如果你碰巧在使用一个多维数组，那么你需要平展和解开索引:

def largest_indices(ary, n):
    """Returns the n largest indices from a numpy array."""
    flat = ary.flatten()
    indices = np.argpartition(flat, -n)[-n:]
    indices = indices[np.argsort(-flat[indices])]
    return np.unravel_index(indices, ary.shape)

例如:

>>> xs = np.sin(np.arange(9)).reshape((3, 3))
>>> xs
array([[ 0.        ,  0.84147098,  0.90929743],
       [ 0.14112001, -0.7568025 , -0.95892427],
       [-0.2794155 ,  0.6569866 ,  0.98935825]])
>>> largest_indices(xs, 3)
(array([2, 0, 0]), array([2, 2, 1]))
>>> xs[largest_indices(xs, 3)]
array([ 0.98935825,  0.90929743,  0.84147098])

这里有一个更复杂的方法，如果第n个值有联系，则增加n:

>>>> def get_top_n_plus_ties(arr,n):
>>>>     sorted_args = np.argsort(-arr)
>>>>     thresh = arr[sorted_args[n]]
>>>>     n_ = np.sum(arr >= thresh)
>>>>     return sorted_args[:n_]
>>>> get_top_n_plus_ties(np.array([2,9,8,3,0,2,8,3,1,9,5]),3)
array([1, 9, 2, 6])

比较了编码的便捷性和速度

速度对我的需求很重要，所以我测试了这个问题的三个答案。

根据我的具体情况，对这三个答案中的代码进行了修改。

然后我比较了每种方法的速度。

编码智慧:

NPE的回答是最优雅的，也足够快地满足我的需求。 Fred foo的回答需要最多的重构来满足我的需求，但却是最快的。我选择了这个答案，因为尽管它需要更多的工作，但它并不太糟糕，并且具有显著的速度优势。 Off99555的回答是最优雅的，但也是最慢的。

测试和比较的完整代码

import numpy as np
import time
import random
import sys
from operator import itemgetter
from heapq import nlargest

''' Fake Data Setup '''
a1 = list(range(1000000))
random.shuffle(a1)
a1 = np.array(a1)

''' ################################################ '''
''' NPE's Answer Modified A Bit For My Case '''
t0 = time.time()
indices = np.flip(np.argsort(a1))[:5]
results = []
for index in indices:
    results.append((index, a1[index]))
t1 = time.time()
print("NPE's Answer:")
print(results)
print(t1 - t0)
print()

''' Fred Foos Answer Modified A Bit For My Case'''
t0 = time.time()
indices = np.argpartition(a1, -6)[-5:]
results = []
for index in indices:
    results.append((a1[index], index))
results.sort(reverse=True)
results = [(b, a) for a, b in results]
t1 = time.time()
print("Fred Foo's Answer:")
print(results)
print(t1 - t0)
print()

''' off99555's Answer - No Modification Needed For My Needs '''
t0 = time.time()
result = nlargest(5, enumerate(a1), itemgetter(1))
t1 = time.time()
print("off99555's Answer:")
print(result)
print(t1 - t0)

输出速度报告

肺水肿的回答是:

[(631934, 999999), (788104, 999998), (413003, 999997), (536514, 999996), (81029, 999995)]
0.1349949836730957

Fred Foo的回答:

[(631934, 999999), (788104, 999998), (413003, 999997), (536514, 999996), (81029, 999995)]
0.011161565780639648

off99555的回答是:

[(631934, 999999), (788104, 999998), (413003, 999997), (536514, 999996), (81029, 999995)]
0.439760684967041

我能想到的最简单的是:

>>> import numpy as np
>>> arr = np.array([1, 3, 2, 4, 5])
>>> arr.argsort()[-3:][::-1]
array([4, 3, 1])

这涉及到一个完整的数组。我想知道numpy是否提供了一种内置的方法来进行部分排序;到目前为止我还没有找到。

如果这个解决方案太慢(特别是对于小n)，那么可能值得考虑用Cython编写一些东西。

如果你碰巧在使用一个多维数组，那么你需要平展和解开索引:

def largest_indices(ary, n):
    """Returns the n largest indices from a numpy array."""
    flat = ary.flatten()
    indices = np.argpartition(flat, -n)[-n:]
    indices = indices[np.argsort(-flat[indices])]
    return np.unravel_index(indices, ary.shape)

例如:

>>> xs = np.sin(np.arange(9)).reshape((3, 3))
>>> xs
array([[ 0.        ,  0.84147098,  0.90929743],
       [ 0.14112001, -0.7568025 , -0.95892427],
       [-0.2794155 ,  0.6569866 ,  0.98935825]])
>>> largest_indices(xs, 3)
(array([2, 0, 0]), array([2, 2, 1]))
>>> xs[largest_indices(xs, 3)]
array([ 0.98935825,  0.90929743,  0.84147098])

Use:

def max_indices(arr, k):
    '''
    Returns the indices of the k first largest elements of arr
    (in descending order in values)
    '''
    assert k <= arr.size, 'k should be smaller or equal to the array size'
    arr_ = arr.astype(float)  # make a copy of arr
    max_idxs = []
    for _ in range(k):
        max_element = np.max(arr_)
        if np.isinf(max_element):
            break
        else:
            idx = np.where(arr_ == max_element)
        max_idxs.append(idx)
        arr_[idx] = -np.inf
    return max_idxs

它也适用于2D数组。例如,

In [0]: A = np.array([[ 0.51845014,  0.72528114],
                     [ 0.88421561,  0.18798661],
                     [ 0.89832036,  0.19448609],
                     [ 0.89832036,  0.19448609]])
In [1]: max_indices(A, 8)
Out[1]:
    [(array([2, 3], dtype=int64), array([0, 0], dtype=int64)),
     (array([1], dtype=int64), array([0], dtype=int64)),
     (array([0], dtype=int64), array([1], dtype=int64)),
     (array([0], dtype=int64), array([0], dtype=int64)),
     (array([2, 3], dtype=int64), array([1, 1], dtype=int64)),
     (array([1], dtype=int64), array([1], dtype=int64))]

In [2]: A[max_indices(A, 8)[0]][0]
Out[2]: array([ 0.89832036])