Is there is a way to reduce the length of a string
using String encoding algorithm.
Unfortunately "Huffman coding" is not a solution for my case. I am searching for a coding algorithm which takes a string and generate a string which is shorter than the original string(input).
There is no way to shorten an arbitrary string, just as there is no general compression method that works in all cases. So what you need to do is pick a compression method that apples to your expected inputs and use that. Then you just need to convert the results back to a string.
In case you were merely wondering how to convert the results back to a string, there are again any number of ways. Base64 is easy and works well enough. However, it has a 25% overhead compared to a pure binary encoded string.
Hopefully this answers your intended question. There is a library, smaz which compresses short English strings efficiently. Perhaps luckily for you, it actually encodes the string. If your strings aren't English, the general method used by smaz (a static dictionary) can be used with other compressors.
See "English Text compression test". In the article you will find almost all possible algorithms to compress an english text. May be some of them could satisfy your requirements.
Related
I have a string like this
ODQ1OTc3MzY0MDcyNDk3MTUy.YKoz0Q.wlST3vVZ3IN8nTtVX1tz8Vvq5O8
The first part of the string is a random 18 digit number in base64 format and the second is a unix timestamp in base64 too, while the last is an hmac.
I want to make a model to recognize a string like this.
How may i do it?
While I did not necessarily think deeply about it, this would be what comes to my mind first.
You certainly don't need machine learning for this. In fact, machine learning would not only be inefficient for problems like this but may even be worse, depending on a given approach.
Here, an exact solution can be achieved, simply by understanding the problem.
One way people often go about matching strings with a certain structure is with so called regular expressions or RegExp.
Regular expressions allow you to match string patterns of varying complexity.
To give a simple example in Python:
import re
your_string = "ODQ1OTc3MzY0MDcyNDk3MTUy.YKoz0Q.wlST3vVZ3IN8nTtVX1tz8Vvq5O8"
regexp_pattern = r"(.+)\.(.+)\.(.+)"
re.findall(regexp_pattern, your_string)
>>> [('ODQ1OTc3MzY0MDcyNDk3MTUy', 'YKoz0Q', 'wlST3vVZ3IN8nTtVX1tz8Vvq5O8')]
Now one problem with this is how do you know where your string starts and stops. Most of the times there are certain anchors, especially in strings that were created programmatically. For instance, if we knew that prior to each string you wanted to match there is the word Token: , you could include that in your RegExp pattern r"Token: (.+)\.(.+)\.(.+)".
Other ways to avoid mismatches would be to clearer define the pattern requirements. Right now we simply match a pattern with any amount of characters and two . separating them into three sequences.
If you would know which implementation of base64 you were using, you could limit the alphabet of potential characters from . (thus any) to the alphabet used in your base64 implementation [abcdefgh1234]. In this example it would be abcdefgh1234, so the pattern could be refined like this r"([abcdefgh1234]+).([abcdefgh1234]+).(.+)"`.
The same applies to the HMAC code.
Furthermore, you could specify the allowed length of each substring.
For instance, you said you have 18 random digits. This would likely mean each is encoded as 1 byte, which would translate to 18*8 = 144 bits, which in base64, would translate to 24 tokens (where each encodes a sextet, thus 6 bits of information). The same could be done with the timestamp, assuming a 32 bit timestamp, this would likely necessitate 6 base64 tokens (representing 36 bits, 36 because you could not divide 32 into sextets).
With this information, you could further refine the pattern
r"([abcdefgh1234]{24})\.([abcdefgh1234]{6})\.(.+)"`
In addition, the same could be applied to the HMAC code.
I leave it to you to read a bit about RegExp but I'd guess it is the easiest solution and certainly more appropriate than any kind of machine learning.
Of course there are handy library functions for all kind of languages to sort strings out. However I am interested in to know the low level details of string sorting. Mt naive belief is to use ASCII values of strings to convert the problem into numerical sorting. However, if the string word are larger than a single character then the thing is little complicated for me. What is the state of art sorting approach for multi-character sorting ?
Strings are typically just sorted with a comparison-based sorting algorithm, such as quick-sort or merge-sort (I know of a few libraries that does this, and I'd assume most would, although there can certainly be exceptions).
But you could indeed convert your string to a numeric value and use a distribution sort, such as counting-, bucket- or radix-sort, instead.
But there's no silver bullet here - the best solution will largely depend on the scenario - it's really just something you have to benchmark with the sorting implementations you're using, on the system you're working, with your typical data.
Naive sorting of ASCII strings is naive because it basically treats the strings as numbers written in base-128 or base-256. Dictionaries are meant for human usage and sort strings according to more complex criteria.
A pretty elaborate example is the 'Unicode Technical Standard #10' - Unicode Collation Algorithm.
I am just starting out with Haskell and Yesod so please forgive if I am missing something obvious.
I am noticing that fileContentType in Yesod.Request.FileInfo is a Text even though Yesod.Content has an explicit ContentType. I'm wondering, why is it not a ContentType instead and what is the cleanest conversion?
Thanks in advance!
