How-to find Dictionary items by partial key matching?

I am developing an application which operates with items of some sort (assume that each Item is represented by class MyItem). Now i have to add to my app the following functionality: the ability to find item by keyword(s). I have made conclusion to implement internally such functionality by using multi keyed dictionary where value of each dictionary item is MyItem class. when using great C5 collections library this looks like
C5.HashDictionary<C5.HashBag<string>, MyItem>
I can rapidly find item by specifying the exact bag of item's keywords. But the problem is that i don't know how-to find all items in dictionary by specifying non-exact ba of keywords. For example if item's bag of keys is "key1, key2" i want to find it by specifying only "key1". Is this possible?
latsubsAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
gregoryyoungConnect With a Mentor Commented:
I don't think that will work with a HashBag Brandley ... I think he would want to move to an ISortedDictionary

while using a different equality comparer is interesting it will only work if they hash the same.

In general one should be using a hash for exact matches and a tree type structure (such as TreeDictionary in c5 or a skip list) if you want to do partial match searches. The reason for this is that the partial search on a hash table is O(n)

Note the key is the move to the TreeDictionary ....

IEnumerable<T> Filter(Fun<T,bool> predicate) could work great for you but unfortunately it will also be O(n) ... If you aren't searching off of your key this would make ALOT of sense. Since you are going off of your key I am afraid I don't see support in their tree dictionary (although it would be pretty easy to add).


0
 
surajgupthaCommented:
Iterate through all the items in the dictionary and find all keys that contains the partial key using string.Contains() function
0
 
JimBrandleyConnect With a Mentor Commented:
According to the documentation, you can do that by creating your own IEqualityComparer, but you will need to do it carefully.

1. You need to select a wildcard indicator that is a character or string that CANNOT appear in a candidate key.

2. You need to consider that it will stop searching as soon as the first match is found. So, if you have two keys:
"key1, key2"
"key1, key3"

and you search for: "key1*" (assuming the asterisk is your chosen wildcard), it will never locate the item with "key1, key3".

Jim
0
Cloud Class® Course: CompTIA Cloud+

The CompTIA Cloud+ Basic training course will teach you about cloud concepts and models, data storage, networking, and network infrastructure.

 
latsubsAuthor Commented:
now i'm starting to think that it wasn't brigth idea to implement searching using multikeyed dictionary. i'm considering switching to generic List and implementing keyword also as generic string List in MyItem class. then i can easily get needed items by using anonymous delegate:

private class Item
        {
            public Item()
            {
                keys = new System.Collections.Generic.List<string>();
                name = String.Empty;
            }

            public Item(string[] keys, string value) : this()
            {
                this.keys.AddRange(keys);
                this.name = value;
            }

            public System.Collections.Generic.List<string> keys;
            public string name;
        }

private void Test()
        {
            System.Collections.Generic.List<string> keysToSearch = new System.Collections.Generic.List<string>();
            keysToSearch.Add("key1");
            keysToSearch.Add("key3");

            System.Collections.Generic.List<Item> items = new System.Collections.Generic.List<Item>();
            items.Add(new Item(new string[] { "key1", "key2" }, "item1"));
            items.Add(new Item(new string[] { "key1", "key3" }, "item2"));
            items.Add(new Item(new string[] { "key2", "key3" }, "item3"));

            System.Collections.Generic.List<Item> foundItems = items.FindAll(delegate(Item item)
            {
                bool contains = false;

                foreach (string keyToSearch in keysToSearch)
                {
                    contains = item.keys.Contains(keyToSearch);

                    if (!contains)
                    {
                        return false;
                    }
                }

                return contains;
            });

            foreach (Item foundItem in foundItems)
            {
                System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine(foundItem.name);
            }
        }

the next thing to implement would be hashing.
0
 
gregoryyoungCommented:
If your above code is ok for you performance wise (O(n)) then just use IEnumerable<T> Filter(Fun<T,bool> predicate) defined on DictionaryBase in c5 to do the same thing with a predicate
0
 
JimBrandleyCommented:
Thanks Greg.

Jim
0
 
latsubsAuthor Commented:
currently the performance is ok. i have made test with 150k items - searches are made instantly.
but if i need more performance in future what should i do?
0
 
gregoryyoungCommented:
use a custom (or modify their binary tree o support, ah the wonder of open source) ...

When doing a non-kyed or predicate search (i.e. I have no idea) I am forced to do a linear walk (all items in a hash table or all items in a tree) ...

If however my field being searched is in the form XXX* and its my KEY I can use a binary tree to find the root (if any) that partially matches XXX  nodes below this node will match XXX*. I can find this node as a binary search O(log n) and can search nodes below ...

If you want I can go through a partial match seach (or probably write you a method for the sorteddictionary very quickly) but its pretty straight forward to implement ... consider the following tree (in ascii notation)

mom
   dad
         cat
              aardvark
              bob
         dog
   pink
         open
         young


if we search for d*... we visit mom, then left->dad which meets d* ... all d* nodes will be under dad. This is true at any level and with *lots* of nodes can save us alot of time (lots: read millions+ or a slow processor :))

Cheers,

Greg
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.