How do I sort a NumPy array by its nth column?
For example, given:
a = array([[9, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6],
[7, 0, 5]])
I want to sort the rows of a by the second column to obtain:
array([[7, 0, 5],
[9, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6]])
To sort by the second column of a:
a[a[:, 1].argsort()]
#steve's answer is actually the most elegant way of doing it.
For the "correct" way see the order keyword argument of numpy.ndarray.sort
However, you'll need to view your array as an array with fields (a structured array).
The "correct" way is quite ugly if you didn't initially define your array with fields...
As a quick example, to sort it and return a copy:
In [1]: import numpy as np
In [2]: a = np.array([[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[0,0,1]])
In [3]: np.sort(a.view('i8,i8,i8'), order=['f1'], axis=0).view(np.int)
Out[3]:
array([[0, 0, 1],
[1, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6]])
To sort it in-place:
In [6]: a.view('i8,i8,i8').sort(order=['f1'], axis=0) #<-- returns None
In [7]: a
Out[7]:
array([[0, 0, 1],
[1, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6]])
#Steve's really is the most elegant way to do it, as far as I know...
The only advantage to this method is that the "order" argument is a list of the fields to order the search by. For example, you can sort by the second column, then the third column, then the first column by supplying order=['f1','f2','f0'].
You can sort on multiple columns as per Steve Tjoa's method by using a stable sort like mergesort and sorting the indices from the least significant to the most significant columns:
a = a[a[:,2].argsort()] # First sort doesn't need to be stable.
a = a[a[:,1].argsort(kind='mergesort')]
a = a[a[:,0].argsort(kind='mergesort')]
This sorts by column 0, then 1, then 2.
In case someone wants to make use of sorting at a critical part of their programs here's a performance comparison for the different proposals:
import numpy as np
table = np.random.rand(5000, 10)
%timeit table.view('f8,f8,f8,f8,f8,f8,f8,f8,f8,f8').sort(order=['f9'], axis=0)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.88 ms per loop
%timeit table[table[:,9].argsort()]
10000 loops, best of 3: 180 µs per loop
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame(table)
%timeit df.sort_values(9, ascending=True)
1000 loops, best of 3: 400 µs per loop
So, it looks like indexing with argsort is the quickest method so far...
From the NumPy mailing list, here's another solution:
>>> a
array([[1, 2],
[0, 0],
[1, 0],
[0, 2],
[2, 1],
[1, 0],
[1, 0],
[0, 0],
[1, 0],
[2, 2]])
>>> a[np.lexsort(np.fliplr(a).T)]
array([[0, 0],
[0, 0],
[0, 2],
[1, 0],
[1, 0],
[1, 0],
[1, 0],
[1, 2],
[2, 1],
[2, 2]])
As the Python documentation wiki suggests:
a = ([[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [0, 0, 1]]);
a = sorted(a, key=lambda a_entry: a_entry[1])
print a
Output:
[[[0, 0, 1], [1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]]]
I had a similar problem.
My Problem:
I want to calculate an SVD and need to sort my eigenvalues in descending order. But I want to keep the mapping between eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
My eigenvalues were in the first row and the corresponding eigenvector below it in the same column.
So I want to sort a two-dimensional array column-wise by the first row in descending order.
My Solution
a = a[::, a[0,].argsort()[::-1]]
So how does this work?
a[0,] is just the first row I want to sort by.
Now I use argsort to get the order of indices.
I use [::-1] because I need descending order.
Lastly I use a[::, ...] to get a view with the columns in the right order.
import numpy as np
a=np.array([[21,20,19,18,17],[16,15,14,13,12],[11,10,9,8,7],[6,5,4,3,2]])
y=np.argsort(a[:,2],kind='mergesort')# a[:,2]=[19,14,9,4]
a=a[y]
print(a)
Desired output is [[6,5,4,3,2],[11,10,9,8,7],[16,15,14,13,12],[21,20,19,18,17]]
note that argsort(numArray) returns the indices of an numArray as it was supposed to be arranged in a sorted manner.
example
x=np.array([8,1,5])
z=np.argsort(x) #[1,3,0] are the **indices of the predicted sorted array**
print(x[z]) #boolean indexing which sorts the array on basis of indices saved in z
answer would be [1,5,8]
A little more complicated lexsort example - descending on the 1st column, secondarily ascending on the 2nd. The tricks with lexsort are that it sorts on rows (hence the .T), and gives priority to the last.
In [120]: b=np.array([[1,2,1],[3,1,2],[1,1,3],[2,3,4],[3,2,5],[2,1,6]])
In [121]: b
Out[121]:
array([[1, 2, 1],
[3, 1, 2],
[1, 1, 3],
[2, 3, 4],
[3, 2, 5],
[2, 1, 6]])
In [122]: b[np.lexsort(([1,-1]*b[:,[1,0]]).T)]
Out[122]:
array([[3, 1, 2],
[3, 2, 5],
[2, 1, 6],
[2, 3, 4],
[1, 1, 3],
[1, 2, 1]])
Here is another solution considering all columns (more compact way of J.J's answer);
ar=np.array([[0, 0, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 0],
[1, 0, 0, 1],
[0, 0, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 0, 0]])
Sort with lexsort,
ar[np.lexsort(([ar[:, i] for i in range(ar.shape[1]-1, -1, -1)]))]
Output:
array([[0, 0, 0, 1],
[0, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 0],
[1, 0, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 0, 0]])
Pandas Approach Just For Completeness:
a = np.array([[9, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6],
[7, 0, 5]])
a = pd.DataFrame(a)
a.sort_values(1, ascending=True).to_numpy()
array([[7, 0, 5], # '1' means sort by second column
[9, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6]])
prl900
Did the Benchmark, comparing with the accepted answer:
%timeit pandas_df.sort_values(9, ascending=True)
1000 loops, best of 3: 400 µs per loop
%timeit numpy_table[numpy_table[:,9].argsort()]
10000 loops, best of 3: 180 µs per loop
It is an old question but if you need to generalize this to a higher than 2 dimension arrays, here is the solution than can be easily generalized:
np.einsum('ij->ij', a[a[:,1].argsort(),:])
This is an overkill for two dimensions and a[a[:,1].argsort()] would be enough per #steve's answer, however that answer cannot be generalized to higher dimensions. You can find an example of 3D array in this question.
