Hi !
Given the following sample items :
ID | First name | Age |
---|---|---|
xvZwiCpi |
Naomi | 42 |
Nzd9UsGT |
Naomi | 24 |
QiDXP2wA |
Thea | 53 |
JpYeAY7H |
Jeremy | 35 |
I can store these in an array :
const data = [
{ id: 'xvZwiCpi', firstName: 'Frederic', age: 42 },
{ id: 'Nzd9UsGT', firstName: 'Naomi', age: 24 },
{ id: 'QiDXP2wA', firstName: 'Thea', age: 53 },
{ id: 'JpYeAY7H', firstName: 'Mathew', age: 35 }
];
Thus access them the same way by ID :
console.log(data.find(item => item.id === 'xvZwiCpi'));
And by properties :
console.log(data.find(item => item.firstName === 'Frederic').id);
Or I can store these in an object :
const data = {
'xvZwiCpi': { firstName: 'Frederic', age: 42 },
'Nzd9UsGT': { firstName: 'Naomi', age: 24 },
'QiDXP2wA': { firstName: 'Thea', age: 53 },
'JpYeAY7H': { firstName: 'Mathew', age: 35 }
};
Thus more easily access properties by ID :
console.log(data['xvZwiCpi'].firstName);
But more hardly access ID by properties :
console.log(Object.entries(data).find(([id, item]) => item.firstName = 'Frederic')[0]);
I could duplicate IDs :
const data = {
'xvZwiCpi': { id: 'xvZwiCpi', firstName: 'Frederic', age: 42 },
'Nzd9UsGT': { id: 'Nzd9UsGT', firstName: 'Naomi', age: 24 },
'QiDXP2wA': { id: 'QiDXP2wA', firstName: 'Thea', age: 53 },
'JpYeAY7H': { id: 'JpYeAY7H', firstName: 'Mathew', age: 35 }
};
To slightly simplify that previous line :
console.log(Object.values(data).find(item => item.firstName = 'Frederic').id);
But what if a single variable type could allow doing both operations easily ?
console.log(data['xvZwiCpi'].firstName);
console.log(data.find(item => item.firstName === 'Frederic').id);
Does that exist ?
If not, I’m thinking about implementing it that way :
const data = new Proxy([
{ id: 'xvZwiCpi', firstName: 'Frederic', age: 42 },
{ id: 'Nzd9UsGT', firstName: 'Naomi', age: 24 },
{ id: 'QiDXP2wA', firstName: 'Thea', age: 53 },
{ id: 'JpYeAY7H', firstName: 'Mathew', age: 35 }
], {
get: (array, property) =>
array[property]
||
array.find(item => item.id === property)
});
In which case I’d put it in a lib, but how would this be named ?
I’d also make a second implementation that would enforce ID uniqueness and use Map
to map IDs with indexes instead of running find
: while the first implementation would be fine for static data, the second one would be more suitable for dynamic data.
Would this make sense ?
Thanks
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
Seems like a great idea.
I often find myself using objects when I’m building data (like a horrible CSV processor). It’s easy to pull in a row of data, and potentially modify existing data (yeh, really horrible CSV).
But when it gets to processing the data (transformers and database), I prefer arrays.
A lot of it comes back to typescript, where Object.keys().forEach means the key isn’t necessarily usable to access the item in the object (the whole, a key becomes a string, but an object can be keyed by string/number/symbol). .
So, whatever you come up with HAS to have first class Typescript support.
I’m not a TypeScript person, sorry. 😅
Fair enough, I can understand that.
I used to enjoy the flexibility that JS provides. And IDEs do a pretty good job of filling the holes!
My last project, I went all in on typescript. And I have caught so many more errors before even compiling.
It’s like having tests. It gives a hell of a lot more confidence.
Some days I miss just slinging objects around, and just coercing types tho (without explicitly casting/converting… Object keys being a big one!)
Exactly.
I can understand that too. Although, IDEs also catch a lot of type-related errors in vanilla JS.
If you’re not married to functional code, for searching a keyed object by property for the key, you can always write:
No need to transform the whole object with Object.entries, and you could turn that into a function reasonably easy, something like
findKey(object, property, value)
or some such.True, but less convenient than using an array in the first place.
Shouldnt you be asking this on StackOverflow? I am here to read programming news…
If you have IDs I’d use a Map.
My goal is to be able to both easily get an item by ID (using
data[id]
) and easily get an item by properties (usingdata.find()
).Meanwhile, just like
Object
requiresObject.values(object)
before callingfind
,Map
requires[...map.values()]
, and it also have the additional inconvenient of requiring a call tomap.get
to get an item by ID, so no, it’s even worse for my goal, but thanks.Have you considered storing as a Map instead?
MDN Map docs
Yes but no thanks, cf. my reply to @Zushii@feddit.de.
I just found two packages that do the same thing as I did :
indexed-array
keyed-array
The last one comes with a blog post explaining the same things I did !
I’m pretty sure I’ve been in your situation but haven’t created a dictionary/array hybrid.
Without any more details about your use case and situation, I can imagine a few pitfalls with your solution:
ArrayLike([ {id: "1" }, { id: "2" } ])[1]
returns{ id: "2" }
, how do you access{ id: "1" }
by ID?That being said, unless you work in an environment where your code should be easily understandable by others, the best way to find out if this is a good idea or not, is to try :)
Me personally, I usually use an
associateBy
function, when I need a values-by-ID structure. Of course this is not as convenient to use as your approach, but it’s good enough for me.Good luck!
That’s a name, thanks !
Actually, my implementation idea relying on
Proxy
don’t have this issue.As for other implementations, they do have this issue, but as they say, hybrid array use cases don’t generally involve the need to stringify, and even when they do, using
Object.defineProperty
with{ enumerable: false }
(or replacing thetoJSON
method) would fix it.Actually, it would still be an
Array
, so no, there shouldn’t be any problems, and yes, those methods definitely work, which is precisely what said I want to achieve.If your IDs are integers then there is no need for an hybrid at all, precisely because all you have to do is put each item at the same position as their ID.
I’ll definitely run benchmarks so that users would be aware of performance losses, if any. But use cases of hybrid arrays are mostly small datasets so it usually shouldn’t be a concern indeed.
If I implement this, it will be as a documented and commented package, so it shouldn’t be that much of a problem.
I think I misunderstood your initial post (and definitely didn’t read it as carefully as I should have 😅).
Do I understand your correctly that your goal is a companion object for your arrays that simplifies access? Not a new data structure that you’d user instead of arrays? If so, most of my points are moot.
If you don’t treat IDs as opaque values, this is true.
I think my point is actually wrong (it was really late when I was writing my initial response). Performance would be O(n), since that’s the worst case scenario.
Anyways, I hope you could take something useful from my answer.
Happy hacking :D
You may have initially misunderstood my idea, but you did help.
And I implemented it in the meantime, as a library named
hybrid-array
(after your suggestion).Not all transformative array methods have been checked yet, no unit testing nor comments have been written yet, no benchmarks have been performed yet, but these will happen.
Thanks.