How to sort an array in descending order in Ruby
It's always enlightening to do a benchmark on the various suggested answers. Here's what I found out:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
require 'benchmark'
ary = []
1000.times {
ary << {:bar => rand(1000)}
}
n = 500
Benchmark.bm(20) do |x|
x.report("sort") { n.times { ary.sort{ |a,b| b[:bar] <=> a[:bar] } } }
x.report("sort reverse") { n.times { ary.sort{ |a,b| a[:bar] <=> b[:bar] }.reverse } }
x.report("sort_by -a[:bar]") { n.times { ary.sort_by{ |a| -a[:bar] } } }
x.report("sort_by a[:bar]*-1") { n.times { ary.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar]*-1 } } }
x.report("sort_by.reverse!") { n.times { ary.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar] }.reverse } }
end
user system total real
sort 3.960000 0.010000 3.970000 ( 3.990886)
sort reverse 4.040000 0.000000 4.040000 ( 4.038849)
sort_by -a[:bar] 0.690000 0.000000 0.690000 ( 0.692080)
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.700000 0.000000 0.700000 ( 0.699735)
sort_by.reverse! 0.650000 0.000000 0.650000 ( 0.654447)
I think it's interesting that @Pablo's sort_by{...}.reverse!
is fastest. Before running the test I thought it would be slower than "-a[:bar]
" but negating the value turns out to take longer than it does to reverse the entire array in one pass. It's not much of a difference, but every little speed-up helps.
Please note that these results are different in Ruby 1.9
Here are results for Ruby 1.9.3p194 (2012-04-20 revision 35410) [x86_64-darwin10.8.0]:
user system total real
sort 1.340000 0.010000 1.350000 ( 1.346331)
sort reverse 1.300000 0.000000 1.300000 ( 1.310446)
sort_by -a[:bar] 0.430000 0.000000 0.430000 ( 0.429606)
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.420000 0.000000 0.420000 ( 0.414383)
sort_by.reverse! 0.400000 0.000000 0.400000 ( 0.401275)
These are on an old MacBook Pro. Newer, or faster machines, will have lower values, but the relative differences will remain.
Here's a bit updated version on newer hardware and the 2.1.1 version of Ruby:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
require 'benchmark'
puts "Running Ruby #{RUBY_VERSION}"
ary = []
1000.times {
ary << {:bar => rand(1000)}
}
n = 500
puts "n=#{n}"
Benchmark.bm(20) do |x|
x.report("sort") { n.times { ary.dup.sort{ |a,b| b[:bar] <=> a[:bar] } } }
x.report("sort reverse") { n.times { ary.dup.sort{ |a,b| a[:bar] <=> b[:bar] }.reverse } }
x.report("sort_by -a[:bar]") { n.times { ary.dup.sort_by{ |a| -a[:bar] } } }
x.report("sort_by a[:bar]*-1") { n.times { ary.dup.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar]*-1 } } }
x.report("sort_by.reverse") { n.times { ary.dup.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar] }.reverse } }
x.report("sort_by.reverse!") { n.times { ary.dup.sort_by{ |a| a[:bar] }.reverse! } }
end
# >> Running Ruby 2.1.1
# >> n=500
# >> user system total real
# >> sort 0.670000 0.000000 0.670000 ( 0.667754)
# >> sort reverse 0.650000 0.000000 0.650000 ( 0.655582)
# >> sort_by -a[:bar] 0.260000 0.010000 0.270000 ( 0.255919)
# >> sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.250000 0.000000 0.250000 ( 0.258924)
# >> sort_by.reverse 0.250000 0.000000 0.250000 ( 0.245179)
# >> sort_by.reverse! 0.240000 0.000000 0.240000 ( 0.242340)
New results running the above code using Ruby 2.2.1 on a more recent Macbook Pro. Again, the exact numbers aren't important, it's their relationships:
Running Ruby 2.2.1
n=500
user system total real
sort 0.650000 0.000000 0.650000 ( 0.653191)
sort reverse 0.650000 0.000000 0.650000 ( 0.648761)
sort_by -a[:bar] 0.240000 0.010000 0.250000 ( 0.245193)
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.240000 0.000000 0.240000 ( 0.240541)
sort_by.reverse 0.230000 0.000000 0.230000 ( 0.228571)
sort_by.reverse! 0.230000 0.000000 0.230000 ( 0.230040)
Updated for Ruby 2.7.1 on a Mid-2015 MacBook Pro:
Running Ruby 2.7.1
n=500
user system total real
sort 0.494707 0.003662 0.498369 ( 0.501064)
sort reverse 0.480181 0.005186 0.485367 ( 0.487972)
sort_by -a[:bar] 0.121521 0.003781 0.125302 ( 0.126557)
sort_by a[:bar]*-1 0.115097 0.003931 0.119028 ( 0.122991)
sort_by.reverse 0.110459 0.003414 0.113873 ( 0.114443)
sort_by.reverse! 0.108997 0.001631 0.110628 ( 0.111532)
...the reverse method doesn't actually return a reversed array - it returns an enumerator that just starts at the end and works backwards.
