Develop Reference

Android Run Time Array Size Efficiency

My tide prediction application uses 8 double arrays for tide height calculations. Literally every tide station in the United States requires these to have 37 elements, EXCEPT Anchorage, Alaska which requires 124 elements.
Here is a declaration example
final int NUM_C = 37; //all stations except anchorage use 37
//final int NUM_C = 124; //anchorage uses 124
double a[] = new double[NUM_C + 1];
Can I efficiently specify the array size at the start up of the app? I can determine which is needed. I don't want to burden the application with inefficiency for 99% + of the users to handle this one case. The difference is only about 3K bytes.

Why don't you instantiate the variable in the constructor? It gives you more freedom to do programatic manipulation.
public class Station {
double a[];
public Station(String location) {
if(location.equals("Anchorage")) {
a = new double[124];
} else {
a = new double[37];
}
}
}
As I understand the instantiation of the object fields in the constructor is the normal case, while the instantiation with the declaration is just an additional feature of Java.
As for the speed it does not make a difference, if you specify the size by a literal value, a constant or a variable. A more interesting question is, if you should use ArrayList instead of an array. See here.
public class Station {
ArrayList<Double> a;
public Station(String location) {
if(location.equals("Anchorage")) {
a = new ArrayList<>(124);
} else {
a = new ArrayList<>(37);
}
}
}
My choice would be ArrayList as it is more flexible. Eight times 124 is not a very large number anyway. No reason to worry about performance for this.

Android CPU usage of each function

Currently in my Android code what I am doing to calculate each function CPU Usage is -
double start = System.currentTimeMillis();
double start1 = Debug.threadCpuTimeNanos();
foo();
double end = System.currentTimeMillis();
double end1 = Debug.threadCpuTimeNanos();
double t = (end - start);
double t1 = (end1 - start1)/1000000;
double CPUusage;
if(t==0){
CPUusage = 0;
}else{
CPUusage = (t1/t) * 100;
}
I am doing t1/t to calculate CPU Usage. Is this a correct way of calculating CPU usage of each function in my Android code or is it conceptually wrong? Request someone to guide me in this.

From documentation:
static long currentTimeMillis()
Returns the current time in milliseconds since January 1, 1970 00:00:00.0 UTC.
Please, replace the double(s) you are using, with long(s).
While long(s) have precision issues, they are almost irrelevant for the variables used, also, the rounding will likely be close enough, that the returned value can be used in relation with each other
Also, you are comparing two independent values. Try either the current thread, or the full thread time.
From the Debug documentation:
public static long threadCpuTimeNanos()
Added in API level 1
Get an indication of thread CPU usage. The value returned indicates the amount of time that the current thread has spent executing code or waiting for certain types of I/O. The time is expressed in nanoseconds, and is only meaningful when compared to the result from an earlier call. Note that nanosecond resolution does not imply nanosecond accuracy. On system which don't support this operation, the call returns -1.
Try using, in the same Runnable (sequentially placed method calls):
long start = Debug.threadCpuTimeNanos();
foo();
long finish = Debug.threadCpuTimeNanos();
long outputValue = finish - start ;
System.out.println("foo() took " + outputValue + " ns.");

Is my target selection AI efficient?

