Re: Ordering objects using external index

A few examples of the data might have clarified your question. Do you mean something like this?

#! perl -slw
use strict;

my $uids = [ 9, 1, 4, 7, 2, 0, 3, 6, 8, 5 ];
my $msgs = [ qw[ zero one two three four five six seven eight nine ] ]
+;
my @msgsByUid = @$msgs[ @$uids ];

print for @msgsByUid;
__END__
P:\test>junk
nine
one
four
seven
two
zero
three
six
eight
five
[download]

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

Comment on Re: Ordering objects using external index Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Ordering objects using external index by kappa (Chaplain) on Sep 06, 2004 at 21:12 UTC
Aa, kind of. Look: `my $uids = [ 5674, 1, 4 ]; my $msgs = [ $msg1, $msg4, $msg5674 ];` [download] Provided `$msgNN->uid == NN` we'd like to have `[ $msg5674, $msg1, $msg4 ]`.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Ordering objects using external index by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 06, 2004 at 21:36 UTC
That makes it look like your using symbolic references? Ie. Variable names that are (partially) made up from other variable names. eg. `$uid = 5674; ${'msg' . $uid } = ...;` [download] In which case, you should be making that a hash directly: `push @uid, 5674; $msgs{ $uid[ -1 ] } = ...;` [download] then you wouldn't be having the mapping problem later on. Producing your ordered array would then become a simple hash slice: `@ordered = @msgs{ @uid };` [download] It's difficult to know without seeing how the variables and data in your snippets are beiing created. Examine what is said, not who speaks. "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham "Think for yourself!" - Abigail "Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: Ordering objects using external index by kappa (Chaplain) on Sep 07, 2004 at 11:14 UTC
No, of course not, I don't use symbolic references, sorry for confusion. I have an array of messages, not a hash. The operation of converting that array to hash keyed by one of message properties (namely, uid) is exactly what I want to avoid as it is expensive. I like your suggestion, though, of not having that message array in the first place, but I think this is hard to implement. At present the only format of getting those messages is in unordered lists, too bad (there's IMAP on the other end).	[reply]