ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Why is there no SortedList in Java?

In Java there are the SortedSet and SortedMap interfaces. Both belong to the Java Collections framework and provide a sorted way to access the elements.

However, in my understanding there is no SortedList in Java. You can use java.util.Collections.sort() to sort a list.

Any idea why it is designed like that?

so what is your expected result when inserting an element in the middle of the list?
@bestsss It would be fully possible to have a SortedList class which does not implement the java.util.List interface. Read the question as an inquiry why there is no data structure which supports the requested functionality. Don't get distracted by insignificant details such as naming.
@Alderath, the usual structure for this is a tree (red/black, avl or btree) w/ extra prev/next links to support ordering. I do use similar structure red/black w/ prev/next links. It's a quite niche use, though. The tree can be traversed both ordered and insert order, has O(logn) find/contains but get(int) is O(n). Given the fact its niche applicability I'd assume it was left to the developers to implement one if they need.
Not answering the question "why", but the simplest workaround for TreeSet is to use a Comparator that never returns zero, e.g. int diff = this.score - that.score; return (diff == 0) ? 1 : diff; As it's a smelly hack I would provide this as an anonymous constructor argument rather than having any implement Comparable.

Y
Yoon5oo

List iterators guarantee first and foremost that you get the list's elements in the internal order of the list (aka. insertion order). More specifically it is in the order you've inserted the elements or on how you've manipulated the list. Sorting can be seen as a manipulation of the data structure, and there are several ways to sort the list.

I'll order the ways in the order of usefulness as I personally see it:

1. Consider using Set or Bag collections instead

NOTE: I put this option at the top because this is what you normally want to do anyway.

A sorted set automatically sorts the collection at insertion, meaning that it does the sorting while you add elements into the collection. It also means you don't need to manually sort it.

Furthermore if you are sure that you don't need to worry about (or have) duplicate elements then you can use the TreeSet<T> instead. It implements SortedSet and NavigableSet interfaces and works as you'd probably expect from a list:

TreeSet<String> set = new TreeSet<String>();
set.add("lol");
set.add("cat");
// automatically sorts natural order when adding

for (String s : set) {
    System.out.println(s);
}
// Prints out "cat" and "lol"

If you don't want the natural ordering you can use the constructor parameter that takes a Comparator<T>.

Alternatively, you can use Multisets (also known as Bags), that is a Set that allows duplicate elements, instead and there are third-party implementations of them. Most notably from the Guava libraries there is a TreeMultiset, that works a lot like the TreeSet.

2. Sort your list with Collections.sort()

As mentioned above, sorting of Lists is a manipulation of the data structure. So for situations where you need "one source of truth" that will be sorted in a variety of ways then sorting it manually is the way to go.

You can sort your list with the java.util.Collections.sort() method. Here is a code sample on how:

List<String> strings = new ArrayList<String>()
strings.add("lol");
strings.add("cat");

Collections.sort(strings);
for (String s : strings) {
    System.out.println(s);
}
// Prints out "cat" and "lol"

Using comparators

One clear benefit is that you may use Comparator in the sort method. Java also provides some implementations for the Comparator such as the Collator which is useful for locale sensitive sorting strings. Here is one example:

Collator usCollator = Collator.getInstance(Locale.US);
usCollator.setStrength(Collator.PRIMARY); // ignores casing

Collections.sort(strings, usCollator);

Sorting in concurrent environments

Do note though that using the sort method is not friendly in concurrent environments, since the collection instance will be manipulated, and you should consider using immutable collections instead. This is something Guava provides in the Ordering class and is a simple one-liner:

List<string> sorted = Ordering.natural().sortedCopy(strings);

3. Wrap your list with java.util.PriorityQueue

Though there is no sorted list in Java there is however a sorted queue which would probably work just as well for you. It is the java.util.PriorityQueue class.

Nico Haase linked in the comments to a related question that also answers this.

In a sorted collection you most likely don't want to manipulate the internal data structure which is why PriorityQueue doesn't implement the List interface (because that would give you direct access to its elements).