quick question. I am developing a top-down 2d Platformer game with lots of enemies in the map (at least a hundred spawn at the start of each level). Each enemy uses an AI that searches the map for objects with a specified tag, sorts each object into a list based on their distance, then reacts to the object closest to them.
My code works, but the thing is, if the machine my game is running on is slow, then my game lags. I want to be able to port my game to Android and iOS with low end specs.
In pursuit of putting less strain on the CPU, is there a better way to write my AI?
Here is my code:
void Start () {
FoodTargets = new List<Transform>(); // my list
SelectedTarget = null; // the target the enemy reacts to
myTransform = transform;
AddAllFood ();
}
public void AddAllFood()
{
GameObject[] Foods = GameObject.FindGameObjectsWithTag("Object");
foreach (GameObject enemy in Foods)
AddTarget (enemy.transform);
}
public void AddTarget(Transform enemy)
{
if (enemy.GetComponent<ClassRatingScript>().classrating != 1) { // classrating is an attribute each enemy has that determines their identity (like if they are a plant, a herbivore or a carnivore)
FoodTargets.Add (enemy); // adds the object to the list
}
}
private void SortTargetsByDistance() // this is how I sort according to distance, is this the fastest and most efficient way to do this?
{
FoodTargets.Sort (delegate(Transform t1, Transform t2) {
return Vector3.Distance(t1.position, myTransform.position).CompareTo(Vector3.Distance(t2.position, myTransform.position));
});
}
private void TargetEnemy() // this is called every 4 frames
{
if (SelectedTarget == null) {
SortTargetsByDistance ();
SelectedTarget = FoodTargets [1];
}
else {
SortTargetsByDistance ();
SelectedTarget = FoodTargets [1];
}
}
if (optimizer <= 2) { // this is a variable that increments every frame and resets to 0 on the 3rd frame. Only every 3rd frame is the target enemy method is called.
optimizer++;
} else {
TargetEnemy ();
// the rest are attributes that the AI considers when reacting to their target
targetmass = SelectedTarget.GetComponent<MassScript> ().mass;
targetclass = SelectedTarget.GetComponent<ClassRatingScript> ().classrating;
mass = this.GetComponent<MassScript> ().mass;
classrating = this.GetComponent<ClassRatingScript> ().classrating;
distance = Vector3.Distance (transform.position, SelectedTarget.transform.position);
optimizer = 0;
}
Is there a more optimized way of doing this? Your help will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

I'm not awfully familiar with C# or Unity but I would look very carefully at what sorting algorithm your sorting method is using. If all you want is the closest Game Object, then sorting isn't necessary.
The fastest sorting algorithms, such as Quicksort, are O(n*log(n)). That is to say that the time it takes to sort a collection of n objects is bounded by some constant multiple of n*log(n). If you just want the k closest objects, where k << n, then you can perform k iterations of the Bubble Sort algorithm. This will have time-complexity O(k*n), which is much better then before.
However, if you only need the single closest object, then just find the closest object without sorting (pseudocode):
float smallestDistance = Inf;
object closestObject = null;
foreach object in objectsWithTag {
float d = distance(object, enemy);
if (d < smallestDistance) {
smallestDistance = d;
closestObject = object;
}
}
This extremely simple algorithm has time complexity O(n).

use of nextAfter(double start, double direction); in Android

I am in need of assistance. I will be computing a measured variable, then taking the top 100 values of these and averaging them. Please remember, I have been teaching myself only for the past 6 weeks and what is obvious to some, will not necessarily be obvious to me.
In essence, say 'double x' is the variable, that I have many close values for. What I need is a way to compute the sum (then average) of the top 100 of these values.
In my research, the closest thing I can see that would suit what I need is 'nextAfter(double start, double direction); and before this, using 'max' to determine the maximum value, would this be the correct starting point:
double xm = max(x);
static double (xm, x < xm);
My question is how to get the sum of the top 100 values (the maximum and 99 nextAfter's) - averaging would be easy - just dividing by 100.

