ) - 1 ) {
$score++ if substr( $word, $pos, 1 ) eq substr( $comp_word, $pos, 1);
}
}
push #scores, $score;
}
my $max = max( #scores );
my ( #max_ixs ) = grep { $scores[$_] == $max } 0 .. $#scores;
say "Words with most matches:";
say for #words[#max_ixs];
This solution counts how many times per letter column each word's letters match other words. So for example:
Words: Scores: Because:
ABC 1, 2, 1 = 4 A matched once, B matched twice, C matched once.
ABD 1, 2, 1 = 4 A matched once, B matched twice, D matched once.
CBD 0, 2, 1 = 3 C never matched, B matched twice, D matched once.
BAC 0, 0, 1 = 1 B never matched, A never matched, C matched once.
That gives you the winners of ABC and ABD, each with a score of four positional matches. Ie, the cumulative times that column one, row one matched column one row two, three, and four, and so on for the subsequent columns.
It may be able to be optimized further, and re-worded to be shorter, but I tried to keep the logic fairly easy to read. Enjoy!
UPDATE / EDIT
I thought about it and realized that though my existing method does exactly what your original question requested, it did it in O(n^2) time, which is comparatively slow. But if we use hash keys for each column's letters (one letter per key), and do a count of how many times each letter appears in the column (as the value of the hash element), we could do our summations in O(1) time, and our traversal of the list in O(n*c) time (where c is the number of columns, and n is the number of words). There's some setup time too (creation of the hash). But we still have a big improvement. Here is a new version of each technique, as well as a benchmark comparison of each.
use strict;
use warnings;
use List::Util qw/ max sum /;
use Benchmark qw/ cmpthese /;
my #words = qw/
PARTNERSHIPS
REPRIMANDING
CIVILIZATION
APPRECIATION
CONVERSATION
CIRCUMSTANCE
PURIFICATION
SECLUSIONIST
CONSTRUCTION
DISAPPEARING
TRANSMISSION
APPREHENSIVE
ENCOUNTERING
/;
# Just a test run for each solution.
my( $top, $indexes_ref );
($top, $indexes_ref ) = find_top_matches_force( \#words );
print "Testing force method: $top matches.\n";
print "#words[#$indexes_ref]\n";
( $top, $indexes_ref ) = find_top_matches_hash( \#words );
print "Testing hash method: $top matches.\n";
print "#words[#$indexes_ref]\n";
my $count = 20000;
cmpthese( $count, {
'Hash' => sub{ find_top_matches_hash( \#words ); },
'Force' => sub{ find_top_matches_force( \#words ); },
} );
sub find_top_matches_hash {
my $words = shift;
my #scores;
my $columns;
my $max_col = max( map { length $_ } #{$words} ) - 1;
foreach my $col_idx ( 0 .. $max_col ) {
$columns->[$col_idx]{ substr $_, $col_idx, 1 }++
for #{$words};
}
foreach my $word ( #{$words} ) {
my $score = sum(
map{
$columns->[$_]{ substr $word, $_, 1 } - 1
} 0 .. $max_col
);
push #scores, $score;
}
my $max = max( #scores );
my ( #max_ixs ) = grep { $scores[$_] == $max } 0 .. $#scores;
return( $max, \#max_ixs );
}
sub find_top_matches_force {
my $words = shift;
my #scores;
foreach my $word ( #{$words} ) {
my $score;
foreach my $comp_word ( #{$words} ) {
next if $comp_word eq $word;
foreach my $pos ( 0 .. ( length $word ) - 1 ) {
$score++ if
substr( $word, $pos, 1 ) eq substr( $comp_word, $pos, 1);
}
}
push #scores, $score;
}
my $max = max( #scores );
my ( #max_ixs ) = grep { $scores[$_] == $max } 0 .. $#scores;
return( $max, \#max_ixs );
}
The output is:
Testing force method: 39 matches.
