How can I combine a sequence of JSON with jq without using the slurp flag?











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have a ton of records (~4,500) that I've processed (using jq) down to a sequence of JSON grouped by hourly UTC time (~680 groups, all unique).



{
"2018-10-09T19:00:00.000Z":
}
{
"2018-10-09T20:00:00.000Z":
}
{
"2018-10-09T21:00:00.000Z":
}


I'm pretty sure you can see where this is going, but I want to combine all these into a single JSON object to hand over to another system for more fun.



{
"2018-10-09T19:00:00.000Z": ,
"2018-10-09T20:00:00.000Z": ,
"2018-10-09T21:00:00.000Z":
}


The last two things I'm doing before I get to the sequence of objects is:



group_by(.day) | { (.[0].day): . }


Where .day is the ISO Date you see referenced above.



I've tried a few things around map and reduce functions, but can't seem to massage the data the way I want. I've spent a few hours on this and need to take a break, so any help or direction you can point me would be great!










share|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    I have a ton of records (~4,500) that I've processed (using jq) down to a sequence of JSON grouped by hourly UTC time (~680 groups, all unique).



    {
    "2018-10-09T19:00:00.000Z":
    }
    {
    "2018-10-09T20:00:00.000Z":
    }
    {
    "2018-10-09T21:00:00.000Z":
    }


    I'm pretty sure you can see where this is going, but I want to combine all these into a single JSON object to hand over to another system for more fun.



    {
    "2018-10-09T19:00:00.000Z": ,
    "2018-10-09T20:00:00.000Z": ,
    "2018-10-09T21:00:00.000Z":
    }


    The last two things I'm doing before I get to the sequence of objects is:



    group_by(.day) | { (.[0].day): . }


    Where .day is the ISO Date you see referenced above.



    I've tried a few things around map and reduce functions, but can't seem to massage the data the way I want. I've spent a few hours on this and need to take a break, so any help or direction you can point me would be great!










    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      I have a ton of records (~4,500) that I've processed (using jq) down to a sequence of JSON grouped by hourly UTC time (~680 groups, all unique).



      {
      "2018-10-09T19:00:00.000Z":
      }
      {
      "2018-10-09T20:00:00.000Z":
      }
      {
      "2018-10-09T21:00:00.000Z":
      }


      I'm pretty sure you can see where this is going, but I want to combine all these into a single JSON object to hand over to another system for more fun.



      {
      "2018-10-09T19:00:00.000Z": ,
      "2018-10-09T20:00:00.000Z": ,
      "2018-10-09T21:00:00.000Z":
      }


      The last two things I'm doing before I get to the sequence of objects is:



      group_by(.day) | { (.[0].day): . }


      Where .day is the ISO Date you see referenced above.



      I've tried a few things around map and reduce functions, but can't seem to massage the data the way I want. I've spent a few hours on this and need to take a break, so any help or direction you can point me would be great!










      share|improve this question













      I have a ton of records (~4,500) that I've processed (using jq) down to a sequence of JSON grouped by hourly UTC time (~680 groups, all unique).



      {
      "2018-10-09T19:00:00.000Z":
      }
      {
      "2018-10-09T20:00:00.000Z":
      }
      {
      "2018-10-09T21:00:00.000Z":
      }


      I'm pretty sure you can see where this is going, but I want to combine all these into a single JSON object to hand over to another system for more fun.



      {
      "2018-10-09T19:00:00.000Z": ,
      "2018-10-09T20:00:00.000Z": ,
      "2018-10-09T21:00:00.000Z":
      }


      The last two things I'm doing before I get to the sequence of objects is:



      group_by(.day) | { (.[0].day): . }


      Where .day is the ISO Date you see referenced above.



      I've tried a few things around map and reduce functions, but can't seem to massage the data the way I want. I've spent a few hours on this and need to take a break, so any help or direction you can point me would be great!







      javascript node.js json jq






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 21 at 21:33









      Sam Bantner

      9018




      9018
























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          If everything is already in memory, you could modify the group_by line as follows:



          reduce group_by(.day) as $in ({}; . + { ($in[0].day): $in }


          Alternatives to group_by



          Since group_by entails a sort, it may be unnecessarily inefficient. You might like to consider using a variant such as the following:



          # sort-free variant of group_by/1
          # f must always evaluate to an integer or always to a string.
          # Output: an array in the former case, or an object in the latter case
          def GROUP_BY(f): reduce . as $x ({}; .[$x|f] += [$x] );





          share|improve this answer























          • Everything is in memory and this is a very self-explanatory answer. Thanks for the help! I didn't think to bounce reducing up one level, which completely makes sense as my brain is clear :)
            – Sam Bantner
            Nov 23 at 13:11


















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          If the stream of objects is already in a file, use inputs with the -n command-line option.



