Another poossible solution is based on the array_search()
function. You need to use PHP 5.5.0 or higher.
Example
$userdb=Array
(
(0) => Array
(
(uid) => '100',
(name) => 'Sandra Shush',
(url) => 'urlof100'
),
(1) => Array
(
(uid) => '5465',
(name) => 'Stefanie Mcmohn',
(pic_square) => 'urlof100'
),
(2) => Array
(
(uid) => '40489',
(name) => 'Michael',
(pic_square) => 'urlof40489'
)
);
$key = array_search(40489, array_column($userdb, 'uid'));
echo ("The key is: ".$key);
//This will output- The key is: 2
Explanation
The function array_search()
has two arguments. The first one is the value that you want to search. The second is where the function should search. The function array_column()
gets the values of the elements which key is 'uid'
.
Summary
So you could use it as:
array_search('breville-one-touch-tea-maker-BTM800XL', array_column($products, 'slug'));
or, if you prefer:
// define function
function array_search_multidim($array, $column, $key){
return (array_search($key, array_column($array, $column)));
}
// use it
array_search_multidim($products, 'slug', 'breville-one-touch-tea-maker-BTM800XL');
The original example(by xfoxawy) can be found on the DOCS.
The array_column()
page.
Update
Due to Vael comment I was curious, so I made a simple test to meassure the performance of the method that uses array_search
and the method proposed on the accepted answer.
I created an array which contained 1000 arrays, the structure was like this (all data was randomized):
[
{
"_id": "57fe684fb22a07039b3f196c",
"index": 0,
"guid": "98dd3515-3f1e-4b89-8bb9-103b0d67e613",
"isActive": true,
"balance": "$2,372.04",
"picture": "http://placehold.it/32x32",
"age": 21,
"eyeColor": "blue",
"name": "Green",
"company": "MIXERS"
},...
]
I ran the search test 100 times searching for different values for the name field, and then I calculated the mean time in milliseconds. Here you can see an example.
Results were that the method proposed on this answer needed about 2E-7 to find the value, while the accepted answer method needed about 8E-7.
Like I said before both times are pretty aceptable for an application using an array with this size. If the size grows a lot, let's say 1M elements, then this little difference will be increased too.
Update II
I've added a test for the method based in array_walk_recursive
which was mentionend on some of the answers here. The result got is the correct one. And if we focus on the performance, its a bit worse than the others examined on the test. In the test, you can see that is about 10 times slower than the method based on array_search
. Again, this isn't a very relevant difference for the most of the applications.
Update III
Thanks to @mickmackusa for spotting several limitations on this method:
- This method will fail on associative keys.
- This method will only work on indexed subarrays (starting from 0 and have consecutively ascending keys).