Caveat on the PriorityQueue iterator

The PriorityQueue class implements the Iterable<E> and Collection<E> interfaces so it can be iterated as usual. However, the iterator is not guaranteed to return elements in the sorted order. Instead (as Alderath points out in the comments) you need to poll() the queue until empty.

Note that you can convert a list to a priority queue via the constructor that takes any collection:

List<String> strings = new ArrayList<String>()
strings.add("lol");
strings.add("cat");

PriorityQueue<String> sortedStrings = new PriorityQueue(strings);
while(!sortedStrings.isEmpty()) {
    System.out.println(sortedStrings.poll());
}
// Prints out "cat" and "lol"

4. Write your own SortedList class

NOTE: You shouldn't have to do this.

You can write your own List class that sorts each time you add a new element. This can get rather computation heavy depending on your implementation and is pointless, unless you want to do it as an exercise, because of two main reasons:

It breaks the contract that List interface has because the add methods should ensure that the element will reside in the index that the user specifies. Why reinvent the wheel? You should be using the TreeSet or Multisets instead as pointed out in the first point above.

However, if you want to do it as an exercise here is a code sample to get you started, it uses the AbstractList abstract class:

public class SortedList<E> extends AbstractList<E> {

    private ArrayList<E> internalList = new ArrayList<E>();

    // Note that add(E e) in AbstractList is calling this one
    @Override 
    public void add(int position, E e) {
        internalList.add(e);
        Collections.sort(internalList, null);
    }

    @Override
    public E get(int i) {
        return internalList.get(i);
    }

    @Override
    public int size() {
        return internalList.size();
    }

}

Note that if you haven't overridden the methods you need, then the default implementations from AbstractList will throw UnsupportedOperationExceptions.


+1. Imo, this is more constructive than the top voted answer. It comes with two minor downsides though. The PriorityQueue does not support random access. You cannot do peek(elementIndex). So you cannot do e.g. Integer maxVal = prioQueue.peek(prioQueue.size() - 1);. Secondly if you're intending to use the PriorityQueue simply as a sorted list, it will sound less intuitive to see PriorityQueue in the code than it would have been to see SortedList, if such a data structure existed.
And, after looking at the other question which someone linked in the comments, another big disadvantage is that the iterator of PriorityQueue is not guaranteed to return elements in any specific order. So, unless I am overlooking something, the only way to e.g. print all objects in the PriorityQueue in order is to repeatedly poll() the queue until it is empty. To me, this feels borderline retarted. To print the objects in a PriorityQueue twice, you'd first have to copy the PriorityQueue and then poll() all objects from the original PriorityQueue and then pol()l all objects from the copy.
Hmm... looks like you're right Alderath. You can't use the iterator of PriorityQueue to get the elements in expected order. Looks like I have to edit my answer.
Priority queue is just a heap, you can access only the top, imo it does not belong to the answer of the question.
Also worth noting is that Collections.sort() even lets you define the compare function that is used to sort, by using a Comparator object.
S
Steve Chambers

Because the concept of a List is incompatible with the concept of an automatically sorted collection. The point of a List is that after calling list.add(7, elem), a call to list.get(7) will return elem. With an auto-sorted list, the element could end up in an arbitrary position.


The concept of the List implies that there is some order and that list.get(n) operation will be deterministic, meaning it will always return the same element at position n as long as the list is not modified. I don't agree that the "concept of a List" requires that to be the insertion order. Yes, the List interface does feature list.add(index, element) method which doesn't make sense for a sorted collection, but it's optional according to the docs.
Y
Yoon5oo

Since all lists are already "sorted" by the order the items were added (FIFO ordering), you can "resort" them with another order, including the natural ordering of elements, using java.util.Collections.sort().

EDIT:

Lists as data structures are based in what is interesting is the ordering in which the items where inserted.

Sets do not have that information.

If you want to order by adding time, use List. If you want to order by other criteria, use SortedSet.


