Talk:Top rank per group: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (moved Talk:Top Rank Per Group to Talk:Top rank per group) |
(→Task Description is just about missing: Explaining my last edit) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
What do you mean by ranker? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 12:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC) |
What do you mean by ranker? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 12:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
: It looks like the SMMEQL example was the original, definitive example on the page, so a new task description should be written with that as a basis. I'll get to it tomorrow on my lunch break, if nobody beats me to it. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 07:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
: It looks like the SMMEQL example was the original, definitive example on the page, so a new task description should be written with that as a basis. I'll get to it tomorrow on my lunch break, if nobody beats me to it. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 07:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
I just changed the task description to show "department" instead of "group" because I thought it was unclear originally. I was going to explain it in my edit comment, but I tapped enter by accident when putting in a quote mark. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==J== |
==J== |
Revision as of 20:57, 25 March 2010
Task Description is just about missing
What does the task require one to do? What group? What do you mean by ranker? --Paddy3118 12:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like the SMMEQL example was the original, definitive example on the page, so a new task description should be written with that as a basis. I'll get to it tomorrow on my lunch break, if nobody beats me to it. --Short Circuit 07:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I just changed the task description to show "department" instead of "group" because I thought it was unclear originally. I was going to explain it in my edit comment, but I tapped enter by accident when putting in a quote mark. --Mwn3d 20:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
J
The task description does not seem to qualify the output if the sorted values within one department were as follows:
9 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4
--TBH 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to be away the next couple weeks, but here's an approach in J.
- Using the following input:
Employees=: (<;.1~ (#{.,~@:1:);+./@:(;: E.S:0 ])@:{.) ];._2 noun define EMP_NAME EMP_ID HIRE_DATE SALARY DEPT EXEMPT INTERESTS Tyler Bennett E10297 19770601 32000 D101 Y John Rappl E21437 19870715 47000 D050 Y 1 George Woltman E00127 19820807 53500 D101 Y 2 Adam Smith E63535 19880115 18000 D202 N Claire Buckman E39876 19851123 27800 D202 Y David McClellan E04242 19820727 41500 D101 Y 3 Rich Holcomb E01234 19830601 49500 D202 Y Nathan Adams E41298 19880215 21900 D050 N Richard Potter E43128 19860412 15900 D101 N David Motsinger E27002 19850505 19250 D202 N Tim Sampair E03033 19871202 27000 D101 Y Kim Arlich E10001 19850730 57000 D190 Y Timothy Grove E16398 19850121 29900 D190 Y )
- The top earners in each dept are:
('`',,;:^:_1:N=:{.Employees) =: , (_&{"1)`'' ([^:(_ -: ])L:0)"0 _~ i.# E=:{:Employees
N , (<@:>"1@:|:@:((6 <. #) {. ] \: SALARY)/.~ DEPT) |: <"1&> E
- --DanBron 15:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)