Say you have a List
of Strings
or whatever, and you want to produce another List
which will contain every possible combination of two strings
from th开发者_JS百科e original list
(concated together), is there any more efficient way to do this other than using a nested for
loop to combine the String with all the others?
Some sample code:
for(String s: bytes) {
for(String a: bytes) {
if(!(bytes.indexOf(a) == bytes.indexOf(s))) {
if(s.concat(a).length() == targetLength) {
String combination = s.concat(a);
validSolutions.add(combination);
}
}
}
}
The time for execution gets pretty bad pretty quickly as the size of the original list
of Strings
grows.
Any more efficient way to do this?
You can avoid checking i != j
condition by setting j = i + 1
. Also, things like bytes.length()
get evaluated at each iteration of both loops - save it into a value and reuse. Calling a.length()
inside the loop asks for a length of the same string multiple times - you can save some runtime on that as well. Here are the updates:
int len = bytes.length();
int aLength;
String a, b;
for(int i=0; i<len; i++) {
a = bytes[i];
aLength = a.length();
for(int j=i; j<len; j++) {
b = bytes[j];
if (b.length() + aLength == targetLength) {
validSolutions.add(b.concat(a));
validSolutions.add(a.concat(b));
}
}
}
Edit: j = i
because you want to consider a combination of a string with itself; Also, you'd need to add a.concat(b)
as well since this combination is never considered in the loop, but is a valid string
You can't get Better than O(N^2), because there are that many combinations. But you could speed up your algorithm a bit (from O(N^3)) by removing the indexOf
calls:
for(int i=0; i<bytes.length(); i++) {
for(int j=0; j<bytes.length(); j++) {
string s = bytes[i];
string a = bytes[j];
if (i != j && s.length() + a.length() == targetLength) {
validSolutions.add(s.concat(a));
}
}
}
In addition to what Jimmy and lynxoid say, the fact that the total length is constrained gives you a further optimization. Sort your strings in order of length, then for each s
you know that you require only the a
s such that a.length() == targetLength - s.length()
.
So as soon as you hit a string longer than that you can break out of the inner loop (since all the rest will be longer), and you can start at the "right" place for example with a lower-bound binary search into the array.
Complexity is still O(n^2), since in the worst case all the strings are the same length, equal to half of totalLength
. Typically though it should go somewhat better than considering all pairs of strings.
精彩评论