我如何有效地获得一个NumPy数组中每个唯一值的频率计数?
>>> x = np.array([1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1])
>>> freq_count(x)
[(1, 5), (2, 3), (5, 1), (25, 1)]
我如何有效地获得一个NumPy数组中每个唯一值的频率计数?
>>> x = np.array([1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1])
>>> freq_count(x)
[(1, 5), (2, 3), (5, 1), (25, 1)]
当前回答
用这个:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> x = [1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1]
>>> np.array(np.unique(x, return_counts=True)).T
array([[ 1, 5],
[ 2, 3],
[ 5, 1],
[25, 1]])
最初的回答:
使用scipy.stats.itemfreq(警告:已弃用):
>>> from scipy.stats import itemfreq
>>> x = [1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1]
>>> itemfreq(x)
/usr/local/bin/python:1: DeprecationWarning: `itemfreq` is deprecated! `itemfreq` is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Use instead `np.unique(..., return_counts=True)`
array([[ 1., 5.],
[ 2., 3.],
[ 5., 1.],
[ 25., 1.]])
其他回答
为了计算唯一的非整数——类似于Eelco Hoogendoorn的答案,但速度要快得多(在我的机器上是5倍),我使用了weave。内联组合numpy。只有一点c代码;
import numpy as np
from scipy import weave
def count_unique(datain):
"""
Similar to numpy.unique function for returning unique members of
data, but also returns their counts
"""
data = np.sort(datain)
uniq = np.unique(data)
nums = np.zeros(uniq.shape, dtype='int')
code="""
int i,count,j;
j=0;
count=0;
for(i=1; i<Ndata[0]; i++){
count++;
if(data(i) > data(i-1)){
nums(j) = count;
count = 0;
j++;
}
}
// Handle last value
nums(j) = count+1;
"""
weave.inline(code,
['data', 'nums'],
extra_compile_args=['-O2'],
type_converters=weave.converters.blitz)
return uniq, nums
配置文件信息
> %timeit count_unique(data)
> 10000 loops, best of 3: 55.1 µs per loop
Eelco的纯numpy版本:
> %timeit unique_count(data)
> 1000 loops, best of 3: 284 µs per loop
Note
这里存在冗余(unique也执行排序),这意味着可以通过将唯一功能放入c-code循环中来进一步优化代码。
用这个:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> x = [1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1]
>>> np.array(np.unique(x, return_counts=True)).T
array([[ 1, 5],
[ 2, 3],
[ 5, 1],
[25, 1]])
最初的回答:
使用scipy.stats.itemfreq(警告:已弃用):
>>> from scipy.stats import itemfreq
>>> x = [1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1]
>>> itemfreq(x)
/usr/local/bin/python:1: DeprecationWarning: `itemfreq` is deprecated! `itemfreq` is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Use instead `np.unique(..., return_counts=True)`
array([[ 1., 5.],
[ 2., 3.],
[ 5., 1.],
[ 25., 1.]])
老问题,但我想提供我自己的解决方案,这是最快的,使用普通列表而不是np。数组作为输入(或首先转移到列表),基于我的台架测试。
如果你也遇到这种情况,请检查一下。
def count(a):
results = {}
for x in a:
if x not in results:
results[x] = 1
else:
results[x] += 1
return results
例如,
>>>timeit count([1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1]) would return:
100000个循环,最好的3:2.26µs每循环
>>>timeit count(np.array([1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1]))
100000个回路,最好的3:8.8µs每回路
>>>timeit count(np.array([1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1]).tolist())
100000个回路,最佳3:5.85µs每回路
而公认的答案会更慢,而scipy.stats.itemfreq解决方案更糟糕。
更深入的测试并没有证实所制定的期望。
from zmq import Stopwatch
aZmqSTOPWATCH = Stopwatch()
aDataSETasARRAY = ( 100 * abs( np.random.randn( 150000 ) ) ).astype( np.int )
aDataSETasLIST = aDataSETasARRAY.tolist()
import numba
@numba.jit
def numba_bincount( anObject ):
np.bincount( anObject )
return
aZmqSTOPWATCH.start();np.bincount( aDataSETasARRAY );aZmqSTOPWATCH.stop()
14328L
aZmqSTOPWATCH.start();numba_bincount( aDataSETasARRAY );aZmqSTOPWATCH.stop()
592L
aZmqSTOPWATCH.start();count( aDataSETasLIST );aZmqSTOPWATCH.stop()
148609L
参考下面关于影响小型数据集大量重复测试结果的缓存和其他ram内副作用的评论。
numpy。Bincount可能是最好的选择。如果你的数组除了包含小的密集整数之外还包含任何东西,那么像这样包装它可能是有用的:
def count_unique(keys):
uniq_keys = np.unique(keys)
bins = uniq_keys.searchsorted(keys)
return uniq_keys, np.bincount(bins)
例如:
>>> x = array([1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1])
>>> count_unique(x)
(array([ 1, 2, 5, 25]), array([5, 3, 1, 1]))
使用numpy。唯一的return_counts=True (NumPy 1.9+):
import numpy as np
x = np.array([1,1,1,2,2,2,5,25,1,1])
unique, counts = np.unique(x, return_counts=True)
>>> print(np.asarray((unique, counts)).T)
[[ 1 5]
[ 2 3]
[ 5 1]
[25 1]]
与scipy.stats.itemfreq相比:
In [4]: x = np.random.random_integers(0,100,1e6)
In [5]: %timeit unique, counts = np.unique(x, return_counts=True)
10 loops, best of 3: 31.5 ms per loop
In [6]: %timeit scipy.stats.itemfreq(x)
10 loops, best of 3: 170 ms per loop