Output:
[[7 0 5]
[9 2 3]
[4 5 6]]
#for sorting along column 1
indexofsort=np.argsort(dataset[:,0],axis=-1,kind='stable')
dataset = dataset[indexofsort,:]
def sort_np_array(x, column=None, flip=False):
x = x[np.argsort(x[:, column])]
if flip:
x = np.flip(x, axis=0)
return x
Array in the original question:
a = np.array([[9, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6],
[7, 0, 5]])
The result of the sort_np_array function as expected by the author of the question:
sort_np_array(a, column=1, flip=False)
[2]: array([[7, 0, 5],
[9, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6]])
Thanks to this post: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5204280/13890678
I found a more "generic" answer using structured array.
I think one advantage of this method is that the code is easier to read.
import numpy as np
a = np.array([[9, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6],
[7, 0, 5]])
struct_a = np.core.records.fromarrays(
a.transpose(), names="col1, col2, col3", formats="i8, i8, i8"
)
struct_a.sort(order="col2")
print(struct_a)
[(7, 0, 5) (9, 2, 3) (4, 5, 6)]
Simply using sort, use column number based on which you want to sort.
a = np.array([1,1], [1,-1], [-1,1], [-1,-1]])
print (a)
a = a.tolist()
a = np.array(sorted(a, key=lambda a_entry: a_entry[0]))
print (a)
Related
I have an array X:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
And I wish to find the index of the row of several values in this array:
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
For this example I would like a result like:
[0,3,4]
I have a code doing this, but I think it is overly complicated:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
result = []
for s in searched_values:
idx = np.argwhere([np.all((X-s)==0, axis=1)])[0][1]
result.append(idx)
print(result)
I found this answer for a similar question but it works only for 1d arrays.
Is there a way to do what I want in a simpler way?
Approach #1
One approach would be to use NumPy broadcasting, like so -
np.where((X==searched_values[:,None]).all(-1))[1]
Approach #2
A memory efficient approach would be to convert each row as linear index equivalents and then using np.in1d, like so -
dims = X.max(0)+1
out = np.where(np.in1d(np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims),\
np.ravel_multi_index(searched_values.T,dims)))[0]
Approach #3
Another memory efficient approach using np.searchsorted and with that same philosophy of converting to linear index equivalents would be like so -
dims = X.max(0)+1
X1D = np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims)
searched_valuesID = np.ravel_multi_index(searched_values.T,dims)
sidx = X1D.argsort()
out = sidx[np.searchsorted(X1D,searched_valuesID,sorter=sidx)]
Please note that this np.searchsorted method assumes there is a match for each row from searched_values in X.
How does np.ravel_multi_index work?
This function gives us the linear index equivalent numbers. It accepts a 2D array of n-dimensional indices, set as columns and the shape of that n-dimensional grid itself onto which those indices are to be mapped and equivalent linear indices are to be computed.
Let's use the inputs we have for the problem at hand. Take the case of input X and note the first row of it. Since, we are trying to convert each row of X into its linear index equivalent and since np.ravel_multi_index assumes each column as one indexing tuple, we need to transpose X before feeding into the function. Since, the number of elements per row in X in this case is 2, the n-dimensional grid to be mapped onto would be 2D. With 3 elements per row in X, it would had been 3D grid for mapping and so on.
To see how this function would compute linear indices, consider the first row of X -
In [77]: X
Out[77]:
array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
We have the shape of the n-dimensional grid as dims -
In [78]: dims
Out[78]: array([10, 7])
Let's create the 2-dimensional grid to see how that mapping works and linear indices get computed with np.ravel_multi_index -
In [79]: out = np.zeros(dims,dtype=int)
In [80]: out
Out[80]:
array([[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]])
Let's set the first indexing tuple from X, i.e. the first row from X into the grid -
In [81]: out[4,2] = 1
In [82]: out
Out[82]:
array([[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]])
Now, to see the linear index equivalent of the element just set, let's flatten and use np.where to detect that 1.
In [83]: np.where(out.ravel())[0]
Out[83]: array([30])
This could also be computed if row-major ordering is taken into account.
Let's use np.ravel_multi_index and verify those linear indices -
In [84]: np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims)
Out[84]: array([30, 66, 61, 24, 41])
Thus, we would have linear indices corresponding to each indexing tuple from X, i.e. each row from X.
Choosing dimensions for np.ravel_multi_index to form unique linear indices
Now, the idea behind considering each row of X as indexing tuple of a n-dimensional grid and converting each such tuple to a scalar is to have unique scalars corresponding to unique tuples, i.e. unique rows in X.
