lud
Advent of Code 2024 - Day 19
This one was scary at first.
I loved how part one directs you into an obvious optimization, and then part 2 kicks your butt by asking to not do that very specific optimization ![]()
My solution for part 2 runs in between 150ms and 380ms. I guess it’s because of the async streams, but it’s always fast (around 150, rarely even 120) when I run it once, but then with benchee for 10 seconds it averages between 170 and 380 depending on the runs …) Anyways, is fast enough.
defmodule AdventOfCode.Solutions.Y24.Day19 do
alias AoC.Input
def parse(input, _part) do
[towels, targets] = input |> Input.read!() |> String.trim() |> String.split("\n\n")
towels = towels |> String.split([",", " "], trim: true) |> Enum.map(&{&1, byte_size(&1)})
targets = String.split(targets, "\n", trim: true)
{towels, targets}
end
def part_one({towels, targets}) do
primitives = reduce_towels(towels)
targets = filter_possible_targets(targets, primitives)
length(targets)
end
# remove towels that can be constructed with other towels
defp reduce_towels(towels) do
case Enum.split_with(towels, fn {text, _} = t -> possible_target?(text, towels -- [t]) end) do
{[], all_primitives} -> all_primitives
{_composable, primitives} -> reduce_towels(primitives)
end
end
defp filter_possible_targets(targets, towels) do
targets
|> Task.async_stream(&{possible_target?(&1, towels), &1}, ordered: false, timeout: :infinity)
|> Enum.flat_map(fn
{:ok, {true, t}} -> [t]
{:ok, {false, _}} -> []
end)
end
defp possible_target?(target, towels) do
possible_target?(target, towels, towels)
end
defp possible_target?("", _, _), do: true
defp possible_target?(_, [], _), do: false
defp possible_target?(target, [{h, b} | t], towels) do
sub_match? =
case target do
<<^h::binary-size(b), rest::binary>> -> possible_target?(rest, towels, towels)
_ -> false
end
sub_match? || possible_target?(target, t, towels)
end
def part_two({towels, targets}) do
primitives = reduce_towels(towels)
targets
|> filter_possible_targets(primitives)
|> Task.async_stream(&count_combinations(&1, towels), ordered: false, timeout: :infinity)
|> Enum.reduce(0, fn {:ok, n}, acc -> acc + n end)
end
defp count_combinations(target, towels) do
possible_towels = Enum.filter(towels, fn {text, _} -> String.contains?(target, text) end)
do_count(%{target => 1}, possible_towels, 0)
end
defp do_count(target_suffixes, _towels, count) when map_size(target_suffixes) == 0 do
count
end
defp do_count(target_suffixes, towels, count) do
new_suffixes =
for {t, count} <- target_suffixes, {h, b} <- towels, reduce: [] do
sufxs ->
case t do
<<^h::binary-size(b), rest::binary>> -> [{rest, count} | sufxs]
_ -> sufxs
end
end
{target_suffixes, finished_count} =
Enum.reduce(new_suffixes, {%{}, 0}, fn
{"", cpt}, {map, finished_count} -> {map, finished_count + cpt}
{sufx, cpt}, {map, finished_count} -> {Map.update(map, sufx, cpt, &(&1 + cpt)), finished_count}
end)
do_count(target_suffixes, towels, count + finished_count)
end
end
Most Liked
bjorng
My straightforward solution for part 1 didn’t terminate for my real input.
I then implemented a trie (prefix tree). That took me a while, but it still didn’t terminate.
I then added memoization using the process dictionary. That worked.
After solving part 2, I cleaned up my code. I tried to use Memoize for memoization but the time increased to 31 seconds. I did some attempts to make Memoize use only the first argument of my count function, but I couldn’t make it work. In the end, I rewrote my count function to take an explicit memo argument.
The combined runtime for both parts and the examples is 0.4 seconds.
https://github.com/bjorng/advent-of-code/blob/main/2024/day19/lib/day19.ex
lkuty
I compiled a big regex for part 1. It is slow and does not work for part 2 but it was trivial to implement. Now I have to find another kind of solution to be able to do part 2 and probably part 1 faster.
{towels, designs} = puzzle_input
|> String.split("\n")
|> then(fn [towels, _ | designs] -> {String.split(towels, ", "), designs} end)
{:ok, regex} = towels |> Enum.join("|") |> then(fn x -> "^(#{x})+$" end) |> Regex.compile()
designs
|> Enum.reduce(0, fn design, n -> if String.match?(design, regex), do: n+1, else: n end)
|> IO.inspect(label: "Part 1")
igorb
I started with a straightforward solution I coded up in a few minutes, but it was taking too long on the real input, so I spent a while to rewrite it with a prefix tree (trie) instead. It ended up being too slow too, at which point I realized that, of course, I just needed to use memoization. So then I added it and was able to get the final answer. Ironically, it turned out that my original solution just lacked memoization as well so after adding it it ended up being even faster. Though both are slow compared to your runtime—definitely takes a few seconds for me. I didn’t parallelize, though.
With prefix tree and custom memoization: advent-of-code-2024/lib/advent_of_code2024/day19_trie.ex at main · ibarakaiev/advent-of-code-2024 · GitHub
Straightforward, using a nice memoization library: advent-of-code-2024/lib/advent_of_code2024/day19.ex at main · ibarakaiev/advent-of-code-2024 · GitHub
Popular in Challenges
Other popular topics
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #deployment
- #library
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #channels
- #elixirconf
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #javascript
- #podcasts
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #blog-post
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #ai
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #elixirconf-us
- #distillery
- #processes
- #forms
- #api
- #metaprogramming
- #security
- #performance








