I've been trying to complete the below task in Python:
http://codeforces.com/problemset/problem/4/C
I created a simple script for it as can be seen below, but it returns a runtime error for the 7th test. I believe this is due to perhaps the code is taking too long, so I require assistance optimising it. I have looked at map and filter commands and tried implementing them, without success.
a=int(input())
entered_usernames=[]
n=0
while n<a:
y=input()
entered_usernames.append(y)
n+=1
valid_usernames=[]
for i in entered_usernames:
if i not in valid_usernames:
valid_usernames.append(i)
print('OK')
else:
count=1
while i+str(count) in valid_usernames:
count+=1
valid_usernames.append(i+str(count))
print(i+str(count))
You can try changing valid_usernames to a set instead of a list.
For a list list_a operation x in list_a takes (on average) linear time.
For a set set_a operation x in set_a takes (on average) constant time.
(source: https://wiki.python.org/moin/TimeComplexity)
This simple change could improve runtime a bit.
What also strikes me as potentially very slow is this fragment:
while i+str(count) in valid_usernames:
count+=1
However, if you want to improve this, you need to think about using a completely different data structure.
Why don't you use a lookup dict with a counter and solve this in O(N) time?
total = int(input()) # get the first input (total usernames)
database = {} # our 'database' / lookup dict
candidates = [input() for _ in range(total)] # pick usernames from the input
for candidate in candidates: # loop through each candidate
if candidate in database: # already used, print with a counter
print(candidate + str(database[candidate]))
database[candidate] += 1 # increase the counter
else: # the candidate doesn't exist in the 'database'...
print("OK")
database[candidate] = 1 # initialize counter for the next time
Why don't you try
valid_usernames.append(i+str(valid_usernames.count(i)))
print(i+str(valid_usernames.count(i))
Related
I wrote a Python3 code to manipulate lists of strings but the code gives Runtime Error for long strings. Here is my code for the problem:
string = "BANANA"
slist= list (string)
mark = list(range(len(slist)))
vowel_substrings = list()
consonants_substrings = list()
#print(mark)
for i in range(len(slist)):
if slist[i]=='A' or slist[i]=='E' or slist[i]=='I' or slist[i]=='O' or mark[i]=='U':
mark[i] = 1
else:
mark[i] = 0
#print(mark)
for j in range(len(slist)):
if mark[j] == 1:
for l in range(j,len(string)):
vowel_substrings.append(string[j:l+1])
#print(string[j:l+1])
else:
for l in range(j,len(string)):
consonants_substrings.append(string[j:l+1])
#print(consonants_substrings)
unique_consonants = list(set(consonants_substrings))
unique_vowels = list(set(vowel_substrings))
##add two lists
all_substrings = consonants_substrings+(vowel_substrings)
#print(all_substrings)
##Find points earned by vowel guy and consonant guy
vowel_guy_score = 0
consonant_guy_score = 0
for strng in unique_vowels:
vowel_guy_score += vowel_substrings.count(strng)
for strng in unique_consonants:
consonant_guy_score += consonants_substrings.count(strng)
#print(vowel_guy_score) #Kevin
#print(consonant_guy_score) #Stuart
if vowel_guy_score > consonant_guy_score:
print("Kevin ",vowel_guy_score)
elif vowel_guy_score < consonant_guy_score:
print("Stuart ",consonant_guy_score)
else:
print("Draw")
gives the right answer. But if you have a long string, shown below, it fails.
NANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANANNANAN
I think initialization or memory allocation might be a problem but I don't know how to allocate memory before even knowing how much memory the code will need. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.
In the middle there, you generate a data structure of size O(nĀ³): for each starting position Ć each ending position Ć length of the substring. That's probably where your memory problems appear (you haven't posted a traceback).