APPRECIATION
Testing hash method: 39 matches.
APPRECIATION
Rate Force Hash
Force 2358/s -- -74%
Hash 9132/s 287% --
I realize your original spec changed after you saw some of the other options provided, and that's sort of the nature of innovation to a degree, but the puzzle was still alive in my mind. As you can see, my hash method is 287% faster than the original method. More fun in less time!
As a starting point, you can efficiently check how many letters they have in common with:
$count = ($word1 ^ $word2) =~ y/\0//;
But that's only useful if you loop through all possible pairs of words, something that isn't necessary in this case:
use strict;
use warnings;
my #words = qw/
BAKER
SALER
BALER
CARER
RUFFR
/;
# you want a hash to indicate which letters are present how many times in each position:
my %count;
for my $word (#words) {
my #letters = split //, $word;
$count{$_}{ $letters[$_] }++ for 0..$#letters;
}
# then for any given word, you get the count for each of its letters minus one (because the word itself is included in the count), and see if it is a maximum (so far) for any position or for the total:
my %max_common_letters_count;
my %max_common_letters_words;
for my $word (#words) {
my #letters = split //, $word;
my $total;
for my $position (0..$#letters, 'total') {
my $count;
if ( $position eq 'total' ) {
$count = $total;
}
else {
$count = $count{$position}{ $letters[$position] } - 1;
$total += $count;
}
if ( ! $max_common_letters_count{$position} || $count >= $max_common_letters_count{$position} ) {
if ( $max_common_letters_count{$position} && $count == $max_common_letters_count{$position} ) {
push #{ $max_common_letters_words{$position} }, $word;
}
else {
$max_common_letters_count{$position} = $count;
$max_common_letters_words{$position} = [ $word ];
}
}
}
}
# then show the maximum words for each position and in total:
for my $position ( sort { $a <=> $b } grep $_ ne 'total', keys %max_common_letters_count ) {
printf( "Position %s had a maximum of common letters of %s in words: %s\n",
$position,
$max_common_letters_count{$position},
join(', ', #{ $max_common_letters_words{$position} })
);
}
printf( "The maximum total common letters was %s in words(s): %s\n",
$max_common_letters_count{'total'},
join(', ', #{ $max_common_letters_words{'total'} })
);
Here's a complete script. It uses the same idea that ysth mentioned (although I had it independently). Use bitwise xor to combine the strings, and then count the number of NULs in the result. As long as your strings are ASCII, that will tell you how many matching letters there were. (That comparison is case sensitive, and I'm not sure what would happen if the strings were UTF-8. Probably nothing good.)
use strict;
use warnings;
use 5.010;
use List::Util qw(max);
sub findMatches
{
my ($words) = #_;
# Compare each word to every other word:
my #matches = (0) x #$words;
for my $i (0 .. $#$words-1) {
for my $j ($i+1 .. $#$words) {
my $m = ($words->[$i] ^ $words->[$j]) =~ tr/\0//;
$matches[$i] += $m;
$matches[$j] += $m;
}
}
# Find how many matches in the best word:
my $max = max(#matches);
# Find the words with that many matches:
my #wanted = grep { $matches[$_] == $max } 0 .. $#matches;
wantarray ? #$words[#wanted] : $words->[$wanted[0]];
} # end findMatches
my #words = qw(
BAKER
SALER
BALER
CARER
RUFFR
);
say for findMatches(\#words);
Haven't touched perl in a while, so pseudo-code it is. This isn't the fastest algorithm, but it will work fine for a small amount of words.
totals = new map #e.g. an object to map :key => :value
for each word a
for each word b
next if a equals b
totals[a] = 0
for i from 1 to a.length
if a[i] == b[i]
totals[a] += 1
end
end
end
end
return totals.sort_by_key.last
Sorry about the lack of perl, but if you code this into perl, it should work like a charm.