To compute the average of the largest n values you read from the source, you need to store at least these values. Since at any given point before the end you don't know whether some of the largest n values overall will come later, you need to keep track the largest n values seen so far.
A simple way to do that is to store the largest values in a heap or priority queue, since that allows easy adding of new values and finding (and removing) of the smallest of the stored values. The default PriorityQueue is well-suited for this task, since it uses the natural ordering of the elements, and thus polling removes the smallest of the stored elements. If one wanted to compute the average of the n smallest elements, one would need to use a PriorityQueue with a custom Comparator (or in this special case, simply negating all values and using the natural ordering would work too).
The lazy way (less code) to achieve the desired is to simply add each incoming value to the queue, and if the queue's size exceeds n [then it must be n+1] remove the smallest element from the queue:
// vp is the value provider
while(vp.hasNext()) {
// read the next value and add it to the queue
pq.add(vp.nextValue());
if (pq.size() > topSize) {
pq.poll();
}
A slightly more involved way is to first check whether the new value needs to be added, and only modify the queue when that is the case,
double newValue = vp.nextValue();
// Check if we have to put the new value in the queue
// that is the case when the queue is not yet full, or the smallest
// stored value is smaller than the new
if (pq.size() < topSize || pq.peek() < newValue) {
// remove the smallest value from the queue only if it is full
if (pq.size() == topSize()) {
pq.poll();
}
pq.add(newValue);
}
This way is potentially more efficient, since adding a value to the queue and removing the smallest are both O(log size) operations, while comparing to the smallest stored value is O(1). So if there are many values smaller than the n largest seen before, the second way saves some work.
If performance is critical, be aware that a PriorityQueue cannot store primitive types like double, so the storing (and retrieving for the average computation) involves boxing (wrapping a double value in a Double object) resp. unboxing (pulling the double value from a Double object), and consequently an indirection from the underlying array of the queue to the actual values. Those costs could be avoided by implementing a heap-based priority queue using a raw double[] yourself. (But that should rarely be necessary, usually, the cost of the boxing and indirections would constitute only a minute part of the overall processing.)
A simple-minded complete working example:
import java.util.PriorityQueue;
/**
* Example class to collect the largest values from a stream and compute their
* average.
*/
public class Average {
// number of values we want to save
private int topSize;
// number of values read so far
private long count = 0;
// priority queue to save the largest topSize values
private PriorityQueue<Double> pq;
// source of read values, could be a file reader, a device reader, or whatever
private ValueProvider vp;
/**
* Construct an <code>Average</code> to sample the largest <code>n</code>
* values from the source.
*
* #param tops Number of values to save for averaging.
* #param v Source of the values to sample.
*
* #throws IllegalArgumentException when the specified number of values is less than one.
*/
public Average(int tops, ValueProvider v) throws IllegalArgumentException {
if (tops < 1) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Can't get average of fewer than one values.");
}
topSize = tops;
vp = v;
// Initialise queue to needed capacity; topSize + 1, since we first add
// and then poll. Thus no resizing should ever be necessary.
pq = new PriorityQueue<Double>(topSize+1);
}
/**
* Compute the average of the values stored in the <code>PriorityQueue<Double></code>
*
* #param prio The queue to average.
* #return the average of the values stored in the queue.
*/
public static double average(PriorityQueue<Double> prio) throws IllegalArgumentException {
if (prio == null || prio.size() == 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Priority queue argument is null or empty.");
}
double sum = 0;
for(Double d : prio) {
sum += d;
}
return sum/prio.size();
}
/**
* Reads values from the provider until exhausted, reporting the average
* of the largest <code>topSize</code> values read so far from time to time
* and when the source is exhausted.
*/
public void collectAverage() {
while(vp.hasNext()) {
// read the next value and add it to the queue
pq.add(vp.nextValue());
++count;
// If the queue was already full, we now have
// topSize + 1 values in it, so we remove the smallest.
// That is, conveniently, what the default PriorityQueue<Double>
// gives us. If we wanted for example the smallest, we'd need
// to use a PriorityQueue with a custom Comparator (or negate
// the values).
if (pq.size() > topSize) {
pq.poll();
}
// Occasionally report the running average of the largest topSize
// values read so far. This may not be desired.
if (count % (topSize*25) == 0 || count < 11) {
System.out.printf("Average of top %d values after collecting %d is %f\n",
pq.size(), count, average(pq));
}
}
// Report final average. Returning the average would be a natural choice too.
System.out.printf("Average of top %d values of %d total is %f\n",
pq.size(), count, average(pq));
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Average a = new Average(100, new SimpleProvider(123456));
a.collectAverage();
}
}
using the interface
/**
* Interface for a source of <code>double</code>s.
*/
public interface ValueProvider {
/**
* Gets the next value from the source.
*
* #return The next value if there is one.
* #throws RuntimeException if the source is exhausted.
*/
public double nextValue() throws RuntimeException;
/**
* Checks whether the source has more values to deliver.
*
* #return whether there is at least one more value to be obtained from the source.
*/
public boolean hasNext();
}
and implementing class
/**
* Simple provider of a stream of <code>double</code>s.
*/
public class SimpleProvider implements ValueProvider {
// State determining which value to return next.
private long state = 0;
// Last allowed state.
private final long end;
/**
* Construct a provider of <code>e</code> values.
*
* #param e the number of values to yield.
*/
public SimpleProvider(long e) {
end = e > 0 ? e : 0;
}
/**
* Default constructor to provide 10000 values.
*/
public SimpleProvider() {
this(10000);
}
public double nextValue() {
++state;
return Math.log(state)*Math.sin(state) + Math.cos(state/2.0);
}
public boolean hasNext() {
return state < end;
}
}