Let's take another look at X -
In [77]: X
Out[77]:
array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
Now, as discussed in the previous section, we are considering each row as indexing tuple. Within each such indexing tuple, the first element would represent the first axis of the n-dim grid, second element would be the second axis of the grid and so on until the last element of each row in X. In essence, each column would represent one dimension or axis of the grid. If we are to map all elements from X onto the same n-dim grid, we need to consider the maximum stretch of each axis of such a proposed n-dim grid. Assuming we are dealing with positive numbers in X, such a stretch would be the maximum of each column in X + 1. That + 1 is because Python follows 0-based indexing. So, for example X[1,0] == 9 would map to the 10th row of the proposed grid. Similarly, X[4,1] == 6 would go to the 7th column of that grid.
So, for our sample case, we had -
In [7]: dims = X.max(axis=0) + 1 # Or simply X.max(0) + 1
In [8]: dims
Out[8]: array([10, 7])
Thus, we would need a grid of at least a shape of (10,7) for our sample case. More lengths along the dimensions won't hurt and would give us unique linear indices too.
Concluding remarks : One important thing to be noted here is that if we have negative numbers in X, we need to add proper offsets along each column in X to make those indexing tuples as positive numbers before using np.ravel_multi_index.
Another alternative is to use asvoid (below) to view each row as a single
value of void dtype. This reduces a 2D array to a 1D array, thus allowing you to use np.in1d as usual:
import numpy as np
def asvoid(arr):
"""
Based on http://stackoverflow.com/a/16973510/190597 (Jaime, 2013-06)
View the array as dtype np.void (bytes). The items along the last axis are
viewed as one value. This allows comparisons to be performed which treat
entire rows as one value.
"""
arr = np.ascontiguousarray(arr)
if np.issubdtype(arr.dtype, np.floating):
""" Care needs to be taken here since
np.array([-0.]).view(np.void) != np.array([0.]).view(np.void)
Adding 0. converts -0. to 0.
"""
arr += 0.
return arr.view(np.dtype((np.void, arr.dtype.itemsize * arr.shape[-1])))
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
idx = np.flatnonzero(np.in1d(asvoid(X), asvoid(searched_values)))
print(idx)
# [0 3 4]
The numpy_indexed package (disclaimer: I am its author) contains functionality for performing such operations efficiently (also uses searchsorted under the hood). In terms of functionality, it acts as a vectorized equivalent of list.index:
import numpy_indexed as npi
result = npi.indices(X, searched_values)
Note that using the 'missing' kwarg, you have full control over behavior of missing items, and it works for nd-arrays (fi; stacks of images) as well.
Update: using the same shapes as #Rik X=[520000,28,28] and searched_values=[20000,28,28], it runs in 0.8064 secs, using missing=-1 to detect and denote entries not present in X.
Here is a pretty fast solution that scales up well using numpy and hashlib. It can handle large dimensional matrices or images in seconds. I used it on 520000 X (28 X 28) array and 20000 X (28 X 28) in 2 seconds on my CPU
Code:
import numpy as np
import hashlib
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
#hash using sha1 appears to be efficient
xhash=[hashlib.sha1(row).digest() for row in X]
yhash=[hashlib.sha1(row).digest() for row in searched_values]
z=np.in1d(xhash,yhash)
##Use unique to get unique indices to ind1 results
_,unique=np.unique(np.array(xhash)[z],return_index=True)
##Compute unique indices by indexing an array of indices
idx=np.array(range(len(xhash)))
unique_idx=idx[z][unique]
print('unique_idx=',unique_idx)
print('X[unique_idx]=',X[unique_idx])
Output:
unique_idx= [4 3 0]
X[unique_idx]= [[5 6]
[3 3]
[4 2]]
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
S = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
result = [[i for i,row in enumerate(X) if (s==row).all()] for s in S]
or
result = [i for s in S for i,row in enumerate(X) if (s==row).all()]
if you want a flat list (assuming there is exactly one match per searched value).
Another way is to use cdist function from scipy.spatial.distance like this:
np.nonzero(cdist(X, searched_values) == 0)[0]
Basically, we get row numbers of X which have distance zero to a row in searched_values, meaning they are equal. Makes sense if you look on rows as coordinates.
I had similar requirement and following worked for me:
np.argwhere(np.isin(X, searched_values).all(axis=1))
Here's what worked out for me:
def find_points(orig: np.ndarray, search: np.ndarray) -> np.ndarray:
equals = [np.equal(orig, p).all(1) for p in search]
exists = np.max(equals, axis=1)
indices = np.argmax(equals, axis=1)
indices[exists == False] = -1
return indices
test:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6],
[0, 0]])
find_points(X, searched_values)
output:
[0,3,4,-1]
I have a list of unique rows and another larger array of data (called test_rows in example). I was wondering if there was a faster way to get the location of each unique row in the data. The fastest way that I could come up with is...
import numpy
uniq_rows = numpy.array([[0, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 1]])
test_rows = numpy.array([[0, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 0],
[0, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 1],
[1, 1, 1],
[1, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 0],
[0, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 0]])
# this gives me the indexes of each group of unique rows
for row in uniq_rows.tolist():
print row, numpy.where((test_rows == row).all(axis=1))[0]
This prints...
[0, 1, 0] [ 1 4 10]
[1, 1, 0] [ 3 8 12]
[1, 1, 1] [7 9]
[0, 1, 1] [0 5 6]
Is there a better or more numpythonic (not sure if that word exists) way to do this? I was searching for a numpy group function but could not find it. Basically for any incoming dataset I need the fastest way to get the locations of each unique row in that data set. The incoming dataset will not always have every unique row or the same number.
