如何按特定键的值对词典列表进行排序?鉴于:
[{'name': 'Homer', 'age': 39}, {'name': 'Bart', 'age': 10}]
按名称排序时,应为:
[{'name': 'Bart', 'age': 10}, {'name': 'Homer', 'age': 39}]
如何按特定键的值对词典列表进行排序?鉴于:
[{'name': 'Homer', 'age': 39}, {'name': 'Bart', 'age': 10}]
按名称排序时,应为:
[{'name': 'Bart', 'age': 10}, {'name': 'Homer', 'age': 39}]
当前回答
假设我有一本字典D,其中包含以下元素。要排序,只需使用sorted中的key参数传递自定义函数,如下所示:
D = {'eggs': 3, 'ham': 1, 'spam': 2}
def get_count(tuple):
return tuple[1]
sorted(D.items(), key = get_count, reverse=True)
# Or
sorted(D.items(), key = lambda x: x[1], reverse=True) # Avoiding get_count function call
看看这个。
其他回答
我一直是lambda过滤器的忠实粉丝。然而,若考虑到时间复杂性,这并不是最好的选择。
第一个选项
sorted_list = sorted(list_to_sort, key= lambda x: x['name'])
# Returns list of values
第二个选项
list_to_sort.sort(key=operator.itemgetter('name'))
# Edits the list, and does not return a new list
快速比较执行时间
# First option
python3.6 -m timeit -s "list_to_sort = [{'name':'Homer', 'age':39}, {'name':'Bart', 'age':10}, {'name':'Faaa', 'age':57}, {'name':'Errr', 'age':20}]" -s "sorted_l=[]" "sorted_l = sorted(list_to_sort, key=lambda e: e['name'])"
1000000个循环,最好为3个:每个循环0.736µsec
# Second option
python3.6 -m timeit -s "list_to_sort = [{'name':'Homer', 'age':39}, {'name':'Bart', 'age':10}, {'name':'Faaa', 'age':57}, {'name':'Errr', 'age':20}]" -s "sorted_l=[]" -s "import operator" "list_to_sort.sort(key=operator.itemgetter('name'))"
1000000个循环,最好为3个:每个循环0.438µsec
您必须实现自己的比较函数,该函数将通过名称键的值来比较字典。参见PythonInfo Wiki中的排序迷你如何
如@Claudiu对@monojohnny在本回答的评论部分所示,给出:
list_to_be_sorted = [
{'name':'Homer', 'age':39},
{'name':'Milhouse', 'age':10},
{'name':'Bart', 'age':10}
]
按关键字“age”、“name”对词典列表进行排序(如SQL语句ORDER BY age,name),可以使用:
newlist = sorted( list_to_be_sorted, key=lambda k: (k['age'], k['name']) )
或者,同样
import operator
newlist = sorted( list_to_be_sorted, key=operator.itemgetter('age','name') )
打印(新列表)
〔{‘name’:‘Bart’,‘age’:10},{‘ame’:‘Milhouse’,‘age’:10〕,{‘name’:‘Homer’,‘age’:39}〕
如果性能是一个问题,我会使用operator.itemgetter而不是lambda,因为内置函数比手工制作的函数执行得更快。根据我的测试,itemgetter函数的执行速度似乎比lambda快20%左右。
从…起https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSpeed:
同样,内置函数的运行速度也比手工构建的等效函数快。例如,map(operator.add,v1,v2)比map(lambda x,y:x+y,v1,v2)更快。
下面是lambda与itemgetter排序速度的比较。
import random
import operator
# Create a list of 100 dicts with random 8-letter names and random ages from 0 to 100.
l = [{'name': ''.join(random.choices(string.ascii_lowercase, k=8)), 'age': random.randint(0, 100)} for i in range(100)]
# Test the performance with a lambda function sorting on name
%timeit sorted(l, key=lambda x: x['name'])
13 µs ± 388 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
# Test the performance with itemgetter sorting on name
%timeit sorted(l, key=operator.itemgetter('name'))
10.7 µs ± 38.1 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
# Check that each technique produces the same sort order
sorted(l, key=lambda x: x['name']) == sorted(l, key=operator.itemgetter('name'))
True
这两种技术都以相同的顺序对列表进行排序(通过在代码块中执行最终语句来验证),但第一种排序速度稍快。
使用Pandas包是另一种方法,尽管其大规模运行时比其他人提出的更传统的方法慢得多:
import pandas as pd
listOfDicts = [{'name':'Homer', 'age':39}, {'name':'Bart', 'age':10}]
df = pd.DataFrame(listOfDicts)
df = df.sort_values('name')
sorted_listOfDicts = df.T.to_dict().values()
下面是一个小列表和一个大(100k+)的字典列表的一些基准值:
setup_large = "listOfDicts = [];\
[listOfDicts.extend(({'name':'Homer', 'age':39}, {'name':'Bart', 'age':10})) for _ in range(50000)];\
from operator import itemgetter;import pandas as pd;\
df = pd.DataFrame(listOfDicts);"
setup_small = "listOfDicts = [];\
listOfDicts.extend(({'name':'Homer', 'age':39}, {'name':'Bart', 'age':10}));\
from operator import itemgetter;import pandas as pd;\
df = pd.DataFrame(listOfDicts);"
method1 = "newlist = sorted(listOfDicts, key=lambda k: k['name'])"
method2 = "newlist = sorted(listOfDicts, key=itemgetter('name')) "
method3 = "df = df.sort_values('name');\
sorted_listOfDicts = df.T.to_dict().values()"
import timeit
t = timeit.Timer(method1, setup_small)
print('Small Method LC: ' + str(t.timeit(100)))
t = timeit.Timer(method2, setup_small)
print('Small Method LC2: ' + str(t.timeit(100)))
t = timeit.Timer(method3, setup_small)
print('Small Method Pandas: ' + str(t.timeit(100)))
t = timeit.Timer(method1, setup_large)
print('Large Method LC: ' + str(t.timeit(100)))
t = timeit.Timer(method2, setup_large)
print('Large Method LC2: ' + str(t.timeit(100)))
t = timeit.Timer(method3, setup_large)
print('Large Method Pandas: ' + str(t.timeit(1)))
#Small Method LC: 0.000163078308105
#Small Method LC2: 0.000134944915771
#Small Method Pandas: 0.0712950229645
#Large Method LC: 0.0321750640869
#Large Method LC2: 0.0206089019775
#Large Method Pandas: 5.81405615807