How to update Android textviews efficiently?

I am working on an Android app which encounters performance issues.
My goal is to receive strings from an AsyncTask and display them in a TextView. The TextView is initially empty and each time the other process sends a string concatenates it to the current content of the textview.
I currently use a StringBuilder to store the main string and each time I receive a new string, I append it to the StringBuilder and call
myTextView.setText(myStringBuilder.toString())
The problem is that the background process can send up to 100 strings per second, and my method is not efficient enough.
Redrawing the whole TextView everytime is obviously a bad idea (time complexity O(N²)), but I'm not seeing another solution...
Do you know of an alternative to TextView which could do these concatenations in O(N) ?

As long as there is a newline between the strings, you could use a ListView to append the strings and hold the strings themselves in an ArrayList or LinkedList to which you append as the AsyncTask receives the strings.
You might also consider simply invalidating the TextField less frequently; say 10 times a second. This would certainly improve responsiveness. Something like the following could work:
static long lastTimeUpdated = 0;
if( receivedString.size() > 0 )
{
myStringBuilder.append( receivedString );
}
if( (System.currentTimeMillis() - lastTimeUpdated) > 100 )
{
myTextView.setText( myStringBuilder.getChars( 0, myStringBuilder.length() );
}
If the strings come in bursts -- such that you have a delay between bursts greater than, say, a second -- then reset a timer every update that will trigger this code to run again to pick up the trailing portion of the last burst.

I finally found an answer with the help of havexz and Greyson here, and some code here.
As the strings were coming in bursts, I chose to update the UI every 100ms.
For the record, here's what my code looks like:
private static boolean output_upToDate = true;
/* Handles the refresh */
private Handler outputUpdater = new Handler();
/* Adjust this value for your purpose */
public static final long REFRESH_INTERVAL = 100; // in milliseconds
/* This object is used as a lock to avoid data loss in the last refresh */
private static final Object lock = new Object();
private Runnable outputUpdaterTask = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// takes the lock
synchronized(lock){
if(!output_upToDate){
// updates the outview
outView.setText(new_text);
// notifies that the output is up-to-date
output_upToDate = true;
}
}
outputUpdater.postDelayed(this, REFRESH_INTERVAL);
}
};
and I put this in my onCreate() method:
outputUpdater.post(outputUpdaterTask);
Some explanations: when my app calls its onCreate() method, my outputUpdater Handler receives one request to refresh. But this task (outputUpdaterTask) puts itself a refresh request 100ms later. The lock is shared with the process which send the new strings and sets output_upToDate to false.

Try throttling the update. So instead of updating 100 times per sec as that is the rate of generation. Keep the 100 strings in string builder and then update once per sec.
Code should like:
StringBuilder completeStr = new StringBuilder();
StringBuilder new100Str = new StringBuilder();
int counter = 0;
if(counter < 100) {
new100Str.append(newString);
counter++;
} else {
counter = 0;
completeStr.append(new100Str);
new100Str = new StringBuilder();
myTextView.setText(completeStr.toString());
}
NOTE: Code above is just for illustration so you might have to alter it as per your needs.