EDIT:
This is just a simple example. In my application the numbers would not be just zeros and ones, they could be anywhere from 0 to 32000. The size of uniq rows could be between 4 to 128 rows and the size of test_rows could be in the hundreds of thousands.
Numpy
From version 1.13 of numpy you can use numpy.unique like np.unique(test_rows, return_counts=True, return_index=True, axis=1)
Pandas
df = pd.DataFrame(test_rows)
uniq = pd.DataFrame(uniq_rows)
uniq
0 1 2
0 0 1 0
1 1 1 0
2 1 1 1
3 0 1 1
Or you could generate the unique rows automatically from the incoming DataFrame
uniq_generated = df.drop_duplicates().reset_index(drop=True)
yields
0 1 2
0 0 1 1
1 0 1 0
2 0 0 0
3 1 1 0
4 1 1 1
and then look for it
d = dict()
for idx, row in uniq.iterrows():
d[idx] = df.index[(df == row).all(axis=1)].values
This is about the same as your where method
d
{0: array([ 1, 4, 10], dtype=int64),
1: array([ 3, 8, 12], dtype=int64),
2: array([7, 9], dtype=int64),
3: array([0, 5, 6], dtype=int64)}
There are a lot of solutions here, but I'm adding one with vanilla numpy. In most cases numpy will be faster than list comprehensions and dictionaries, although the array broadcasting may cause memory to be an issue if large arrays are used.
np.where((uniq_rows[:, None, :] == test_rows).all(2))
Wonderfully simple, eh? This returns a tuple of unique row indices and the corresponding test row.
(array([0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3]),
array([ 1, 4, 10, 3, 8, 12, 7, 9, 0, 5, 6]))
How it works:
(uniq_rows[:, None, :] == test_rows)
Uses array broadcasting to compare each element of test_rows with each row in uniq_rows. This results in a 4x13x3 array. all is used to determine which rows are equal (all comparisons returned true). Finally, where returns the indices of these rows.
With the np.unique from v1.13 (downloaded from the source link on the latest documentation, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/numpy/lib/arraysetops.py#L112-L247)
In [157]: aset.unique(test_rows, axis=0,return_inverse=True,return_index=True)
Out[157]:
(array([[0, 0, 0],
[0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 1],
[1, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 1]]),
array([2, 1, 0, 3, 7], dtype=int32),
array([2, 1, 0, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4, 1, 0, 3], dtype=int32))
In [158]: a,b,c=_
In [159]: c
Out[159]: array([2, 1, 0, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 3, 4, 1, 0, 3], dtype=int32)
In [164]: from collections import defaultdict
In [165]: dd = defaultdict(list)
In [166]: for i,v in enumerate(c):
...: dd[v].append(i)
...:
In [167]: dd
Out[167]:
defaultdict(list,
{0: [2, 11],
1: [1, 4, 10],
2: [0, 5, 6],
3: [3, 8, 12],
4: [7, 9]})
or indexing the dictionary with the unique rows (as hashable tuple):
In [170]: dd = defaultdict(list)
In [171]: for i,v in enumerate(c):
...: dd[tuple(a[v])].append(i)
...:
In [172]: dd
Out[172]:
defaultdict(list,
{(0, 0, 0): [2, 11],
(0, 1, 0): [1, 4, 10],
(0, 1, 1): [0, 5, 6],
(1, 1, 0): [3, 8, 12],
(1, 1, 1): [7, 9]})
This will do the job:
import numpy as np
uniq_rows = np.array([[0, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 1]])
test_rows = np.array([[0, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 0],
[0, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 1],
[1, 1, 1],
[1, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 1],
[0, 1, 0],
[0, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 0]])
indices=np.where(np.sum(np.abs(np.repeat(uniq_rows,len(test_rows),axis=0)-np.tile(test_rows,(len(uniq_rows),1))),axis=1)==0)[0]
loc=indices//len(test_rows)
indices=indices-loc*len(test_rows)
res=[[] for i in range(len(uniq_rows))]
for i in range(len(indices)):
res[loc[i]].append(indices[i])
print(res)
[[1, 4, 10], [3, 8, 12], [7, 9], [0, 5, 6]]
This will work for all the cases including the cases in which not all the rows in uniq_rows are present in test_rows. However, if somehow you know ahead that all of them are present, you could replace the part
res=[[] for i in range(len(uniq_rows))]
for i in range(len(indices)):
res[loc[i]].append(indices[i])
with just the row:
res=np.split(indices,np.where(np.diff(loc)>0)[0]+1)
Thus avoiding loops entirely.
Not very 'numpythonic', but for a bit of an upfront cost, we can make a dict with the keys as a tuple of your row, and a list of indices:
test_rowsdict = {}
for i,j in enumerate(test_rows):
test_rowsdict.setdefault(tuple(j),[]).append(i)
test_rowsdict
{(0, 0, 0): [2, 11],
(0, 1, 0): [1, 4, 10],
(0, 1, 1): [0, 5, 6],
(1, 1, 0): [3, 8, 12],
(1, 1, 1): [7, 9]}
Then you can filter based on your uniq_rows, with a fast dict lookup: test_rowsdict[tuple(row)]:
out = []
for i in uniq_rows:
out.append((i, test_rowsdict.get(tuple(i),[])))
For your data, I get 16us for just the lookup, and 66us for building and looking up, versus 95us for your np.where solution.