This comes down to a larger issue. A lot of the HTTP spec is stated in terms of ASCII. The question is, how do we represent it. There are essentially three choices:
Create a special newtype Ascii around a ByteString. This is the most correct, but also very tedious since it involves a lot of wrapping/unwrapping. We tried this approach, and got a lot of negative feedback.
Use normal ByteStrings. This is efficient, and mostly correct, but allows people to enter non-ASCII binary data.
Use Text (or String). This is the most developer-friendly, but allows you to enter non-ASCII character data. It's a bit less efficient than (1) or (2) due to the encoding/decoding overhead.
Overall, we've been moving towards (3) for most operations, especially for things like sessions keys which are internal to Yesod. You could say that ContentType is an inconsistency and should be changed to Text, but I think it doesn't seem to bother anyone, is a bit more semantic, and a bit faster.
tl;dr: No good reason :)
You have confused the type of Content with the type of ContentType. The fileContent field of FileInfo should be ContentType - and it is, modulo the type alias - the type of fileContentType is Text which would be ContentTypeType. It might help to imaging the last world as a prefixing adjective, so ContentType == the type of Content.
I'm currently teaching myself Haskell, and I'm wondering what the best practices are when working with strings in Haskell.
The default string implementation in Haskell is a list of Char. This is inefficient for file input-output, according to Real World Haskell, since each character is separately allocated (I assume that this means that a String is basically a linked list in Haskell, but I'm not sure.)
But if the default string implementation is inefficient for file i/o, is it also inefficient for working with Strings in memory? Why or why not? C uses an array of char to represent a String, and I assumed that this would be the default way of doing things in most languages.
As I see it, the list implementation of String will take up more memory, since each character will require overhead, and also more time to iterate over, because a pointer dereferencing will be required to get to the next char. But I've liked playing with Haskell so far, so I want to believe that the default implementation is efficient.
Apart from String/ByteString there is now the Text library which combines the best of both worlds—it works with Unicode while being ByteString-based internally, so you get fast, correct strings.
Best practices for working with strings performantly in Haskell are basically: Use Data.ByteString/Data.ByteString.Lazy.
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/bytestring/latest/doc/html/
As far as the efficiency of the default string implementation goes in Haskell, it's not. Each Char represents a Unicode codepoint which means it needs at least 21bits per Char.
Since a String is just [Char], that is a linked list of Char, it means Strings have poor locality of reference, and again means that Strings are fairly large in memory, at a minimum it's N * (21bits + Mbits) where N is the length of the string and M is the size of a pointer (32, 64, what have you) and unlike many other places where Haskell uses lists where other languages might use different structures (I'm thinking specifically of control flow here), Strings are much less likely to be able to be optimized to loops, etc. by the compiler.
And while a Char corresponds to a codepoint, the Haskell 98 report doesn't specify anything about the encoding used when doing file IO, not even a default much less a way to change it. In practice GHC provides an extensions to do e.g. binary IO, but you're going off the reservation at that point anyway.
Even with operations like prepending to front of the string it's unlikely that a String will beat a ByteString in practice.
The answer is a bit more complex than just "use lazy bytestrings".
Byte strings only store 8 bits per value, whereas String holds real Unicode characters. So if you want to work with Unicode then you have to convert to and from UTF-8 or UTF-16 all the time, which is more expensive than just using strings. Don't make the mistake of assuming that your program will only need ASCII. Unless its just throwaway code then one day someone will need to put in a Euro symbol (U+20AC) or accented characters, and your nice fast bytestring implementation will be irretrievably broken.
Byte strings make some things, like prepending to the start of a string, more expensive.
That said, if you need performance and you can represent your data purely in bytestrings, then do so.
The basic answer given, use ByteString, is correct. That said, all of the three answers before mine have inaccuracies.
Regarding UTF-8: whether this will be an issue or not depends entirely on what sort of processing you do with your strings. If you're simply treating them as single chunks of data (which includes operations such as concatenation, though not splitting), or doing certain limited byte-based operations (e.g., finding the length of the string in bytes, rather than the length in characters), you won't have any issues. If you are using I18N, there are enough other issues that simply using String rather than ByteString will start to fix only a very few of the problems you'll encounter.
Prepending single bytes to the front of a ByteString is probably more expensive than doing the same for a String. However, if you're doing a lot of this, it's probably possible to find ways of dealing with your particular problem that are cheaper.
But the end result would be, for the poster of the original question: yes, Strings are inefficient in Haskell, though rather handy. If you're worried about efficiency, use ByteStrings, and view them as either arrays of Char8 or Word8, depending on your purpose (ASCII/ISO-8859-1 vs Unicode of some sort, or just arbitrary binary data). Generally, use Lazy ByteStrings (where prepending to the start of a string is actually a very fast operation) unless you know why you want non-lazy ones (which is usually wrapped up in an appreciation of the performance aspects of lazy evaluation).
For what it's worth, I am building an automated trading system entirely in Haskell, and one of the things we need to do is very quickly parse a market data feed we receive over a network connection. I can handle reading and parsing 300 messages per second with a negligable amount of CPU; as far as handling this data goes, GHC-compiled Haskell performs close enough to C that it's nowhere near entering my list of notable issues.