One possible optimisation would be, instead of having a list of substrings and then generating the set, use instead a Counter class. That would let you know how many times each substring appears without storing all the copies:
vowel_substrings = collections.Counter()
consonant_substrings = collections.Counter()
for j in range(len(slist)):
if mark[j] == 1:
for l in range(j,len(string)):
vowel_substrings[string[j:l+1]] += 1
#print(string[j:l+1])
else:
for l in range(j,len(string)):
consonants_substrings[string[j:l+1]] += 1
Even better would be to calculate the scores as you go along, without storing any of the substrings. If I'm reading the code correctly, the substrings aren't actually used for anything ā each letter is effectively scored based on its distance from the end of the string, and the scores are added up. This can be calculated in a single pass through the string, without making any additional copies or keeping track of anything other than the cumulative scores and the length of the string.
I wrote a program that receives name from user checks if it is already taken in database and if it's not prints "OK". If name is taken program must make new name using old name + number. I keep getting "time limit exceed" error but i don't know what's wrong. I am new to programming so do not judge me strictly.
Here is my code:
n = int(input())
names = []
def CheckDB(name):
for i in names:
if i == name:
return(True)
return(False)
def MakeNewName(name, number):
while CheckDB(name+str(number)):
number+=1
newName = name+str(number)
names.append(newName)
return(newName)
def CreateNewUser(name):
if CheckDB(name):
return(MakeNewName(name, 1))
names.append(name)
return("OK")
for i in range (n):
name = input()
print(CreateNewUser(name))
Input looks like this:
100000
hgtyyvplfrlcr
dcvexvhgtyyvplfrlcryws
hmidcvexvhgtyyvplfrlcryw
vexvhgtyyv
idcvexvhgtyyv
vhgt
midcvexvhgtyyvplfrlcry
yv
lfrl
gtyyvplfrlcryw
xvhgtyyvplfrlcryws
yv
midcvexvhgtyyvplfrlcry
hmidcve
vexvhgtyyv
dcvexvhgtyy
midcvexvhgty
id
xvhgtyyvpl
midcvexvhgtyyvplfrlc
idcvexvhgtyyvplfr
idcvexvhgtyyvplfrl
dcvexvhgtyyv
midcv
midcvexvhgt
idcvexvhgtyyvplfrlcr
midcvexvhgtyy
yvplfrlcryw
midcvexv
l
dcvexvhgtyy
dcv
midcvexvhgtyyvplfrlc
vexvhgtyyvplfrlcry
yvpl
hmidcvexvhgtyyvplfr
And so on
p.s. sorry for my bad English
Python has no built-in 'time limit exceeded' error and your code doesn't show any time limit or what is being timed, so it's hard to say exactly what is going on, but note that time taken by naive linear search of a list grows linearly with the length of the list, and you're doing it many times for names already taken. If you instead use a set to store names, you can check if a name is taken using name in names and this will always take a constant amount of time no matter how large your 'database' grows.
Keep in mind this wouldn't matter if you were using an actual database, as the underlying database engine would handle efficiently indexing primary key columns for you.
So I am currently preparing for a competition (Australian Informatics Olympiad) and in the training hub, there is a problem in AIO 2018 intermediate called Castle Cavalry. I finished it:
input = open("cavalryin.txt").read()
output = open("cavalryout.txt", "w")
squad = input.split()
total = squad[0]
squad.remove(squad[0])
squad_sizes = squad.copy()
squad_sizes = list(set(squad))
yn = []
for i in range(len(squad_sizes)):
n = squad.count(squad_sizes[i])
if int(squad_sizes[i]) == 1 and int(n) == int(total):
yn.append(1)
elif int(n) == int(squad_sizes[i]):
yn.append(1)
elif int(n) != int(squad_sizes[i]):
yn.append(2)
ynn = list(set(yn))
if len(ynn) == 1 and int(ynn[0]) == 1:
output.write("YES")
else:
output.write("NO")
output.close()
I submitted this code and I didn't pass because it was too slow, at 1.952secs. The time limit is 1.000 secs. I wasn't sure how I would shorten this, as to me it looks fine. PLEASE keep in mind I am still learning, and I am only an amateur. I started coding only this year, so if the answer is quite obvious, sorry for wasting your time š
.
Thank you for helping me out!
