On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:37 AM Rui Wang <ruw...@google.com> wrote:
> A few obvious problems with this code:
>> 1. Removing the elements already processed from the bag requires
>> clearing and rewriting the entire bag. This is O(n^2) in the number of
>> input trades.
>>
> why it's not O(2 * n) to clearing and rewriting trade state?
>
>
>> public interface SortedMultimapState<K, V> extends State {
>> // Add a value to the map.
>> void put(K key, V value);
>> // Get all values for a given key.
>> ReadableState<Iterable<V>> get(K key);
>> // Return all entries in the map.
>> ReadableState<Iterable<KV<K, V>>> allEntries();
>> // Return all entries in the map with keys <= limit. returned elements
>> are sorted by the key.
>> ReadableState<Iterable<KV<K, V>>> entriesUntil(K limit);
>>
> // Remove all values with the given key;
>> void remove(K key);
>> // Remove all entries in the map with keys <= limit.
>> void removeUntil(K limit);
>>
> Will removeUntilExcl(K limit) also useful? It will remove all entries in
> the map with keys < limit.
>
>
>> Runners will sort based on the encoded value of the key. In order to make
>> this easier for users, I propose that we introduce a new tag on Coders
>> *PreservesOrder*. A Coder that contains this tag guarantees that the
>> encoded value preserves the same ordering as the base Java type.
>>
>
> Could you clarify what is "encoded value preserves the same ordering as
> the base Java type"?
>
Lets say A and B represent two different instances of the same Java type
like a double, then A < B (using the languages comparison operator) iff
encode(A) < encode(B) (note the encoded versions are compared
lexicographically)
>
> -Rui
>