A few days ago, I asked why its not possible to store binary data, such as a jpg file into a string variable.
Most of the answers I got said that string is used for textual information such as what I'm writing now.
What is considered textual data though? Bytes of a certain nature represent a jpg file and those bytes could be represented by character byte values...I think. So when we say strings are for textual information, is there some sort of range or list of characters that aren't stored?
Sorry if the question sounds silly. Just trying to 'get it'
I see three major problems with storing binary data in strings:
Most systems assume a certain encoding within string variables - e.g. if it's a UTF-8, UTF-16 or ASCII string. New line characters may also be translated depending on your system.
You should watch out for restrictions on the size of strings.
If you use C style strings, every null character in your data will terminate the string and any string operations performed will only work on the bytes up to the first null.
Perhaps the most important: it's confusing - other developers don't expect to find random binary data in string variables. And a lot of code which works on strings might also get really confused when encountering binary data :)
I would prefer to store binary data as binary, you would only think of converting it to text when there's no other choice since when you convert it to a textual representation it does waste some bytes (not much, but it still counts), that's how they put attachments in email.
Base64 is a good textual representation of binary files.
I think you are referring to binary to text encoding issue. (translate a jpg into a string would require that sort of pre-processing)
Indeed, in that article, some characters are mentioned as not always supported, other can be confusing:
Some systems have a more limited character set they can handle; not only are they not 8-bit clean, some can't even handle every printable ASCII character.
Others have limits on the number of characters that may appear between line breaks.
Still others add headers or trailers to the text.
And a few poorly-regarded but still-used protocols use in-band signaling, causing confusion if specific patterns appear in the message. The best-known is the string "From " (including trailing space) at the beginning of a line used to separate mail messages in the mbox file format.
Whoever told you you can't put 'binary' data into a string was wrong. A string simply represents an array of bytes that you most likely plan on using for textual data... but there is nothing stopping you from putting any data in there you want.
I do have to be careful though, because I don't know what language you are using... and in some languages \0 ends the string.
In C#, you can put any data into a string... example:
byte[] myJpegByteArray = GetBytesFromSomeImage();
string myString = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(myJpegByteArray);
Before internationalization, it didn't make much difference. ASCII characters are all bytes, so strings, character arrays and byte arrays ended up having the same implementation.
These days, though, strings are a lot more complicated, in order to deal with thousands of foreign language characters and the linguistic rules that go with them.
Sure, if you look deep enough, everything is just bits and bytes, but there's a world of difference in how the computer interprets them. The rules for "text" make things look right when it's displayed to a human, but the computer is free to monkey with the internal representation. For example,
In Unicode, there are many encoding systems. Changing between them makes every byte different.
Some languages have multiple characters that are linguistically equivalent. These could switch back and forth when you least expect it.
There are different ways to end a line of text. Unintended translations between CRLF and LF will break a binary file.
Deep down everything is just bytes.
Things like strings and pictures are defined by rules about how to order bytes.
strings for example end in a byte with value 32 (or something else)
jpg's don't
Depends on the language. For example in Python string types (str) are really byte arrays, so they can indeed be used for binary data.
In C the NULL byte is used for string termination, so a sting cannot be used for arbitrary binary data, since binary data could contain null bytes.
In C# a string is an array of chars, and since a char is basically an alias for 16bit int, you can probably get away with storing arbitrary binary data in a string. You might get errors when you try to display the string (because some values might not actually correspond to a legal unicode character), and some operations like case conversions will probably fail in strange ways.
In short it might be possible in some langauges to store arbitrary binary data in strings, but they are not designed for this use, and you may run into all kinds of unforseen trouble. Most languages have a byte-array type for storing arbitrary binary data.
I agree with Jacobus' answer:
In the end all data structures are made up of bytes. (Well, if you go even deeper: of bits). With some abstraction, you could say that a string or a byte array are conventions for programmers, on how to access them.
In this regard, the string is an abstraction for data interpreted as a text. Text was invented for communication among humans, computers or programs do not communicate very well using text. SQL is textual, but is an interface for humans to tell a database what to do.
So in general, textual data, and therefore strings, are primarily for human to human, or human to machine interaction (say for the content of a message box). Using them for something else (e.g. reading or writing binary image data) is possible, but carries lots of risk bacause you are using the data type for something it was not designed to handle. This makes it much more error prone. You may be able to store binary data in strings, mbut just because you are able to shoot yourself in the foot, you should avoid doing so.
Summary: You can do it. But you better don't.
Your original question (c# - What is string really good for?) made very little sense. So the answers didn't make sense, either.
Your original question said "For some reason though, when I write this string out to a file, it doesn't open." Which doesn't really mean much.
Your original question was incomplete, and the answers were misleading and confusing. You CAN store anything in a String. Period. The "strings are for text" answers were there because you didn't provide enough information in your question to determine what's going wrong with your particular bit of C# code.
You didn't provide a code snippet or an error message. That's why it's hard to 'get it' -- you're not providing enough details for us to know what you don't get.