A quick note on run-time: this will run in time number_of_words^2 * length_of_words, so on a list of 100 words, each of length 10 characters, this will run in 100,000 cycles, which is adequate for most applications.
Here's a version that relies on transposing the words in order to count the identical characters. I used the words from your original comparison, not the code.
This should work with any length words, and any length list. Output is:
Word score
---- -----
BALER 12
SALER 11
BAKER 11
CARER 10
RUFFR 4
The code:
use warnings;
use strict;
my #w = qw(BAKER SALER BALER CARER RUFFR);
my #tword = t_word(#w);
my #score;
push #score, str_count($_) for #tword;
#score = t_score(#score);
my %total;
for (0 .. $#w) {
$total{$w[$_]} = $score[$_];
}
print "Word\tscore\n";
print "----\t-----\n";
print "$_\t$total{$_}\n" for (sort { $total{$b} <=> $total{$a} } keys %total);
# transpose the words
sub t_word {
my #w = #_;
my #tword;
for my $word (#w) {
my $i = 0;
while ($word =~ s/(.)//) {
$tword[$i++] .= $1;
}
}
return #tword;
}
# turn each character into a count
sub str_count {
my $str = uc(shift);
while ( $str =~ /([A-Z])/ ) {
my $chr = $1;
my $num = () = $str =~ /$chr/g;
$num--;
$str =~ s/$chr/$num /g;
}
return $str;
}
# sum up the character counts
# while reversing the transpose
sub t_score {
my #count = #_;
my #score;
for my $num (#count) {
my $i = 0;
while( $num =~ s/(\d+) //) {
$score[$i++] += $1;
}
}
return #score;
}
Here is my attempt at an answer. This will also allow you to see each individual match if you need it. (ie. BALER matches 4 characters in BAKER). EDIT: It now catches all matches if there is a tie between words (I added "CAKER" to the list to test).
#! usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my #wordlist = qw( BAKER SALER BALER CARER RUFFR CAKER);
my %wordcomparison;
#foreach word, break it into letters, then compare it against all other words
#break all other words into letters and loop through the letters (both words have same amount), adding to the count of matched characters each time there's a match
foreach my $word (#wordlist) {
my #letters = split(//, $word);
foreach my $otherword (#wordlist) {
my $count;
next if $otherword eq $word;
my #otherwordletters = split (//, $otherword);
foreach my $i (0..$#letters) {
$count++ if ( $letters[$i] eq $otherwordletters[$i] );
}
$wordcomparison{"$word"}{"$otherword"} = $count;
}
}
# sort (unnecessary) and loop through the keys of the hash (words in your list)
# foreach key, loop through the other words it compares with
#Add a new key: total, and sum up all the matched characters.
foreach my $word (sort keys %wordcomparison) {
foreach ( sort keys %{ $wordcomparison{$word} }) {
$wordcomparison{$word}{total} += $wordcomparison{$word}{$_};
}
}
#Want $word with highest total
my #max_match = (sort { $wordcomparison{$b}{total} <=> $wordcomparison{$a}{total} } keys %wordcomparison );
#This is to get all if there is a tie:
my $maximum = $max_match[0];
foreach (#max_match) {
print "$_\n" if ($wordcomparison{$_}{total} >= $wordcomparison{$maximum}{total} )
}
The output is simply: CAKER BALER and BAKER.
The hash %wordcomparison looks like:
'SALER'
{
'RUFFR' => 1,
'BALER' => 4,
'BAKER' => 3,
'total' => 11,
'CARER' => 3
};
You can do this, using a dirty regex trick to execute code if a letter matches in its place, but not otherwise, thankfully it's quite easy to build the regexes as you go:
An example regular expression is:
(?:(C(?{ $c++ }))|.)(?:(A(?{ $c++ }))|.)(?:(R(?{ $c++ }))|.)(?:(E(?{ $c++ }))|.)(?:(R(?{ $c++ }))|.)
This may or may not be fast.
use 5.12.0;
use warnings;
use re 'eval';
my #words = qw(BAKER SALER BALER CARER RUFFR);
my ($best, $count) = ('', 0);
foreach my $word (#words) {
our $c = 0;
foreach my $candidate (#words) {
next if $word eq $candidate;
my $regex_str = join('', map {"(?:($_(?{ \$c++ }))|.)"} split '', $word);
my $regex = qr/^$regex_str$/;
$candidate =~ $regex or die "did not match!";
}
say "$word $c";
if ($c > $count) {
$best = $word;
$count = $c;
}
}
say "Matching: first best: $best";
Using xor trick will be fast but assumes a lot about the range of characters you might encounter. There are many ways in which utf-8 will break with that case.
Many thanks to all the contributers! You've certainly shown me that I still have a lot to learn, but you have also helped me tremendously in working out my own answer. I'm just putting it here for reference and possible feedback, since there are probably better ways of doing it. To me this was the simplest and most straight forward approach I could find on my own. Enjøy! :)
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
# a list of words for testing
my #list = qw(
BAKER
SALER
BALER
CARER
RUFFR
);
# populate two dimensional array with the list,
# so we can compare each letter with the other letters on the same row more easily
my $list_length = #list;
my #words;
for (my $i = 0; $i < $list_length; $i++) {
my #letters = split(//, $list[$i]);
my $letters_length = #letters;
for (my $j = 0; $j < $letters_length; $j++) {
$words[$i][$j] = $letters[$j];
}
}
# this gives a two-dimensionla array:
#
# #words = ( ["B", "A", "K", "E", "R"],
# ["S", "A", "L", "E", "R"],
# ["B", "A", "L", "E", "R"],
# ["C", "A", "R", "E", "R"],
# ["R", "U", "F", "F", "R"],
# );
# now, on to find the word with most letters in common with the other on the same row
# add up the score for each letter in each word
my $word_length = #words;
my #letter_score;
for my $i (0 .. $#words) {
for my $j (0 .. $#{$words[$i]}) {
for (my $k = 0; $k < $word_length; $k++) {
if ($words[$i][$j] eq $words[$k][$j]) {
$letter_score[$i][$j] += 1;
}
}
# we only want to add in matches outside the one we're testing, therefore
$letter_score[$i][$j] -= 1;
}
}
# sum each score up
my #scores;
for my $i (0 .. $#letter_score ) {
for my $j (0 .. $#{$letter_score[$i]}) {
$scores[$i] += $letter_score[$i][$j];
}
}
# find the highest score
my $max = $scores[0];
foreach my $i (#scores[1 .. $#scores]) {
if ($i > $max) {
$max = $i;
}
}
# and print it all out :D
for my $i (0 .. $#letter_score ) {
print "$list[$i]: $scores[$i]";
if ($scores[$i] == $max) {
print " <- best";
}
print "\n";
}
When run, the script yields the following:
BAKER: 11
SALER: 11
BALER: 12 <- best
CARER: 10
RUFFR: 4
Is there a way to find all possible start positions for a regex match in perl?
For example, if your regex was "aa" and the text was "aaaa", it would return 0, 1, and 2, instead of, say 0 and 2.
Obviously, you could just do something like return the first match, and then delete all characters up to and including that starting character, and perform another search, but I'm hoping for something more efficient.
Use lookahead:
$ perl -le 'print $-[0] while "aaaa" =~ /a(?=a)/g'
In general, put everything except the first character of the regex inside of the (?=...).