One performance issue is calling int() over and over on the same entity, or on things that are already int:
if int(squad_sizes[i]) == 1 and int(n) == int(total):
elif int(n) == int(squad_sizes[i]):
elif int(n) != int(squad_sizes[i]):
if len(ynn) == 1 and int(ynn[0]) == 1:
But the real problem is your code doesn't work. And making it faster won't change that. Consider the input:
4
2
2
2
2
Your code will output "NO" (with missing newline) despite it being a valid configuration. This is due to your collapsing the squad sizes using set() early in your code. You've thrown away vital information and are only really testing a subset of the data. For comparison, here's my complete rewrite that I believe handles the input correctly:
with open("cavalryin.txt") as input_file:
string = input_file.read()
total, *squad_sizes = map(int, string.split())
success = True
while squad_sizes:
squad_size = squad_sizes.pop()
for _ in range(1, squad_size):
try:
squad_sizes.remove(squad_size) # eliminate n - 1 others like me
except ValueError:
success = False
break
else: # no break
continue
break
with open("cavalryout.txt", "w") as output_file:
print("YES" if success else "NO", file=output_file)
Note that I convert all the input to int early on so I don't have to consider that issue again. I don't know whether this will meet AIO's timing constraints.
I can see some things in there that might be inefficient, but the best way to optimize code is to profile it: run it with a profiler and sample data.
You can easily waste time trying to speed up parts that don't need it without having much effect. Read up on the cProfile module in the standard library to see how to do this and interpret the output. A profiling tutorial is probably too long to reproduce here.
My suggestions, without profiling,
squad.remove(squad[0])
Removing the start of a big list is slow, because the rest of the list has to be copied as it is shifted down. (Removing the end of the list is faster, because lists are typically backed by arrays that are overallocated (more slots than elements) anyway, to make .append()s fast, so it only has to decrease the length and can keep the same array.
It would be better to set this to a dummy value and remove it when you convert it to a set (sets are backed by hash tables, so removals are fast), e.g.
dummy = object()
squad[0] = dummy # len() didn't change. No shifting required.
...
squad_sizes = set(squad)
squad_sizes.remove(dummy) # Fast lookup by hash code.
Since we know these will all be strings, you can just use None instead of a dummy object, but the above technique works even when your list might contain Nones.
squad_sizes = squad.copy()
This line isn't required; it's just doing extra work. The set() already makes a shallow copy.
n = squad.count(squad_sizes[i])
This line might be the real bottleneck. It's effectively a loop inside a loop, so it basically has to scan the whole list for each outer loop. Consider using collections.Counter for this task instead. You generate the count table once outside the loop, and then just look up the numbers for each string.
You can also avoid generating the set altogether if you do this. Just use the Counter object's keys for your set.
Another point unrelated to performance. It's unpythonic to use indexes like [i] when you don't need them. A for loop can get elements from an iterable and assign them to variables in one step:
from collections import Counter
...
count_table = Counter(squad)
for squad_size, n in count_table.items():
...
You can collect all occurences of the preferred number for each knight in a dictionary.
Then test if the number of knights with a given preferred number is divisible by that number.
with open('cavalryin.txt', 'r') as f:
lines = f.readlines()
# convert to int
list_int = [int(a) for a in lines]
#initialise counting dictionary: key: preferred number, item: empty list to collect all knights with preferred number.
collect_dict = {a:[] for a in range(1,1+max(list_int[1:]))}
print(collect_dict)
# loop though list, ignoring first entry.
for a in list_int[1:]:
collect_dict[a].append(a)
# initialise output
out='YES'
for key, item in collect_dict.items():
# check number of items with preference for number is divisilbe
# by that number
if item: # if list has entries:
if (len(item) % key) > 0:
out='NO'
break
with open('cavalryout.txt', 'w') as f:
f.write(out)
I have a web-scraper which I am fairly happy with, except sometimes it misses iterations because it doesn't load the webpage fully (this is the nature of the website I am scraping. In these instances, I wish for my code to try the iteration again. At the moment, the framework of my code looks something like this:
data = []
for i in range(len(links)):
try:
driver.get(link[i])
a = driver.find_elements_by_xpath(#data in here)[0].text
data.append(a)
#this is then written to a csv
except:
print(i)
So at the moment, my code runs and then just lists for me which number instances failed. I then go back and manually input the data.
