I am trying to compare two arrays to ensure that the corresponding values of one is always greater than the other.
a = [2, 3, 4]
b = [1, 2, 3]
# a[0] > b[0] ... a[x] > b[x]
At this point I am thinking of using inject
with an index and return if the comparison fails, like:
b.each_with_index.inject(true) do |cmp, (element,index)|
if element > a[index] do
cmp = false
return
end
end
Is there a better way of doing this? Kinda feeling like Ruby or Rails might already have something like this built-in and I missed it.
This is what I would do:
a.zip(b).all? { |a, b| a > b }
Note though that zip
will truncate in case the two arrays are not of the same size.
If it's safe to assume both arrays are of the same size, here's a method that'll keep memory usage and running time to a minimum:
(0...a.length).all?{ |i| a[i] > b[i] }
#=> true
while also being extendable to an arbitrary number of arrays:
(0...a.length).all?{ |i| a[i] > [b[i], c[i], d[i]].max }
To illustrate the relative resource-intensity of the zip
versus the range
approach, take arrays a
and b
, each with length n = 5_000
.
Here's the best case, where a[0] < b[0]
is false
:
user system total real
zip: 0.350000 0.000000 0.350000 ( 0.351115)
range: 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 ( 0.000509)
and the worst, where only a[n-1] > b[n-1]
is false
:
user system total real
zip: 0.760000 0.000000 0.760000 ( 0.752424)
range: 0.420000 0.000000 0.420000 ( 0.421132)
[Here's the benchmark script]
zip
creates a new array out of the two (or more) you pass into it, which gets expensive for large n
.
That said, the zip
approach is easier to read and more idiomatic Ruby, so if scaling isn't a concern I would use that one.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With