Update:
I thought about this one a bit more, and came up with this solution using an embedded code block, which is nearly three times faster than the grep solution:
use 5.010;
use warnings;
use strict;
{my #pos;
my $push_pos = qr/(?{push #pos, $-[0]})/;
sub with_code {
my ($re, $str) = #_;
#pos = ();
$str =~ /(?:$re)$push_pos(?!)/;
#pos
}}
and for comparison:
sub with_grep { # old solution
my ($re, $str) = #_;
grep {pos($str) = $_; $str =~ /\G(?:$re)/} 0 .. length($str) - 1;
}
sub with_while { # per Michael Carman's solution, corrected
my ($re, $str) = #_;
my #pos;
while ($str =~ /\G.*?($re)/) {
push #pos, $-[1];
pos $str = $-[1] + 1
}
#pos
}
sub with_look_ahead { # a fragile "generic" version of Sean's solution
my ($re, $str) = #_;
my ($re_a, $re_b) = split //, $re, 2;
my #pos;
push #pos, $-[0] while $str =~ /$re_a(?=$re_b)/g;
#pos
}
Benchmarked and sanity checked with:
use Benchmark 'cmpthese';
my #arg = qw(aa aaaabbbbbbbaaabbbbbaaa);
my $expect = 7;
for my $sub qw(grep while code look_ahead) {
no strict 'refs';
my #got = &{"with_$sub"}(#arg);
"#got" eq '0 1 2 11 12 19 20' or die "$sub: #got";
}
cmpthese -2 => {
grep => sub {with_grep (#arg) == $expect or die},
while => sub {with_while (#arg) == $expect or die},
code => sub {with_code (#arg) == $expect or die},
ahead => sub {with_look_ahead(#arg) == $expect or die},
};
Which prints:
Rate grep while ahead code
grep 49337/s -- -20% -43% -65%
while 61293/s 24% -- -29% -56%
ahead 86340/s 75% 41% -- -38%
code 139161/s 182% 127% 61% --
I know you asked for a regex, but there is actually a simple builtin function that does something quite similar, the function index (perldoc -f index). From that we can build up a simple solution to your direct question, though if you really need a more complicated search than your example this will not work as it only looks for substrings (after an index given by the third parameter).
#!/usr/bin/env perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $str = 'aaaa';
my $substr = 'aa';
my $pos = -1;
while (1) {
$pos = index($str, $substr, $pos + 1);
last if $pos < 0;
print $pos . "\n";
}
You can use global matching with the pos() function:
my $s1 = "aaaa";
my $s2 = "aa";
while ($s1 =~ /aa/g) {
print pos($s1) - length($s2), "\n";
}
i need to implement a program to count the occurrence of a substring in a string in perl. i have implemented it as follows
sub countnmstr
{
$count =0;
$count++ while $_[0] =~ /$_[1]/g;
return $count;
}
$count = countnmstr("aaa","aa");
print "$count\n";
now this is what i would normally do. however, in the implementation above i want to count occurrence of 'aa' in 'aaa'. here i get answer as 1 which seems reasonable but i need to consider the overlapping cases as well. hence the above case should give an answer as 2 since there are two 'aa's if we consider overlap.
can anyone suggest how to implement such a function??
Everyone is getting pretty complicated in their answers (d'oh! daotoad should have made his comment an answer!), perhaps because they are afraid of the goatse operator. I didn't name it, that's just what people call it. It uses the trick that the result of a list assignment is the number of elements in the righthand list.
The Perl idiom for counting matches is then:
my $count = () = $_[0] =~ /($pattern)/g;
The goatse part is the = () =, which is an empty list in the middle of two assignments. The lefthand part of the goatse gets the count from the righthand side of the goatse. Note the you need a capture in the pattern because that's the list the match operator will return in list context.
Now, the next trick in your case is that you really want a positive lookbehind (or lookahead maybe). The lookarounds don't consume characters, so you don't need to keep track of the position:
my $count = () = 'aaa' =~ /((?<=a)a)/g;
Your aaa is just an example. If you have a variable-width pattern, you have to use a lookahead. Lookbehinds in Perl have to be fixed width.
See ysth's answer ... I failed to realize that the pattern could consist solely of a zero width assertion and still work for this purpose.
