使用sort()函数。重复项可以通过遍历它并检查l1[i] == l1[i+1]来识别。

我在寻找相关的东西时遇到了这个问题-想知道为什么没有人提供基于生成器的解决方案?解决这个问题的方法是:

>>> print list(getDupes_9([1,2,3,2,1,5,6,5,5,5]))
[1, 2, 5]

我很关心可伸缩性，所以测试了几种方法，包括在小列表上工作得很好的naive项，但随着列表变大，可伸缩性很差(注意-使用timeit会更好，但这只是说明)。

我加入了@moooeeeep作为比较(它的速度非常快:如果输入列表是完全随机的，速度最快)和itertools方法，对于大多数排序的列表，它甚至更快……现在包括来自@ fireynx的熊猫方法-缓慢，但不是可怕的，而且简单。注意:在我的机器上，sort/tee/zip方法对于大型有序列表始终是最快的，moooeeeep对于洗牌列表是最快的，但您的情况可能会有所不同。

优势

非常快速简单的测试'任何'重复使用相同的代码

假设

重复项只应报告一次 重复的订单不需要保留 Duplicate可能位于列表中的任何位置

最快的解决方案，1m条目:

def getDupes(c):
        '''sort/tee/izip'''
        a, b = itertools.tee(sorted(c))
        next(b, None)
        r = None
        for k, g in itertools.izip(a, b):
            if k != g: continue
            if k != r:
                yield k
                r = k

方法测试

import itertools
import time
import random

def getDupes_1(c):
    '''naive'''
    for i in xrange(0, len(c)):
        if c[i] in c[:i]:
            yield c[i]

def getDupes_2(c):
    '''set len change'''
    s = set()
    for i in c:
        l = len(s)
        s.add(i)
        if len(s) == l:
            yield i

def getDupes_3(c):
    '''in dict'''
    d = {}
    for i in c:
        if i in d:
            if d[i]:
                yield i
                d[i] = False
        else:
            d[i] = True

def getDupes_4(c):
    '''in set'''
    s,r = set(),set()
    for i in c:
        if i not in s:
            s.add(i)
        elif i not in r:
            r.add(i)
            yield i

def getDupes_5(c):
    '''sort/adjacent'''
    c = sorted(c)
    r = None
    for i in xrange(1, len(c)):
        if c[i] == c[i - 1]:
            if c[i] != r:
                yield c[i]
                r = c[i]

def getDupes_6(c):
    '''sort/groupby'''
    def multiple(x):
        try:
            x.next()
            x.next()
            return True
        except:
            return False
    for k, g in itertools.ifilter(lambda x: multiple(x[1]), itertools.groupby(sorted(c))):
        yield k

def getDupes_7(c):
    '''sort/zip'''
    c = sorted(c)
    r = None
    for k, g in zip(c[:-1],c[1:]):
        if k == g:
            if k != r:
                yield k
                r = k

def getDupes_8(c):
    '''sort/izip'''
    c = sorted(c)
    r = None
    for k, g in itertools.izip(c[:-1],c[1:]):
        if k == g:
            if k != r:
                yield k
                r = k

def getDupes_9(c):
    '''sort/tee/izip'''
    a, b = itertools.tee(sorted(c))
    next(b, None)
    r = None
    for k, g in itertools.izip(a, b):
        if k != g: continue
        if k != r:
            yield k
            r = k

def getDupes_a(l):
    '''moooeeeep'''
    seen = set()
    seen_add = seen.add
    # adds all elements it doesn't know yet to seen and all other to seen_twice
    for x in l:
        if x in seen or seen_add(x):
            yield x

def getDupes_b(x):
    '''iter*/sorted'''
    x = sorted(x)
    def _matches():
        for k,g in itertools.izip(x[:-1],x[1:]):
            if k == g:
                yield k
    for k, n in itertools.groupby(_matches()):
        yield k

def getDupes_c(a):
    '''pandas'''
    import pandas as pd
    vc = pd.Series(a).value_counts()
    i = vc[vc > 1].index
    for _ in i:
        yield _

def hasDupes(fn,c):
    try:
        if fn(c).next(): return True    # Found a dupe
    except StopIteration:
        pass
    return False

def getDupes(fn,c):
    return list(fn(c))

STABLE = True
if STABLE:
    print 'Finding FIRST then ALL duplicates, single dupe of "nth" placed element in 1m element array'
else:
    print 'Finding FIRST then ALL duplicates, single dupe of "n" included in randomised 1m element array'
for location in (50,250000,500000,750000,999999):
    for test in (getDupes_2, getDupes_3, getDupes_4, getDupes_5, getDupes_6,
                 getDupes_8, getDupes_9, getDupes_a, getDupes_b, getDupes_c):
        print 'Test %-15s:%10d - '%(test.__doc__ or test.__name__,location),
        deltas = []
        for FIRST in (True,False):
            for i in xrange(0, 5):
                c = range(0,1000000)
                if STABLE:
                    c[0] = location
                else:
                    c.append(location)
                    random.shuffle(c)
                start = time.time()
                if FIRST:
                    print '.' if location == test(c).next() else '!',
                else:
                    print '.' if [location] == list(test(c)) else '!',
                deltas.append(time.time()-start)
            print ' -- %0.3f  '%(sum(deltas)/len(deltas)),
        print
    print

“all dupes”测试的结果是一致的，在这个数组中找到“first”重复，然后是“all”重复:

Finding FIRST then ALL duplicates, single dupe of "nth" placed element in 1m element array
Test set len change :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.264   . . . . .  -- 0.402  
Test in dict        :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.163   . . . . .  -- 0.250  
Test in set         :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.163   . . . . .  -- 0.249  
Test sort/adjacent  :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.159   . . . . .  -- 0.229  
Test sort/groupby   :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.860   . . . . .  -- 1.286  
Test sort/izip      :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.165   . . . . .  -- 0.229  
Test sort/tee/izip  :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.145   . . . . .  -- 0.206  *
Test moooeeeep      :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.149   . . . . .  -- 0.232  
Test iter*/sorted   :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.160   . . . . .  -- 0.221  
Test pandas         :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.493   . . . . .  -- 0.499  

当列表首先被打乱时，排序的代价就变得明显了——效率显著下降，@moooeeeep方法占主导地位，set和dict方法类似，但性能较差:

Finding FIRST then ALL duplicates, single dupe of "n" included in randomised 1m element array
Test set len change :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.321   . . . . .  -- 0.473  
Test in dict        :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.285   . . . . .  -- 0.360  
Test in set         :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.309   . . . . .  -- 0.365  
Test sort/adjacent  :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.756   . . . . .  -- 0.823  
Test sort/groupby   :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 1.459   . . . . .  -- 1.896  
Test sort/izip      :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.786   . . . . .  -- 0.845  
Test sort/tee/izip  :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.743   . . . . .  -- 0.804  
Test moooeeeep      :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.234   . . . . .  -- 0.311  *
Test iter*/sorted   :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.776   . . . . .  -- 0.840  
Test pandas         :    500000 -  . . . . .  -- 0.539   . . . . .  -- 0.540  

使用toolz时:

from toolz import frequencies, valfilter

a = [1,2,2,3,4,5,4]
>>> list(valfilter(lambda count: count > 1, frequencies(a)).keys())
[2,4] 

如果你不关心自己编写算法或使用库，Python 3.8一行代码:

l = [1,2,3,2,1,5,6,5,5,5]

res = [(x, count) for x, g in groupby(sorted(l)) if (count := len(list(g))) > 1]

print(res)

打印项目和计数:

[(1, 2), (2, 2), (5, 4)]

groupby接受一个分组函数，因此您可以以不同的方式定义分组，并根据需要返回额外的Tuple字段。

有点晚了，但可能对一些人有帮助。 对于一个比较大的列表，我发现这个方法很适合我。

l=[1,2,3,5,4,1,3,1]
s=set(l)
d=[]
for x in l:
    if x in s:
        s.remove(x)
    else:
        d.append(x)
d
[1,3,1]

显示正确和所有重复，并保持秩序。

你不需要计数，只需要该物品之前是否被看到过。把这个答案用在这个问题上:

def list_duplicates(seq):
  seen = set()
  seen_add = seen.add
  # adds all elements it doesn't know yet to seen and all other to seen_twice
  seen_twice = set( x for x in seq if x in seen or seen_add(x) )
  # turn the set into a list (as requested)
  return list( seen_twice )

a = [1,2,3,2,1,5,6,5,5,5]
list_duplicates(a) # yields [1, 2, 5]

以防速度很重要，这里有一些时间安排:

# file: test.py
import collections

def thg435(l):
    return [x for x, y in collections.Counter(l).items() if y > 1]

def moooeeeep(l):
    seen = set()
    seen_add = seen.add
    # adds all elements it doesn't know yet to seen and all other to seen_twice
    seen_twice = set( x for x in l if x in seen or seen_add(x) )
    # turn the set into a list (as requested)
    return list( seen_twice )

def RiteshKumar(l):
    return list(set([x for x in l if l.count(x) > 1]))

def JohnLaRooy(L):
    seen = set()
    seen2 = set()
    seen_add = seen.add
    seen2_add = seen2.add
    for item in L:
        if item in seen:
            seen2_add(item)
        else:
            seen_add(item)
    return list(seen2)

l = [1,2,3,2,1,5,6,5,5,5]*100

以下是结果:(做得好@JohnLaRooy!)

$ python -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.JohnLaRooy(test.l)'
10000 loops, best of 3: 74.6 usec per loop
$ python -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.moooeeeep(test.l)'
10000 loops, best of 3: 91.3 usec per loop
$ python -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.thg435(test.l)'
1000 loops, best of 3: 266 usec per loop
$ python -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.RiteshKumar(test.l)'
100 loops, best of 3: 8.35 msec per loop

有趣的是，除了计时本身，当使用pypy时，排名也略有变化。最有趣的是，基于counter的方法极大地受益于pypy的优化，而我建议的方法缓存方法似乎几乎没有任何效果。

$ pypy -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.JohnLaRooy(test.l)'
100000 loops, best of 3: 17.8 usec per loop
$ pypy -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.thg435(test.l)'
10000 loops, best of 3: 23 usec per loop
$ pypy -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.moooeeeep(test.l)'
10000 loops, best of 3: 39.3 usec per loop

显然，这种效应与输入数据的“重复性”有关。我设置了l = [random.randrange(1000000) for I in xrange(10000)]，得到了这些结果:

$ pypy -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.moooeeeep(test.l)'
1000 loops, best of 3: 495 usec per loop
$ pypy -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.JohnLaRooy(test.l)'
1000 loops, best of 3: 499 usec per loop
$ pypy -mtimeit -s 'import test' 'test.thg435(test.l)'
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.68 msec per loop