Approach #1
Here's one approach, not sure about the level of "NumPythonic-ness" though to such a tricky problem -
def get1Ds(a, b): # Get 1D views of each row from the two inputs
# check that casting to void will create equal size elements
assert a.shape[1:] == b.shape[1:]
assert a.dtype == b.dtype
# compute dtypes
void_dt = np.dtype((np.void, a.dtype.itemsize * a.shape[1]))
# convert to 1d void arrays
a = np.ascontiguousarray(a)
b = np.ascontiguousarray(b)
a_void = a.reshape(a.shape[0], -1).view(void_dt).ravel()
b_void = b.reshape(b.shape[0], -1).view(void_dt).ravel()
return a_void, b_void
def matching_row_indices(uniq_rows, test_rows):
A, B = get1Ds(uniq_rows, test_rows)
validA_mask = np.in1d(A,B)
sidx_A = A.argsort()
validA_mask = validA_mask[sidx_A]
sidx = B.argsort()
sortedB = B[sidx]
split_idx = np.flatnonzero(sortedB[1:] != sortedB[:-1])+1
all_split_indx = np.split(sidx, split_idx)
match_mask = np.in1d(B,A)[sidx]
valid_mask = np.logical_or.reduceat(match_mask, np.r_[0, split_idx])
locations = [e for i,e in enumerate(all_split_indx) if valid_mask[i]]
return uniq_rows[sidx_A[validA_mask]], locations
Scope(s) of improvement (on performance) :
np.split could be replaced by a for-loop for splitting using slicing.
np.r_ could be replaced by np.concatenate.
Sample run -
In [331]: unq_rows, idx = matching_row_indices(uniq_rows, test_rows)
In [332]: unq_rows
Out[332]:
array([[0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 1],
[1, 1, 0],
[1, 1, 1]])
In [333]: idx
Out[333]: [array([ 1, 4, 10]),array([0, 5, 6]),array([ 3, 8, 12]),array([7, 9])]
Approach #2
Another approach to beat the setup overhead from the previous one and making use of get1Ds from it, would be -
A, B = get1Ds(uniq_rows, test_rows)
idx_group = []
for row in A:
idx_group.append(np.flatnonzero(B == row))
The numpy_indexed package (disclaimer: I am its author) was created to solve problems of this kind in an elegant and efficient manner:
import numpy_indexed as npi
indices = np.arange(len(test_rows))
unique_test_rows, index_groups = npi.group_by(test_rows, indices)
If you dont care about the indices of all rows, but only those present in test_rows, npi has a bunch of simple ways of tackling that problem too; f.i:
subset_indices = npi.indices(unique_test_rows, unique_rows)
As a sidenote; it might be useful to take a look at the examples in the npi library; in my experience, most of the time people ask a question of this kind, these grouped indices are just a means to an end, and not the endgoal of the computation. Chances are that using the functionality in npi you can reach that end goal more efficiently, without ever explicitly computing those indices. Do you care to give some more background to your problem?
EDIT: if you arrays are indeed this big, and always consist of a small number of columns with binary values, wrapping them with the following encoding might boost efficiency a lot further still:
def encode(rows):
return (rows * [[2**i for i in range(rows.shape[1])]]).sum(axis=1, dtype=np.uint8)
I have an array X:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
And I wish to find the index of the row of several values in this array:
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
For this example I would like a result like:
[0,3,4]
I have a code doing this, but I think it is overly complicated:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
result = []
for s in searched_values:
idx = np.argwhere([np.all((X-s)==0, axis=1)])[0][1]
result.append(idx)
print(result)
I found this answer for a similar question but it works only for 1d arrays.
Is there a way to do what I want in a simpler way?
Approach #1
One approach would be to use NumPy broadcasting, like so -
np.where((X==searched_values[:,None]).all(-1))[1]
Approach #2
A memory efficient approach would be to convert each row as linear index equivalents and then using np.in1d, like so -
dims = X.max(0)+1
out = np.where(np.in1d(np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims),\
np.ravel_multi_index(searched_values.T,dims)))[0]
Approach #3
Another memory efficient approach using np.searchsorted and with that same philosophy of converting to linear index equivalents would be like so -
dims = X.max(0)+1
X1D = np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims)
searched_valuesID = np.ravel_multi_index(searched_values.T,dims)
sidx = X1D.argsort()
out = sidx[np.searchsorted(X1D,searched_valuesID,sorter=sidx)]
Please note that this np.searchsorted method assumes there is a match for each row from searched_values in X.
How does np.ravel_multi_index work?
This function gives us the linear index equivalent numbers. It accepts a 2D array of n-dimensional indices, set as columns and the shape of that n-dimensional grid itself onto which those indices are to be mapped and equivalent linear indices are to be computed.
Let's use the inputs we have for the problem at hand. Take the case of input X and note the first row of it. Since, we are trying to convert each row of X into its linear index equivalent and since np.ravel_multi_index assumes each column as one indexing tuple, we need to transpose X before feeding into the function. Since, the number of elements per row in X in this case is 2, the n-dimensional grid to be mapped onto would be 2D. With 3 elements per row in X, it would had been 3D grid for mapping and so on.
To see how this function would compute linear indices, consider the first row of X -
In [77]: X
Out[77]:
array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
We have the shape of the n-dimensional grid as dims -
In [78]: dims
Out[78]: array([10, 7])
Let's create the 2-dimensional grid to see how that mapping works and linear indices get computed with np.ravel_multi_index -
In [79]: out = np.zeros(dims,dtype=int)
In [80]: out
Out[80]:
array([[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]])
Let's set the first indexing tuple from X, i.e. the first row from X into the grid -
In [81]: out[4,2] = 1
In [82]: out
Out[82]:
array([[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]])
Now, to see the linear index equivalent of the element just set, let's flatten and use np.where to detect that 1.