You can use positive lookahead as suggested by others, and write the function as:
sub countnmstr {
my ($haystack, $needle) = #_;
my ($first, $rest) = $needle =~ /^(.)(.*)$/;
return scalar (() = $haystack =~ /(\Q$first\E(?=\Q$rest\E))/g);
}
You can also use pos to adjust where the next search picks up from:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict; use warnings;
sub countnmstr {
my ($haystack, $needle) = #_;
my $adj = length($needle) - 1;
die "Search string cannot be empty!" if $adj < 0;
my $count = 0;
while ( $haystack =~ /\Q$needle/g ) {
pos $haystack -= $adj;
$count += 1;
}
return $count;
}
print countnmstr("aaa","aa"), "\n";
Output:
C:\Temp> t
2
sub countnmstr
{
my ($string, $substr) = #_;
return scalar( () = $string =~ /(?=\Q$substr\E)/g );
}
$count = countnmstr("aaa","aa");
print "$count\n";
A few points:
//g in list context matches as many times as possible.
\Q...\E is used to auto-escape any meta characters, so that you are doing a substring count, not a subpattern count.
Using a lookahead (?= ... ) causes each match to not "consume" any of the string, allowing the following match to be attempted at the very next character.
This uses the same feature where a list assignment (in this case, to an empty list) in scalar context returns the count of elements on the right of the list assignment as the goatse/flying-lentil/spread-eagle/whatever operator, but uses scalar() instead of a scalar assignment to provide the scalar context.
$_[0] is not used directly, but instead copied to a lexical; a naive use of $_[0] in place of $string would cause the //g to start partway through the string instead of at the beginning if the passed string had a stored pos().
Update: s///g is faster, though not as fast as using index:
sub countnmstr
{
my ($string, $substr) = #_;
return scalar( $string =~ s/(?=\Q$substr\E)//g );
}
You could use a lookahead assertion in the regular expression:
sub countnmstr {
my #matches = $_[0] =~ /(?=($_[1]))/g;
return scalar #matches;
}
I suspect Sinan's suggestion will be quicker though.
you can try this, no more regex than needed.
$haystack="aaaaabbbcc";
$needle = "aa";
while ( 1 ){
$ind = index($haystack,$needle);
if ( $ind == -1 ) {last};
$haystack = substr($haystack,$ind+1);
$count++;
}
print "Total count: $count\n";
output
$ ./perl.pl
Total count: 4
If speed is an issue, the index approach suggested by ghostdog74 (with cjm's improvement) is likely to be considerably faster than the regex solutions.
use strict;
use warnings;
sub countnmstr_regex {
my ($haystack, $needle) = #_;
return scalar( () = $haystack =~ /(?=\Q$needle\E)/g );
}
sub countnmstr_index {
my ($haystack, $needle) = #_;
my $i = 0;
my $tally = 0;
while (1){
$i = index($haystack, $needle, $i);
last if $i == -1;
$tally ++;
$i ++;
}
return $tally;
}
use Benchmark qw(cmpthese);
my $size = 1;
my $h = 'aaa aaaaaa' x $size;
my $n = 'aa';
cmpthese( -2, {
countnmstr_regex => sub { countnmstr_regex($h, $n) },
countnmstr_index => sub { countnmstr_index($h, $n) },
} );
__END__
# Benchmarks run on Windows.
# Result using a small haystack ($size = 1).
Rate countnmstr_regex countnmstr_index
countnmstr_regex 93701/s -- -66%
countnmstr_index 271893/s 190% --
# Result using a large haystack ($size = 100).
Rate countnmstr_regex countnmstr_index
countnmstr_regex 929/s -- -81%
countnmstr_index 4960/s 434% --
I need an efficient commify filter or routine for use with Template::Toolkit. It is to be used many times on the page. It should support decimals.