          This will avoid the overhead of "slurping" but will still require enough RAM for the entire result to fit into memory. If that doesn't work for you, then you will have to resort to desperate measures :-)



          This might be a useful starting point:



          jq -n 'reduce inputs as $in ({}; . + $in)'





          share|improve this answer























          • I think you could also pipe the output as an array into add.
            – mustachioed
            Nov 21 at 22:00













          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          });
          });
          }, "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53420766%2fhow-can-i-combine-a-sequence-of-json-with-jq-without-using-the-slurp-flag%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          If everything is already in memory, you could modify the group_by line as follows:



          reduce group_by(.day) as $in ({}; . + { ($in[0].day): $in }


          Alternatives to group_by



          Since group_by entails a sort, it may be unnecessarily inefficient. You might like to consider using a variant such as the following:



          # sort-free variant of group_by/1
          # f must always evaluate to an integer or always to a string.
          # Output: an array in the former case, or an object in the latter case
          def GROUP_BY(f): reduce . as $x ({}; .[$x|f] += [$x] );





          share|improve this answer























          • Everything is in memory and this is a very self-explanatory answer. Thanks for the help! I didn't think to bounce reducing up one level, which completely makes sense as my brain is clear :)
            – Sam Bantner
            Nov 23 at 13:11















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          If everything is already in memory, you could modify the group_by line as follows:



          reduce group_by(.day) as $in ({}; . + { ($in[0].day): $in }


          Alternatives to group_by



          Since group_by entails a sort, it may be unnecessarily inefficient. You might like to consider using a variant such as the following:



          # sort-free variant of group_by/1
          # f must always evaluate to an integer or always to a string.
          # Output: an array in the former case, or an object in the latter case
          def GROUP_BY(f): reduce . as $x ({}; .[$x|f] += [$x] );





          share|improve this answer























          • Everything is in memory and this is a very self-explanatory answer. Thanks for the help! I didn't think to bounce reducing up one level, which completely makes sense as my brain is clear :)
            – Sam Bantner
            Nov 23 at 13:11













          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          If everything is already in memory, you could modify the group_by line as follows:



          reduce group_by(.day) as $in ({}; . + { ($in[0].day): $in }


          Alternatives to group_by



          Since group_by entails a sort, it may be unnecessarily inefficient. You might like to consider using a variant such as the following:



          # sort-free variant of group_by/1
          # f must always evaluate to an integer or always to a string.
          # Output: an array in the former case, or an object in the latter case
          def GROUP_BY(f): reduce . as $x ({}; .[$x|f] += [$x] );





          share|improve this answer














          If everything is already in memory, you could modify the group_by line as follows:



          reduce group_by(.day) as $in ({}; . + { ($in[0].day): $in }


          Alternatives to group_by



          Since group_by entails a sort, it may be unnecessarily inefficient. You might like to consider using a variant such as the following:



          # sort-free variant of group_by/1
          # f must always evaluate to an integer or always to a string.
          # Output: an array in the former case, or an object in the latter case
          def GROUP_BY(f): reduce . as $x ({}; .[$x|f] += [$x] );






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Nov 21 at 23:00

























          answered Nov 21 at 22:51









          peak

          28.9k73752




          28.9k73752












          • Everything is in memory and this is a very self-explanatory answer. Thanks for the help! I didn't think to bounce reducing up one level, which completely makes sense as my brain is clear :)
            – Sam Bantner
            Nov 23 at 13:11


















          • Everything is in memory and this is a very self-explanatory answer. Thanks for the help! I didn't think to bounce reducing up one level, which completely makes sense as my brain is clear :)
            – Sam Bantner
            Nov 23 at 13:11
















          Everything is in memory and this is a very self-explanatory answer. Thanks for the help! I didn't think to bounce reducing up one level, which completely makes sense as my brain is clear :)
          – Sam Bantner
          Nov 23 at 13:11




          Everything is in memory and this is a very self-explanatory answer. Thanks for the help! I didn't think to bounce reducing up one level, which completely makes sense as my brain is clear :)
          – Sam Bantner
          Nov 23 at 13:11












          up vote
          0
          down vote













          If the stream of objects is already in a file, use inputs with the -n command-line option.



          This will avoid the overhead of "slurping" but will still require enough RAM for the entire result to fit into memory. If that doesn't work for you, then you will have to resort to desperate measures :-)



          This might be a useful starting point:



          jq -n 'reduce inputs as $in ({}; . + $in)'





          share|improve this answer























          • I think you could also pipe the output as an array into add.
            – mustachioed
            Nov 21 at 22:00

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          If the stream of objects is already in a file, use inputs with the -n command-line option.



          This will avoid the overhead of "slurping" but will still require enough RAM for the entire result to fit into memory. If that doesn't work for you, then you will have to resort to desperate measures :-)



          This might be a useful starting point:



          jq -n 'reduce inputs as $in ({}; . + $in)'





          share|improve this answer























          • I think you could also pipe the output as an array into add.
            – mustachioed
            Nov 21 at 22:00















          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          If the stream of objects is already in a file, use inputs with the -n command-line option.



          This will avoid the overhead of "slurping" but will still require enough RAM for the entire result to fit into memory. If that doesn't work for you, then you will have to resort to desperate measures :-)



          This might be a useful starting point:



          jq -n 'reduce inputs as $in ({}; . + $in)'





          share|improve this answer














          If the stream of objects is already in a file, use inputs with the -n command-line option.



          This will avoid the overhead of "slurping" but will still require enough RAM for the entire result to fit into memory. If that doesn't work for you, then you will have to resort to desperate measures :-)



          This might be a useful starting point:



          jq -n 'reduce inputs as $in ({}; . + $in)'






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Nov 22 at 6:38

























          answered Nov 21 at 21:59









          peak

          28.9k73752




          28.9k73752












          • I think you could also pipe the output as an array into add.
            – mustachioed
            Nov 21 at 22:00




















          • I think you could also pipe the output as an array into add.
            – mustachioed
            Nov 21 at 22:00


















          I think you could also pipe the output as an array into add.
          – mustachioed
          Nov 21 at 22:00






          I think you could also pipe the output as an array into add.
          – mustachioed
          Nov 21 at 22:00




















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53420766%2fhow-can-i-combine-a-sequence-of-json-with-jq-without-using-the-slurp-flag%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Trompette piccolo

          How do I get these specific pathlines to nodes?

          What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop