Comments on: Vector.sortOn()?

By: jloa

jloa — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:11:42 +0000

well, try it to figure out why ^_^

By: Wil

Wil — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:01:50 +0000

why not just cast the vector as an array:

Array(Vector.).sortOn

By: jloa

jloa — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 16:24:20 +0000

You are welcome
Nice to know that smbd find it useful

By: John Grden

John Grden — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:15:53 +0000

Worked perfectly – easy to implement

Thanks man,

John

By: dendy

dendy — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:12:19 +0000

thanks for interesting post!

By: jloa

jloa — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:36:13 +0000

Well, i do have my own opinion.
To clarify, my opinion is that you always have to be practical, despite being a developer. If you are making a small project (micro web site, banner eg) you do not have to spend days optimizing every bit of your source code to get a 100 miliseconds increase in performance. As that could cause unprofitability of your project, as “every project has its own solution”.
You don’t use Oracle databases for your forum, do you?

In this case you get a nice, clear method which is very handy and lightweight. And it doesn’t claim to be extra-fast. Of course i wouldn’t use this method in a 3d engine for massive vectors sorting etc before checking its performance.

By: maverxkzZ

maverxkzZ — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:17:24 +0000

Not bad article, but I really miss that you didn’t express your opinion, but ok you just have different approach

By: jloa

jloa — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:08:00 +0000

U r welcome
Well, yeah the method is not very “politically clear” if u know what i mean, BUT still it’s very simple and clear as u save the “sortOn” construction and its native params. Yeap, i’ll compare the performance and publish relsults here as soon as i rake up my current project’s stuff ^_^

Btw it seems even more handy if done as a static Util class:


package
{
	public class VectorUtil
	{
		/**
	 	* Converts vector to an array
		* @param	vector:*	vector to be converted
	 	* @return	Array		converted array
	 	*/
		public static function vectorToArray(vector:*):Array
		{
			var n:int = vector.length; var a:Array = new Array();
			for(var i:int = 0; i < n; i++) a[i] = vector[i];
			return a;
		}
		/**
		 * Converts vector to an array and sorts it by a certain fieldName, options
		 * for more info @see Array.sortOn
		 * @param	vector:*			the source vector
		 * @param	fieldName:Object	a string that identifies a field to be used as the sort value
		 * @param	options:Object		one or more numbers or names of defined constants
		 */
		public static function sortOn(vector:*, fieldName:Object, options:Object  = null):Array
		{
			return vectorToArray(vector).sortOn(fieldName, options);
		}
	}
}

Then the usage would be even clear:


//...
var vSorted:Vector. = Vector.(VectorUtil.sortOn(v, "id", Array.NUMERIC));

By: JTtheGeek

JTtheGeek — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:36:18 +0000

This seems like a pretty rough way to go since your unboxing then reboxing the typed vector to an untyped array then back to a typed vector. Though very simple and effective for large datasets I’m guessing the performance is gonna take a pretty big hit, but depends on how Adobe implemented the vector to array conversion. Would be great to get some performance comparisons there. Thanks for the tip.