This one is found in The Perl Cookbook:
sub commify {
my $text = reverse $_[0];
$text =~ s/(\d\d\d)(?=\d)(?!\d*\.)/$1,/g;
return scalar reverse $text;
}
Are there more efficient ways?
Before you try to optimize anything, be sure its actually a problem. Use a profiler to find the problem areas in your code and focus on those areas.
That commify solution is about as good as you can get, but there are other things you might do if you need to bypass it:
Use something like Memoize to cache results if you are commifying the same numbers repeatedly
Pre-compute all the numbers if they are unlikely to change.
Cache processed templates when you can
Use a reverse proxy setup with your webserver to hand off heavy processing to backend servers.
I think that if you are worried about speed of this - you are seriously misplacing your worries.
The commify function works on my desktop 130000 times per second on number like: "31243245356.4432".
this means that if you have on your page 10000 numbers, commification of it will take 76ms. And template toolkit processing of the page will probably take 2-3 times as long.
Another option is:
sub commify {
my $text = shift;
1 while $text =~ s/ ( \d ) ( \d{3} ) (\D|\z) /$1,$2$3/xms;
return $text;
}
When it comes to deciding which is faster, the Benchmark module is very useful.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Benchmark;
sub your_commify {
my $text = reverse 100000000;
$text =~ s/(\d\d\d)(?=\d)(?!\d*\.)/$1,/g;
return scalar reverse $text;
}
sub my_commify {
my $text = 100000000;
1 while $text =~ s/ ( \d ) ( \d{3} ) (\D|\z) /$1,$2$3/xms;
return $text;
}
timethese(
-10,
{
'yours' => \&your_commify,
'mine' => \&my_commify,
}
);
Runing this gives:
~$ ./benchmark.pl
Benchmark: running mine, yours for at least 10 CPU seconds...
mine: 10 wallclock secs (10.01 usr + 0.01 sys = 10.02 CPU) # 111456.89/s (n=1116798)
yours: 11 wallclock secs (10.04 usr + 0.00 sys = 10.04 CPU) # 250092.33/s (n=2510927)
Looks like yours is ~2.25 times faster! (When using the "at least 10 CPU seconds" mode you have to check the values of "n" used.)
So it looks like you have to keep searching... but remember to use Benchmark!
sub commify {
my $n = $_[0];
my $s = abs($n) != $n;
my $x = index($n, '.');
$x = length($n) if $x == -1;
substr($n, $x, 0, ',') while ($x -= 3) > $s;
return $n;
}
I agree with brian and depesz: from a practical point of view, this function is probably not the place to start if you're trying to improve the performance of your app. That said, it is possible to write a much faster commify function. One way is to avoid regular expressions.
use strict;
use warnings;
use Benchmark qw(cmpthese);
sub commify_regex {
my $text = reverse $_[0];
$text =~ s{(\d\d\d)(?=\d)(?!\d*\.)}{$1,}g;
return scalar reverse $text;
}
sub commify_substr {
my $v = $_[0];
my $len = length $v;
my $dec = index($v, '.');
my $i = 3 + ($dec < 0 ? 0 : $len - $dec);
$len -- unless $v == abs($v);
while ($i < $len ++){
substr($v, -$i, 0, ',');
$i += 4;
}
return $v;
}
my #tests = qw(
1 12 123 1234 12345 123456 1234567
12345678 123456789 1234567890 12345678901
123456789012 1234567890123
);
push #tests, map "$_.$_", #tests;
push #tests, map - $_, #tests;
for my $t (#tests){
print "Incorrect for: ", $t, "\n"
unless commify_substr($t) eq commify_regex($t);
}
cmpthese( -2, {
regex => sub { commify_regex($_) for #tests },
substr => sub { commify_substr($_) for #tests },
});
# Output on my Windows machine.
Rate regex substr
regex 3277/s -- -54%
substr 7109/s 117% --
This can be done using single regexp:
$number =~ s/(?<=\d)(?=(?:\d\d\d)+(?!\d))/,/g;