In [83]: np.where(out.ravel())[0]
Out[83]: array([30])
This could also be computed if row-major ordering is taken into account.
Let's use np.ravel_multi_index and verify those linear indices -
In [84]: np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims)
Out[84]: array([30, 66, 61, 24, 41])
Thus, we would have linear indices corresponding to each indexing tuple from X, i.e. each row from X.
Choosing dimensions for np.ravel_multi_index to form unique linear indices
Now, the idea behind considering each row of X as indexing tuple of a n-dimensional grid and converting each such tuple to a scalar is to have unique scalars corresponding to unique tuples, i.e. unique rows in X.
Let's take another look at X -
In [77]: X
Out[77]:
array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
Now, as discussed in the previous section, we are considering each row as indexing tuple. Within each such indexing tuple, the first element would represent the first axis of the n-dim grid, second element would be the second axis of the grid and so on until the last element of each row in X. In essence, each column would represent one dimension or axis of the grid. If we are to map all elements from X onto the same n-dim grid, we need to consider the maximum stretch of each axis of such a proposed n-dim grid. Assuming we are dealing with positive numbers in X, such a stretch would be the maximum of each column in X + 1. That + 1 is because Python follows 0-based indexing. So, for example X[1,0] == 9 would map to the 10th row of the proposed grid. Similarly, X[4,1] == 6 would go to the 7th column of that grid.
So, for our sample case, we had -
In [7]: dims = X.max(axis=0) + 1 # Or simply X.max(0) + 1
In [8]: dims
Out[8]: array([10, 7])
Thus, we would need a grid of at least a shape of (10,7) for our sample case. More lengths along the dimensions won't hurt and would give us unique linear indices too.
Concluding remarks : One important thing to be noted here is that if we have negative numbers in X, we need to add proper offsets along each column in X to make those indexing tuples as positive numbers before using np.ravel_multi_index.
Another alternative is to use asvoid (below) to view each row as a single
value of void dtype. This reduces a 2D array to a 1D array, thus allowing you to use np.in1d as usual:
import numpy as np
def asvoid(arr):
"""
Based on http://stackoverflow.com/a/16973510/190597 (Jaime, 2013-06)
View the array as dtype np.void (bytes). The items along the last axis are
viewed as one value. This allows comparisons to be performed which treat
entire rows as one value.
"""
arr = np.ascontiguousarray(arr)
if np.issubdtype(arr.dtype, np.floating):
""" Care needs to be taken here since
np.array([-0.]).view(np.void) != np.array([0.]).view(np.void)
Adding 0. converts -0. to 0.
"""
arr += 0.
return arr.view(np.dtype((np.void, arr.dtype.itemsize * arr.shape[-1])))
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
idx = np.flatnonzero(np.in1d(asvoid(X), asvoid(searched_values)))
print(idx)
# [0 3 4]
The numpy_indexed package (disclaimer: I am its author) contains functionality for performing such operations efficiently (also uses searchsorted under the hood). In terms of functionality, it acts as a vectorized equivalent of list.index:
import numpy_indexed as npi
result = npi.indices(X, searched_values)
Note that using the 'missing' kwarg, you have full control over behavior of missing items, and it works for nd-arrays (fi; stacks of images) as well.
Update: using the same shapes as #Rik X=[520000,28,28] and searched_values=[20000,28,28], it runs in 0.8064 secs, using missing=-1 to detect and denote entries not present in X.
Here is a pretty fast solution that scales up well using numpy and hashlib. It can handle large dimensional matrices or images in seconds. I used it on 520000 X (28 X 28) array and 20000 X (28 X 28) in 2 seconds on my CPU
Code:
import numpy as np
import hashlib
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
#hash using sha1 appears to be efficient
xhash=[hashlib.sha1(row).digest() for row in X]
yhash=[hashlib.sha1(row).digest() for row in searched_values]
z=np.in1d(xhash,yhash)
##Use unique to get unique indices to ind1 results
_,unique=np.unique(np.array(xhash)[z],return_index=True)
##Compute unique indices by indexing an array of indices
idx=np.array(range(len(xhash)))
unique_idx=idx[z][unique]
print('unique_idx=',unique_idx)
print('X[unique_idx]=',X[unique_idx])
Output:
unique_idx= [4 3 0]
X[unique_idx]= [[5 6]
[3 3]
[4 2]]
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
S = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
result = [[i for i,row in enumerate(X) if (s==row).all()] for s in S]
or
result = [i for s in S for i,row in enumerate(X) if (s==row).all()]
if you want a flat list (assuming there is exactly one match per searched value).
Another way is to use cdist function from scipy.spatial.distance like this:
np.nonzero(cdist(X, searched_values) == 0)[0]
Basically, we get row numbers of X which have distance zero to a row in searched_values, meaning they are equal. Makes sense if you look on rows as coordinates.
I had similar requirement and following worked for me:
np.argwhere(np.isin(X, searched_values).all(axis=1))
Here's what worked out for me:
def find_points(orig: np.ndarray, search: np.ndarray) -> np.ndarray:
equals = [np.equal(orig, p).all(1) for p in search]
exists = np.max(equals, axis=1)
indices = np.argmax(equals, axis=1)
indices[exists == False] = -1
return indices
test:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6],
[0, 0]])
find_points(X, searched_values)
output:
[0,3,4,-1]
I have an array X:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
And I wish to find the index of the row of several values in this array:
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
For this example I would like a result like:
[0,3,4]
I have a code doing this, but I think it is overly complicated:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
result = []
for s in searched_values:
idx = np.argwhere([np.all((X-s)==0, axis=1)])[0][1]
result.append(idx)
print(result)
I found this answer for a similar question but it works only for 1d arrays.