The source for Array#reverse
is:
static VALUE
rb_ary_reverse_m(VALUE ary)
{
long len = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
VALUE dup = rb_ary_new2(len);
if (len > 0) {
const VALUE *p1 = RARRAY_CONST_PTR_TRANSIENT(ary);
VALUE *p2 = (VALUE *)RARRAY_CONST_PTR_TRANSIENT(dup) + len - 1;
do *p2-- = *p1++; while (--len > 0);
}
ARY_SET_LEN(dup, RARRAY_LEN(ary));
return dup;
}
do *p2-- = *p1++; while (--len > 0);
is copying the pointers to the elements in reverse order if I remember my C correctly, so the array is reversed.
Sort an array of string in descending order
I think that the tutorial was just trying to help you understand the <=> (spaceship operator) and how sorting is affected by the order of the variables. books.sort!.reverse is something that you would use more commonly.
Ruby - sort array of objects by attribute in descending order
You missed to make the age a number
@classroom['students'].sort_by { |st| -st['age'].to_i }
I added a -
because you want them in descending order. Otherwise
@classroom['students'].sort_by { |st| st['age'].to_i }.reverse
Sort array of hash by key in descending order in Ruby
You can do
h.sort_by! { |k| -k[:bookings_nd] }
or
h.sort_by! { |k| k[:bookings_nd] }.reverse!
Also i guess this question is duplicate for Sorting an array in descending order in Ruby
Sort ruby array in descending order with nil values and multiple arguments
Try this:
@records = @records.to_a.sort_by do |r| [-r.optimized_all_count, [r.year ? 0 : 1, r.year ? -r.year : nil]] end
why does array.sort{|x,y| y = x} sort the array in descending order in Ruby?
For the same reasons that this:
array.sort{|x,y| x <=> y}
Sorts by ascending order.
Take this program for example:
[1,5,2,4,3].sort do |x,y|
puts "---"
puts x
puts y
puts x <=> y
x <=> y
end
It'll output the two numbers that it's comparing, and then the result of the <=>
during the sort. It outputs this:
---
1
2
-1 # 1 is less than 2
---
2
3
-1 # 2 is less than 3
---
5
2
1 # 5 is greater than 1
---
4
2
1 # 4 is greater than 2
---
5
4
1 # 5 is greater than 4
---
4
3
1 # 4 is greater than 3
If you reverse the order of x <=> y
to be y <=> x
, you're going to get the opposite result.
Sorting both ascending and descending based on keys in array of hashes
Instead of negating the value via -
, you could also use sort
with two arrays and switch the elements as needed.
To sort ascending / ascending you'd use: (see Array#<=>
)
ary.sort { |a, b| [a[:count], a[:char]] <=> [b[:count], b[:char]] }
to sort descending / ascending, you switch the first elements:
ary.sort { |a, b| [b[:count], a[:char]] <=> [a[:count], b[:char]] }
# ^ ^
# | |
# +-------------------------+
to sort ascending / descending, you switch the second elements: (you get the idea)
ary.sort { |a, b| [a[:count], b[:char]] <=> [b[:count], a[:char]] }
# ^ ^
# | |
# +-------------------------+
Related Topics
How to Use the Conditional Operator (? :) in Ruby
How to Sum Array of Numbers in Ruby
Redirect_To Using Post in Rails
Difference Between Collection Route and Member Route in Ruby on Rails
Difference Between Various Variables Scopes in Ruby
Why Isn't the Eigenclass Equivalent to Self.Class, When It Looks So Similar
How to Check Whether a String Contains a Substring in Ruby
How to Keep the Delimiters When Splitting a Ruby String
How to Understand Nil Vs. Empty Vs. Blank in Ruby
How to Parse Json With Ruby on Rails
Begin, Rescue and Ensure in Ruby
Is There a "Do ... While" Loop in Ruby
How to Determine If One Array Contains All Elements of Another Array
Error Installing Libv8: Error: Failed to Build Gem Native Extension