Your Comparator would look like this:
public class GraduationCeremonyComparator implements Comparator<GraduationCeremony> {
public int compare(GraduationCeremony o1, GraduationCeremony o2) {
int value1 = o1.campus.compareTo(o2.campus);
if (value1 == 0) {
int value2 = o1.faculty.compareTo(o2.faculty);
if (value2 == 0) {
return o1.building.compareTo(o2.building);
} else {
return value2;
}
}
return value1;
}
}
Basically it continues comparing each successive attribute of your class whenever the compared attributes so far are equal (== 0).
Your Comparator would look like this:
public class GraduationCeremonyComparator implements Comparator<GraduationCeremony> {
public int compare(GraduationCeremony o1, GraduationCeremony o2) {
int value1 = o1.campus.compareTo(o2.campus);
if (value1 == 0) {
int value2 = o1.faculty.compareTo(o2.faculty);
if (value2 == 0) {
return o1.building.compareTo(o2.building);
} else {
return value2;
}
}
return value1;
}
}
Basically it continues comparing each successive attribute of your class whenever the compared attributes so far are equal (== 0).
Yes, you absolutely can do this. For example:
public class PersonComparator implements Comparator<Person>
{
public int compare(Person p1, Person p2)
{
// Assume no nulls, and simple ordinal comparisons
// First by campus - stop if this gives a result.
int campusResult = p1.getCampus().compareTo(p2.getCampus());
if (campusResult != 0)
{
return campusResult;
}
// Next by faculty
int facultyResult = p1.getFaculty().compareTo(p2.getFaculty());
if (facultyResult != 0)
{
return facultyResult;
}
// Finally by building
return p1.getBuilding().compareTo(p2.getBuilding());
}
}
Basically you're saying, "If I can tell which one comes first just by looking at the campus (before they come from different campuses, and the campus is the most important field) then I'll just return that result. Otherwise, I'll continue on to compare faculties. Again, stop if that's enough to tell them apart. Otherwise, (if the campus and faculty are the same for both people) just use the result of comparing them by building."
java - Collections.sort with multiple fields - Stack Overflow
Sorting a list of objects using multiple fields (Java 8) - Stack Overflow
sorting - Sort a Java collection object based on one field in it - Stack Overflow
List.contains() for objects with multiple fields
(originally from Ways to sort lists of objects in Java based on multiple fields)
Original working code in this gist
Using Java 8 lambda's (added April 10, 2019)
Java 8 solves this nicely by lambda's (though Guava and Apache Commons might still offer more flexibility):
Collections.sort(reportList, Comparator.comparing(Report::getReportKey)
.thenComparing(Report::getStudentNumber)
.thenComparing(Report::getSchool));
Thanks to @gaoagong's answer below.
Note that one advantage here is that the getters are evaluated lazily (eg. getSchool() is only evaluated if relevant).
Messy and convoluted: Sorting by hand
Collections.sort(pizzas, new Comparator<Pizza>() {
@Override
public int compare(Pizza p1, Pizza p2) {
int sizeCmp = p1.size.compareTo(p2.size);
if (sizeCmp != 0) {
return sizeCmp;
}
int nrOfToppingsCmp = p1.nrOfToppings.compareTo(p2.nrOfToppings);
if (nrOfToppingsCmp != 0) {
return nrOfToppingsCmp;
}
return p1.name.compareTo(p2.name);
}
});
This requires a lot of typing, maintenance and is error prone. The only advantage is that getters are only invoked when relevant.
The reflective way: Sorting with BeanComparator
ComparatorChain chain = new ComparatorChain(Arrays.asList(
new BeanComparator("size"),
new BeanComparator("nrOfToppings"),
new BeanComparator("name")));
Collections.sort(pizzas, chain);
Obviously this is more concise, but even more error prone as you lose your direct reference to the fields by using Strings instead (no typesafety, auto-refactorings). Now if a field is renamed, the compiler won’t even report a problem. Moreover, because this solution uses reflection, the sorting is much slower.