Is there a way to do what I want in a simpler way?
Approach #1
One approach would be to use NumPy broadcasting, like so -
np.where((X==searched_values[:,None]).all(-1))[1]
Approach #2
A memory efficient approach would be to convert each row as linear index equivalents and then using np.in1d, like so -
dims = X.max(0)+1
out = np.where(np.in1d(np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims),\
np.ravel_multi_index(searched_values.T,dims)))[0]
Approach #3
Another memory efficient approach using np.searchsorted and with that same philosophy of converting to linear index equivalents would be like so -
dims = X.max(0)+1
X1D = np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims)
searched_valuesID = np.ravel_multi_index(searched_values.T,dims)
sidx = X1D.argsort()
out = sidx[np.searchsorted(X1D,searched_valuesID,sorter=sidx)]
Please note that this np.searchsorted method assumes there is a match for each row from searched_values in X.
How does np.ravel_multi_index work?
This function gives us the linear index equivalent numbers. It accepts a 2D array of n-dimensional indices, set as columns and the shape of that n-dimensional grid itself onto which those indices are to be mapped and equivalent linear indices are to be computed.
Let's use the inputs we have for the problem at hand. Take the case of input X and note the first row of it. Since, we are trying to convert each row of X into its linear index equivalent and since np.ravel_multi_index assumes each column as one indexing tuple, we need to transpose X before feeding into the function. Since, the number of elements per row in X in this case is 2, the n-dimensional grid to be mapped onto would be 2D. With 3 elements per row in X, it would had been 3D grid for mapping and so on.
To see how this function would compute linear indices, consider the first row of X -
In [77]: X
Out[77]:
array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
We have the shape of the n-dimensional grid as dims -
In [78]: dims
Out[78]: array([10, 7])
Let's create the 2-dimensional grid to see how that mapping works and linear indices get computed with np.ravel_multi_index -
In [79]: out = np.zeros(dims,dtype=int)
In [80]: out
Out[80]:
array([[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]])
Let's set the first indexing tuple from X, i.e. the first row from X into the grid -
In [81]: out[4,2] = 1
In [82]: out
Out[82]:
array([[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]])
Now, to see the linear index equivalent of the element just set, let's flatten and use np.where to detect that 1.
In [83]: np.where(out.ravel())[0]
Out[83]: array([30])
This could also be computed if row-major ordering is taken into account.
Let's use np.ravel_multi_index and verify those linear indices -
In [84]: np.ravel_multi_index(X.T,dims)
Out[84]: array([30, 66, 61, 24, 41])
Thus, we would have linear indices corresponding to each indexing tuple from X, i.e. each row from X.
Choosing dimensions for np.ravel_multi_index to form unique linear indices
Now, the idea behind considering each row of X as indexing tuple of a n-dimensional grid and converting each such tuple to a scalar is to have unique scalars corresponding to unique tuples, i.e. unique rows in X.
Let's take another look at X -
In [77]: X
Out[77]:
array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
Now, as discussed in the previous section, we are considering each row as indexing tuple. Within each such indexing tuple, the first element would represent the first axis of the n-dim grid, second element would be the second axis of the grid and so on until the last element of each row in X. In essence, each column would represent one dimension or axis of the grid. If we are to map all elements from X onto the same n-dim grid, we need to consider the maximum stretch of each axis of such a proposed n-dim grid. Assuming we are dealing with positive numbers in X, such a stretch would be the maximum of each column in X + 1. That + 1 is because Python follows 0-based indexing. So, for example X[1,0] == 9 would map to the 10th row of the proposed grid. Similarly, X[4,1] == 6 would go to the 7th column of that grid.
So, for our sample case, we had -
In [7]: dims = X.max(axis=0) + 1 # Or simply X.max(0) + 1
In [8]: dims
Out[8]: array([10, 7])
Thus, we would need a grid of at least a shape of (10,7) for our sample case. More lengths along the dimensions won't hurt and would give us unique linear indices too.
Concluding remarks : One important thing to be noted here is that if we have negative numbers in X, we need to add proper offsets along each column in X to make those indexing tuples as positive numbers before using np.ravel_multi_index.
Another alternative is to use asvoid (below) to view each row as a single
value of void dtype. This reduces a 2D array to a 1D array, thus allowing you to use np.in1d as usual:
import numpy as np
def asvoid(arr):
"""
Based on http://stackoverflow.com/a/16973510/190597 (Jaime, 2013-06)
View the array as dtype np.void (bytes). The items along the last axis are
viewed as one value. This allows comparisons to be performed which treat
entire rows as one value.
"""
arr = np.ascontiguousarray(arr)
if np.issubdtype(arr.dtype, np.floating):
""" Care needs to be taken here since
np.array([-0.]).view(np.void) != np.array([0.]).view(np.void)
Adding 0. converts -0. to 0.
"""
arr += 0.
return arr.view(np.dtype((np.void, arr.dtype.itemsize * arr.shape[-1])))
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
idx = np.flatnonzero(np.in1d(asvoid(X), asvoid(searched_values)))
print(idx)
# [0 3 4]
The numpy_indexed package (disclaimer: I am its author) contains functionality for performing such operations efficiently (also uses searchsorted under the hood). In terms of functionality, it acts as a vectorized equivalent of list.index:
import numpy_indexed as npi
result = npi.indices(X, searched_values)
Note that using the 'missing' kwarg, you have full control over behavior of missing items, and it works for nd-arrays (fi; stacks of images) as well.
