Filtering with Loops in Javascript - How to Avoid Insanity

15551 31
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

As developers, we get roped into codifying a vast and seemingly endless escalation of conditional processing to find and filter records and related tables. Where does it end? Apparently, it doesn’t because as soon as you create the perfect script that loops across many filtering constraints, the client (or management) is going ask for a “slight” modification or you will invariably discover an unanticipated case where you’re standing in a corner holding a paintbrush without egress.

This and vastly many of our script projects are fundamentally based on two essential tasks -

  1. Filter out the data that we need
  2. Perform computations on the filtered data

Typically, we use loops to achieve #1. #2 is easy if we get #1 right. But #1 is never simple and rarely performant given enough conditional complexity and records.

What’s better than this approach? Fewer loops for sure because they are slow, and they make our lives shi**y.

The Remedy…

The term “filter”, and especially in a javascript sense, is subject to abuse. Why not exchange this term with “search”. Indeed, a JSON hash index or an actual inverted index is exactly the right chainsaw to mitigate the looping and increase direct access to lists of record IDs that match what the loop is intended to provide.

I use hash indexes all the time, but increasingly, I use Lunr to establish inverted indexes that are very agile and extremely fast. Imagine finding 200 record IDs from a collection of 30,000 rows where three fields match specific values and the fourth is “fuzzy”. Looping requires lots of code and plenty of time. An inverted index can do this in 20 milliseconds.

And when you factor in the advantages of term presence, wildcard searches, and field-specific boosting, the loop that builds the index is time extremely well spent. Plus, you can create and cache-forward index documents independent of your business logic.

One last comment concerning perfomance - there are many computations and metrics that we perform repeatedly for business analytics. Why not compute these metrics and store them in the search index so that when the CEO wants to see how her business is performing, you’ve reduced the overhead to a simple search query rendered at the edge in 500ms?

While an inverted full-text index offers many advantages, there’s a simple approach you can use to improve script performance while creating an elegant approach that drastically simplifies your code when nested loops seem the only viable route.

Hash Index

This is simply a JSON document intended to make it fast and simple to perform lookups; it’s literally a copy of a collection of items where the object key represents a way to directly access the data related to that key.

Let’s say you had a thousand records in a table and you needed to loop through it to find a given record whose name matched a specific customer name – and you need to perform this looping lookup repeatedly nested inside another enumeration. You have three options -

  1. Perform a FilterByFormula approach for each lookup; ugly, slow, convoluted.
  2. Loop through every record seeking a match; very slow and CPU-intensive, added code complexity.
  3. Perform a “seek” into a pre-built hash index; almost instant, elegant.

Approach 3 requires a single pass across all the records containing the customer names (that’s the downside). That pass would create a collection of objects in a single JSON document (ex., oCustomerNameHash that is global to your app) and looks something like this:

{ "ABC Transportation" : {
   "customer_id" : "1001",
   "customer_contact" : "Jimmy Johns",
   other attributes needed for the index...
... objects representing rest of the customers ...

When you want to know the contact name for “ABC Transportation”, the code is simple. effortless, and requires only 6 milliseconds.

let customerContact = oCustomerNameHash["ABC Transportation"].customer_contact;

Even if the hash index has 50,000 items in it, the response time will be sub-20 milliseconds. This single line of code eliminates a nested loop and the complexity of doing so. It is possible because you performed the loop in advance of needing to perform the lookups. Essentially, you are caching forward an intelligent and performant class of data objects that can be reused throughout your script.

This makes it possible to vastly compress the code and complexity while also sparing the number of loop introspections required to a single pass across that data instead of vastly many passes which are required in nested filtering loops.

With a hash index like this, you may often find multiple cases where the hash index can be utilized, so it has the advantage of being ready to perform lookups for the duration of your script process. Furthermore, you may discover you need to perform lookups using additional keys which suggests multiple hash indexes for the same data.

Imagine you wanted to also lookup customer name by customer ID or customer contact by customer ID. This would require a new hash index like oCustomerIDHash. Instead of building a second hash, this added seek capability can be built into the same constructor loop so there’s no need to loop for every index dimension you might need.

Example… you can mix both indexed dimentions into one hash index document - this time we’ll call it oCustomerHash. By simply creating two keys for each customer - one for the customer name, and one for the customer ID – we have begun to create a complex indexing model. The lookup process is constant and the agility is magnified.

The objects in the index would include two entries for each customer.

{ "ABC Transportation" : {
   "customer_id" : "1001",
   "customer_contact" : "Jimmy Johns",
   other attributes needed for the index...

{ "1001" : {
   "customer_name" : "ABC Transportation",
   "customer_contact" : "Jimmy Johns",
   other attributes needed for the index...

Now you can query by customer name to get customer ID or by customer ID to get customer name instantly - no nested looping required.

let customerName = oCustomerHash["1001"].customer_contact;
let customerID   = oCustomerHash["ABC Transportation"].customer_id;

Building the Index

This is one approach that can be used to construct the index from an existing collection of records.

let oCustomerHash = {};
for (let record of oRecords)
    // add the customer name object
    oCustomerHash[oRecords[record].getCellValue("Customer Name")] = {
        "customer_id"      : oRecords[record].getCellValue("Customer ID"),
        "customer_contact" : oRecords[record].getCellValue("Customer Contact"),
    // add the customer id object
     oCustomerHash[oRecords[record].getCellValue("Customer ID")] = {
        "customer_name"    : oRecords[record].getCellValue("Customer Name"),
        "customer_contact" : oRecords[record].getCellValue("Customer Contact"),
31 Replies 31

Thanks a lot Bill for the reference to Lunr !
Another one of your essential contributions to my journey in airtable & js API’s !
I wish you the best in the heart of the Kuiper Belt !


5 - Automation Enthusiast
5 - Automation Enthusiast

@Bill.French, thank you for taking the time to put this very helpful guide together!

Hi @Bill.French - It isn’t clear what is the “oRecords”? Can you explain a bit more how are you generating this list of records and object types.

@Bill.French - Also, are we supposed to get an error about using record as an index?

8 - Airtable Astronomer
8 - Airtable Astronomer

Hi @Bill.French - How is it possible to store the hash in airtable via createrecordasync? The hash creation is currently crashing my script…

The hash table is a JSON object and cannot be stored without serializing it (stringifying). But, why store it? Just build it dynamically when you need it. If you store it and the data it contains changes, it will be outdated and largely useless.

I would need to see the code to avoid guessing what your issues are.

The code block you are referencing builds two hash indices inside a single JSON document - one for looking up customers by ID and another for looking up customers by name. In a moderately-sized data table of say 25k customers, these indexes are created in about 2 to 4 seconds and once built, seeks into them are typically < 1 to 2 ms. As such, you can reference these inside a loop without any significant performance hit - e.g., 1,000 to 2,000 lookups per second is possible.

I recommend you build a hash index and then examine it with a console.log() output in a simple script block.

While I appreciate your saying, what I meant is do you use await selectrecordsasync? Or what is the form of this? Do you have an example? I was able to get it to work using loops but not for… of

Why I want to store it is that it has crashed the code block and I do not want to have that happen in the future.

There should be no reason a script block would crash by making a single JSON object unless the data you are storing into it is massive. I’d have to look at the cause of the crash to truly understand how best to advise you.

Yes - any method of reading data can be used to create a collection of JSON object. The examples are in the article.

Step 1 - build the hash index
Step 2 - perform lookups inside loops without nested looping

5 - Automation Enthusiast
5 - Automation Enthusiast

What is “ oRecords ”? @Bill.French