Getting there: Sorting with Google Guava’s ComparisonChain
Collections.sort(pizzas, new Comparator<Pizza>() {
@Override
public int compare(Pizza p1, Pizza p2) {
return ComparisonChain.start().compare(p1.size, p2.size).compare(p1.nrOfToppings, p2.nrOfToppings).compare(p1.name, p2.name).result();
// or in case the fields can be null:
/*
return ComparisonChain.start()
.compare(p1.size, p2.size, Ordering.natural().nullsLast())
.compare(p1.nrOfToppings, p2.nrOfToppings, Ordering.natural().nullsLast())
.compare(p1.name, p2.name, Ordering.natural().nullsLast())
.result();
*/
}
});
This is much better, but requires some boiler plate code for the most common use case: null-values should be valued less by default. For null-fields, you have to provide an extra directive to Guava what to do in that case. This is a flexible mechanism if you want to do something specific, but often you want the default case (ie. 1, a, b, z, null).
And as noted in the comments below, these getters are all evaluated immediately for each comparison.
Sorting with Apache Commons CompareToBuilder
Collections.sort(pizzas, new Comparator<Pizza>() {
@Override
public int compare(Pizza p1, Pizza p2) {
return new CompareToBuilder().append(p1.size, p2.size).append(p1.nrOfToppings, p2.nrOfToppings).append(p1.name, p2.name).toComparison();
}
});
Like Guava’s ComparisonChain, this library class sorts easily on multiple fields, but also defines default behavior for null values (ie. 1, a, b, z, null). However, you can’t specify anything else either, unless you provide your own Comparator.
Again, as noted in the comments below, these getters are all evaluated immediately for each comparison.
Thus
Ultimately it comes down to flavor and the need for flexibility (Guava’s ComparisonChain) vs. concise code (Apache’s CompareToBuilder).
Bonus method
I found a nice solution that combines multiple comparators in order of priority on CodeReview in a MultiComparator:
class MultiComparator<T> implements Comparator<T> {
private final List<Comparator<T>> comparators;
public MultiComparator(List<Comparator<? super T>> comparators) {
this.comparators = comparators;
}
public MultiComparator(Comparator<? super T>... comparators) {
this(Arrays.asList(comparators));
}
public int compare(T o1, T o2) {
for (Comparator<T> c : comparators) {
int result = c.compare(o1, o2);
if (result != 0) {
return result;
}
}
return 0;
}
public static <T> void sort(List<T> list, Comparator<? super T>... comparators) {
Collections.sort(list, new MultiComparator<T>(comparators));
}
}
Ofcourse Apache Commons Collections has a util for this already:
ComparatorUtils.chainedComparator(comparatorCollection)
Collections.sort(list, ComparatorUtils.chainedComparator(comparators));
Do you see anything wrong with the code?
Yes. Why are you adding the three fields together before you compare them?
I would probably do something like this: (assuming the fields are in the order you wish to sort them in)
@Override public int compare(final Report record1, final Report record2) {
int c;
c = record1.getReportKey().compareTo(record2.getReportKey());
if (c == 0)
c = record1.getStudentNumber().compareTo(record2.getStudentNumber());
if (c == 0)
c = record1.getSchool().compareTo(record2.getSchool());
return c;
}
here is my "1liner":
Collections.sort(agentDtoList, new Comparator<AgentSummaryDTO>(){
public int compare(AgentSummaryDTO o1, AgentSummaryDTO o2){
return o1.getCustomerCount() - o2.getCustomerCount();
}
});
UPDATE for Java 8: For int datatype
Collections.sort(agentDtoList, (o1, o2) -> o1.getCustomerCount() - o2.getCustomerCount());
or even:
Collections.sort(agentDtoList, Comparator.comparing(AgentSummaryDTO::getCustomerCount));
For String datatype (as in comment)
Collections.sort(list, (o1, o2) -> (o1.getAgentName().compareTo(o2.getAgentName())));
..it expects getter AgentSummaryDTO.getCustomerCount()
for anyone who looks for answer yet:
you can also sort your list with JAVA-8 Stream-API.
List<AgentSummaryDTO> sortedList = agentDtoList.stream()
.sorted(Comparator.comparing(AgentSummaryDTO::getCustomerCount).reversed())
.collect(Collectors.toList());