Update: using the same shapes as #Rik X=[520000,28,28] and searched_values=[20000,28,28], it runs in 0.8064 secs, using missing=-1 to detect and denote entries not present in X.
Here is a pretty fast solution that scales up well using numpy and hashlib. It can handle large dimensional matrices or images in seconds. I used it on 520000 X (28 X 28) array and 20000 X (28 X 28) in 2 seconds on my CPU
Code:
import numpy as np
import hashlib
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
#hash using sha1 appears to be efficient
xhash=[hashlib.sha1(row).digest() for row in X]
yhash=[hashlib.sha1(row).digest() for row in searched_values]
z=np.in1d(xhash,yhash)
##Use unique to get unique indices to ind1 results
_,unique=np.unique(np.array(xhash)[z],return_index=True)
##Compute unique indices by indexing an array of indices
idx=np.array(range(len(xhash)))
unique_idx=idx[z][unique]
print('unique_idx=',unique_idx)
print('X[unique_idx]=',X[unique_idx])
Output:
unique_idx= [4 3 0]
X[unique_idx]= [[5 6]
[3 3]
[4 2]]
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
S = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
result = [[i for i,row in enumerate(X) if (s==row).all()] for s in S]
or
result = [i for s in S for i,row in enumerate(X) if (s==row).all()]
if you want a flat list (assuming there is exactly one match per searched value).
Another way is to use cdist function from scipy.spatial.distance like this:
np.nonzero(cdist(X, searched_values) == 0)[0]
Basically, we get row numbers of X which have distance zero to a row in searched_values, meaning they are equal. Makes sense if you look on rows as coordinates.
I had similar requirement and following worked for me:
np.argwhere(np.isin(X, searched_values).all(axis=1))
Here's what worked out for me:
def find_points(orig: np.ndarray, search: np.ndarray) -> np.ndarray:
equals = [np.equal(orig, p).all(1) for p in search]
exists = np.max(equals, axis=1)
indices = np.argmax(equals, axis=1)
indices[exists == False] = -1
return indices
test:
X = np.array([[4, 2],
[9, 3],
[8, 5],
[3, 3],
[5, 6]])
searched_values = np.array([[4, 2],
[3, 3],
[5, 6],
[0, 0]])
find_points(X, searched_values)
output:
[0,3,4,-1]
I want to use numpy argwhere to find where a maximum in my data is. Below is a sample set that describes what I am doing:
bins = np.arange(10)
data = np.array([[6],[4],[8],[5]])
np.argwhere(bins<data)
array([[0, 0],
[0, 1],
[0, 2],
[0, 3],
[0, 4],
[0, 5],
[1, 0],
[1, 1],
[1, 2],
[1, 3],
[2, 0],
[2, 1],
[2, 2],
[2, 3],
[2, 4],
[2, 5],
[2, 6],
[2, 7],
[3, 0],
[3, 1],
[3, 2],
[3, 3],
[3, 4]])
What I want from this data is
array([[0,5],
[1,3],
[2,7],
[3,4]])
This could be done with a for loop, but I was wondering if there was a more pythonic way to do this.
EDIT:
What I have now done was use Pandas and groupby. I am still wondering if this is the best method.
t = pd.DataFrame(np.argwhere(bins<data))
time = t.groupby(0)
time.max()
1
0
0 5
1 3
2 7
3 4
Now that I have this, I have a new problem. Lets say I have another set of data:
BigData = np.array([[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9],
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9],
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9],
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]])
How can I use the array I achieved
array([[0,5],
[1,3],
[2,7],
[3,4]])
To be put in this new data to get BigData average up to the index in the second column. I.E
(0+1+2+3+4) / 5
(0+1+2) / 3
(0+1+2+3+4+5+6) / 7
(0+1+2+3) / 4
would be the return of BigData, assuming that we got the index value of where this happens in column two.
Here's a fairly short Numpy solution that's also pretty fast:
A = np.argwhere(bins<data)
print A[np.r_[A[1:,0] != A[:-1,0], True]]
Here's a NumPy solution. It is not as readable as the Pandas version, but timing suggests it is much faster:
>>> arr = np.argwhere(bins<data)
>>> arr[np.where(np.diff(np.vstack((arr, [arr[-1][0]+1, arr[-1][1]])), axis=0)[:,0] > 0)[0]]
array([[0, 5],
[1, 3],
[2, 7],
[3, 4]])
>>> %timeit arr[np.where(np.diff(np.vstack((arr, [arr[-1][0]+1, arr[-1][1]])), axis=0)[:,0] > 0)[0]]
10000 loops, best of 3: 32.7 µs per loop
>>> %%timeit
... t = pd.DataFrame(arr)
... time = t.groupby(0)
... time.max()
...
1000 loops, best of 3: 1 ms per loop
The following seems to be pretty fast for me, taking advantage of argmax working left -> right:
>>> bins[::-1][(bins[::-1] < data).argmax(axis=1)]
array([5, 3, 7, 4])
For me %timeit shows that this takes around 11µs.
However, manipulating the array to have the index as the first column (as follows) increases time to around 25µs:
>>> np.column_stack(
... [np.arange(data.shape[0]), bins[::-1][(bins[::-1] < data).argmax(axis=1)]])
array([[0, 5],
[1, 3],
[2, 7],
[3, 4]])