Set doesn't allow duplicates
I do not think this is a very good answer. Sure, lists in the java API do have an a specific ordering determined by when/how the items were inserted. However, the existence of lists ordered in a manner which depends on insertion method/time does not prevent having other data structures in which order is determined in another way (e.g. by a Comparator). Basically, the OP is asking why there is not a data structure equivalent to a SortedSet with the exception that the data structure should allow for multiple occurences of elements which are equal.
So my follow up question would be: "Why is there no data structure which works like a SortedSet, but which can contain multiple equal elements?" (and please don't answer "because Sets can only contain one element")
@Alderath: See stackoverflow.com/questions/416266/sorted-collection-in-java . In short: Use Guava's TreeMultiset
Lists are NOT "sorted", even if you put the "sorted" in double quotes. They are ordered.
P
Premraj

Set and Map are non-linear data structure. List is linear data structure.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/rsbMd.gif

The tree data structure SortedSet and SortedMap interfaces implements TreeSet and TreeMap respectively using used Red-Black tree implementation algorithm. So it ensure that there are no duplicated items (or keys in case of Map).

List is already maintains an ordered collection and index-based data structure, trees are no index-based data structures.

Tree by definition cannot contain duplicates.

In List we can have duplicates, so there is no TreeList(i.e. no SortedList).

List maintains elements in insertion order. So if we want to sort the list we have to use java.util.Collections.sort(). It sorts the specified list into ascending order, according to the natural ordering of its elements.


Whys are sets and maps non linear data structures? You can simulate an array on them.
s
swpalmer

JavaFX SortedList

Though it took a while, Java 8 does have a sorted List. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/javafx/api/javafx/collections/transformation/SortedList.html

As you can see in the javadocs, it is part of the JavaFX collections, intended to provide a sorted view on an ObservableList.

Update: Note that with Java 11, the JavaFX toolkit has moved outside the JDK and is now a separate library. JavaFX 11 is available as a downloadable SDK or from MavenCentral. See https://openjfx.io


Unfortunately, this SortedList does not work like a usual list - for example, it does not have a default constructor (you have to construct it using an ObservableList, whatever that means...)
The SortedList from JavaFX clearly is for the use of GUI-Components and because of the overhead NOT suited for just having a List of sorted objects. Also it would mean to reference the whole FX Module even if the GUI is not used in the project.
@COBRA.cH Yes, that is true. A more performant Sorted List could probably be a thin wrapper around a TreeMap, where an integer is used to count duplicates of the key. You could also use a TreeSet with a comparator that never returns 0.
Why the down-votes? The question starts with a presupposition that there is no sorted list in the JDK libraries. This Answer corrects that assumption. Whether you like or disike the implementation of this particular sorted list is not a reason to down-vote. This Answer does not recommend the class, merely points out its existence.
J
Jim Pekarek

For any newcomers, as of April 2015, Android now has a SortedList class in the support library, designed specifically to work with RecyclerView. Here's the blog post about it.


Worth noting that at the time of this comment Androids SortedList lacks support for onItemMoved() functionality with RecyclerView. Writing my own SortedList which is less efficient is what I had to do to get around the limitations.
I
Ingo

Another point is the time complexity of insert operations. For a list insert, one expects a complexity of O(1). But this could not be guaranteed with a sorted list.

And the most important point is that lists assume nothing about their elements. For example, you can make lists of things that do not implement equals or compare.


you can have list w/ O(logn) insert/delete/find/contains but not w/ get(int).
The last point isn't really a good explanation. You can make a SortedSet of things that do not implement Comparable. See this TreeSet constructor.
@Alderath - maybe my wording was too weak. Yet the observation holds that elements of Sets and keys of Trees must be comparable at least for equality, whereas list elements need not. Whether the ordering/equality relation for Sets and Trees is implemented in a Comparator or elsewhere is immaterial - but you need one.
Lists do not guarantee O(1) insertion, they guarantee O(1) access. bigocheatsheet.com
@Betlista you're right! I can't update my comment, but the Java List interface doesn't guarantee any performance specifications on its methods.
C
Costi Ciudatu

Think of it like this: the List interface has methods like add(int index, E element), set(int index, E element). The contract is that once you added an element at position X you will find it there unless you add or remove elements before it.