It would be much nicer for me if instead of doing this, my program attempted the failed instance again, that way I won't have missed data.
Any way I can achieve this?
Thanks
If you want to retry the same link[i] several times, you probably need an additional loop. Exactly what kind of loop depends on some details. If you want to keep trying until you succeed (assuming you can be sure that will eventually happen), then a while True loop would make the most sense. On the other hand, if you want to limit the number of tries, a for loop on a range would be better.
Here's a sketch of an implementation that tries up to three times:
max_tries = 3
data = []
for i, link in enumerate(links): # this is a slightly nicer way to do your main loop
for t in range(max_tries):
try:
driver.get(link)
a = driver.find_elements_by_xpath("#data in here")[0].text
data.append(a)
break # break out of the inner loop if we succeeded
except:
print("failed to load link", i, "retrying..." if t < max_tries-1 else "giving up.")
You could implement an iteration counter and also find out the difference between both lists, after the first try, for your piece of mind :)
data = []
intData = []
counter = 0
maxIterations = 2
def Diff(li1, li2):
return (list(set(li1) - set(li2)))
while counter < maxIterations:
for i in range(len(links)):
try:
if counter < 1:
driver.get(link[i])
a = driver.find_elements_by_xpath(#xpathstring)[0].text
data.append(a)
else:
driver.get(link[i])
a = driver.find_elements_by_xpath(#xpathstring)[0].text
intData.append(a)
counter += 1
except:
print(i)
counter += 1
# Find differences between first iterations and all consecutive ones
print(Diff(intData, data))
I'm creating objects derived from a rather large txt file. My code is working properly but takes a long time to run. This is because the elements I'm looking for in the first place are not ordered and not (necessarily) unique. For example I am looking for a digit-code that might be used twice in the file but could be in the first and the last row. My idea was to check how often a certain code is used...
counter=collections.Counter([l[3] for l in self.body])
...and then loop through the counter. Advance: if a code is only used once you don't have to iterate over the whole file. However You are stuck with a lot of iterations which makes the process really slow.
So my question really is: how can I improve my code? Another idea of course is to oder the data first. But that could take quite long as well.
The crucial part is this method:
def get_pc(self):
counter=collections.Counter([l[3] for l in self.body])
# This returns something like this {'187':'2', '199':'1',...}
pcode = []
#loop through entries of counter
for k,v in counter.iteritems():
i = 0
#find post code in body
for l in self.body:
if i == v:
break
# find fist appearence of key
if l[3] == k:
#first encounter...
if i == 0:
#...so create object
self.pc = CodeCana(k,l[2])
pcode.append(self.pc)
i += 1
# make attributes
self.pc.attr((l[0],l[1]),l[4])
if v <= 1:
break
return pcode
I hope the code explains the problem sufficiently. If not, let me know and I will expand the provided information.
You are looping over body way too many times. Collapse this into one loop, and track the CodeCana items in a dictionary instead:
def get_pc(self):
pcs = dict()
pcode = []
for l in self.body:
pc = pcs.get(l[3])
if pc is None:
pc = pcs[l[3]] = CodeCana(l[3], l[2])
pcode.append(pc)
pc.attr((l[0],l[1]),l[4])
return pcode
Counting all items first then trying to limit looping over body by that many times while still looping over all the different types of items defeats the purpose somewhat...
You may want to consider giving the various indices in l names. You can use tuple unpacking:
for foo, bar, baz, egg, ham in self.body:
pc = pcs.get(egg)
if pc is None:
pc = pcs[egg] = CodeCana(egg, baz)
pcode.append(pc)
pc.attr((foo, bar), ham)
but building body out of a namedtuple-based class would help in code documentation and debugging even more.