If any list implementation would store elements in some order other than based on the index, the above list methods would make no sense.


M
Marcono1234

In case you are looking for a way to sort elements, but also be able to access them by index in an efficient way, you can do the following:

Use a random access list for storage (e.g. ArrayList) Make sure it is always sorted

Then to add or remove an element you can use Collections.binarySearch to get the insertion / removal index. Since your list implements random access, you can efficiently modify the list with the determined index.

Example:

/**
 * @deprecated
 *      Only for demonstration purposes. Implementation is incomplete and does not 
 *      handle invalid arguments.
 */
@Deprecated
public class SortingList<E extends Comparable<E>> {
    private ArrayList<E> delegate;
    
    public SortingList() {
        delegate = new ArrayList<>();
    }
    
    public void add(E e) {
        int insertionIndex = Collections.binarySearch(delegate, e);
        
        // < 0 if element is not in the list, see Collections.binarySearch
        if (insertionIndex < 0) {
            insertionIndex = -(insertionIndex + 1);
        }
        else {
            // Insertion index is index of existing element, to add new element 
            // behind it increase index
            insertionIndex++;
        }
        
        delegate.add(insertionIndex, e);
    }
    
    public void remove(E e) {
        int index = Collections.binarySearch(delegate, e);
        delegate.remove(index);
    }
    
    public E get(int index) {
        return delegate.get(index);
    }
}

(See a more complete implementation in this answer)


S
Syam

First line in the List API says it is an ordered collection (also known as a sequence). If you sort the list you can't maintain the order, so there is no TreeList in Java.
As API says Java List got inspired from Sequence and see the sequence properties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_(mathematics)

It doesn't mean that you can't sort the list, but Java strict to his definition and doesn't provide sorted versions of lists by default.


R
Rajesh Gupta

I think all the above do not answer this question due to following reasons,

Since same functionality can be achieved by using other collections such as TreeSet, Collections, PriorityQueue..etc (but this is an alternative which will also impose their constraints i.e. Set will remove duplicate elements. Simply saying even if it does not impose any constraint, it does not answer the question why SortedList was not created by java community) Since List elements do not implements compare/equals methods (This holds true for Set & Map also where in general items do not implement Comparable interface but when we need these items to be in sorted order & want to use TreeSet/TreeMap,items should implement Comparable interface) Since List uses indexing & due to sorting it won't work (This can be easily handled introducing intermediate interface/abstract class)

but none has told the exact reason behind it & as I believe these kind of questions can be best answered by java community itself as it will have only one & specific answer but let me try my best to answer this as following,

As we know sorting is an expensive operation and there is a basic difference between List & Set/Map that List can have duplicates but Set/Map can not. This is the core reason why we have got a default implementation for Set/Map in form of TreeSet/TreeMap. Internally this is a Red Black Tree with every operation (insert/delete/search) having the complexity of O(log N) where due to duplicates List could not fit in this data storage structure.

Now the question arises we could also choose a default sorting method for List also like MergeSort which is used by Collections.sort(list) method with the complexity of O(N log N). Community did not do this deliberately since we do have multiple choices for sorting algorithms for non distinct elements like QuickSort, ShellSort, RadixSort...etc. In future there can be more. Also sometimes same sorting algorithm performs differently depending on the data to be sorted. Therefore they wanted to keep this option open and left this on us to choose. This was not the case with Set/Map since O(log N) is the best sorting complexity.


V
Vitaly Sazanovich

https://github.com/geniot/indexed-tree-map

Consider using indexed-tree-map . It's an enhanced JDK's TreeSet that provides access to element by index and finding the index of an element without iteration or hidden underlying lists that back up the tree. The algorithm is based on updating weights of changed nodes every time there is a change.