Index()将给出列表中第一个出现的项。是否有一个巧妙的技巧可以返回一个元素列表中的所有索引?
当前回答
创建一个生成器
生成器速度很快,占用的内存很小。它们可以让你灵活地使用结果。
def indices(iter, val):
"""Generator: Returns all indices of val in iter
Raises a ValueError if no val does not occur in iter
Passes on the AttributeError if iter does not have an index method (e.g. is a set)
"""
i = -1
NotFound = False
while not NotFound:
try:
i = iter.index(val, i+1)
except ValueError:
NotFound = True
else:
yield i
if i == -1:
raise ValueError("No occurrences of {v} in {i}".format(v = val, i = iter))
上面的代码可以用来创建一个索引列表:list(indexes (input,value));使用它们作为字典键:dict(索引(输入,值));求和:Sum (indexes (input,value));在for循环中index_ In indexes (input,value):;等……无需创建临时列表/元组或类似的。
在for循环中,当你调用下一个索引时,你将得到它,而不需要等待所有其他索引先计算出来。这意味着:如果出于某种原因跳出循环,就可以节省查找根本不需要的索引所需的时间。
它是如何工作的
在输入iter上调用.index来查找 瓦尔 使用第二个参数.index从该点开始 在最后发现的事件之后 收益率指数 重复操作,直到index引发ValueError
选择版本
我尝试了四种不同的流量控制版本;两个EAFP(使用try - except)和两个TBYL(在while语句中使用逻辑测试):
"WhileTrueBreak": while True: ... except ValueError: break. Surprisingly, this was usually a touch slower than option 2 and (IMV) less readable "WhileErrFalse": Using a bool variable err to identify when a ValueError is raised. This is generally the fastest and more readable than 1 "RemainingSlice": Check whether val is in the remaining part of the input using slicing: while val in iter[i:]. Unsurprisingly, this does not scale well "LastOccurrence": Check first where the last occurrence is, keep going while i < last
1、2和4之间的整体表现差异可以忽略不计,所以这取决于个人风格和偏好。鉴于.index使用ValueError来让你知道它没有找到任何东西,而不是例如返回None, eafp方法似乎适合我。
下面是4个代码变体和timeit(以毫秒为单位)对于不同长度的输入和稀疏匹配的结果
@version("WhileTrueBreak", versions)
def indices2(iter, val):
i = -1
while True:
try:
i = iter.index(val, i+1)
except ValueError:
break
else:
yield i
@version("WhileErrFalse", versions)
def indices5(iter, val):
i = -1
err = False
while not err:
try:
i = iter.index(val, i+1)
except ValueError:
err = True
else:
yield i
@version("RemainingSlice", versions)
def indices1(iter, val):
i = 0
while val in iter[i:]:
i = iter.index(val, i)
yield i
i += 1
@version("LastOccurrence", versions)
def indices4(iter,val):
i = 0
last = len(iter) - tuple(reversed(iter)).index(val)
while i < last:
i = iter.index(val, i)
yield i
i += 1
Length: 100, Ocurrences: 4.0%
{'WhileTrueBreak': 0.0074799987487494946, 'WhileErrFalse': 0.006440002471208572, 'RemainingSlice': 0.01221001148223877, 'LastOccurrence': 0.00801000278443098}
Length: 1000, Ocurrences: 1.2%
{'WhileTrueBreak': 0.03101000329479575, 'WhileErrFalse': 0.0278000021353364, 'RemainingSlice': 0.08278000168502331, 'LastOccurrence': 0.03986000083386898}
Length: 10000, Ocurrences: 2.05%
{'WhileTrueBreak': 0.18062000162899494, 'WhileErrFalse': 0.1810499932616949, 'RemainingSlice': 2.9145700042136014, 'LastOccurrence': 0.2049500006251037}
Length: 100000, Ocurrences: 1.977%
{'WhileTrueBreak': 1.9361200043931603, 'WhileErrFalse': 1.7280600033700466, 'RemainingSlice': 254.4725100044161, 'LastOccurrence': 1.9101499929092824}
Length: 100000, Ocurrences: 9.873%
{'WhileTrueBreak': 2.832529996521771, 'WhileErrFalse': 2.9984100023284554, 'RemainingSlice': 1132.4922299943864, 'LastOccurrence': 2.6660699979402125}
Length: 100000, Ocurrences: 25.058%
{'WhileTrueBreak': 5.119729996658862, 'WhileErrFalse': 5.2082200068980455, 'RemainingSlice': 2443.0577100021765, 'LastOccurrence': 4.75954000139609}
Length: 100000, Ocurrences: 49.698%
{'WhileTrueBreak': 9.372120001353323, 'WhileErrFalse': 8.447749994229525, 'RemainingSlice': 5042.717969999649, 'LastOccurrence': 8.050809998530895}
其他回答
你可以使用枚举的列表推导式:
indices = [i for i, x in enumerate(my_list) if x == "whatever"]
迭代器enumerate(my_list)为列表中的每一项生成对(index, item)。使用i, x作为循环变量目标,将这些对解包到索引i和列表项x中。我们向下筛选到所有符合条件的x,并选择这些元素的索引i。
There’s an answer using np.where to find the indices of a single value, which is not faster than a list-comprehension, if the time to convert a list to an array is included The overhead of importing numpy and converting a list to a numpy.array probably makes using numpy a less efficient option for most circumstances. A careful timing analysis would be necessary. In cases where multiple functions/operations will need to be performed on the list, converting the list to an array, and then using numpy functions will likely be a faster option. This solution uses np.where and np.unique to find the indices of all unique elements in a list. Using np.where on an array (including the time to convert the list to an array) is slightly slower than a list-comprehension on a list, for finding all indices of all unique elements. This has been tested on an 2M element list with 4 unique values, and the size of the list/array and number of unique elements will have an impact. Other solutions using numpy on an array can be found in Get a list of all indices of repeated elements in a numpy array Tested in [python 3.10.4, numpy 1.23.1] and [python 3.11.0, numpy 1.23.4]
import numpy as np
import random # to create test list
# create sample list
random.seed(365)
l = [random.choice(['s1', 's2', 's3', 's4']) for _ in range(20)]
# convert the list to an array for use with these numpy methods
a = np.array(l)
# create a dict of each unique entry and the associated indices
idx = {v: np.where(a == v)[0].tolist() for v in np.unique(a)}
# print(idx)
{'s1': [7, 9, 10, 11, 17],
's2': [1, 3, 6, 8, 14, 18, 19],
's3': [0, 2, 13, 16],
's4': [4, 5, 12, 15]}
%timeit在2M元素列表中,有4个唯一的str元素
# create 2M element list
random.seed(365)
l = [random.choice(['s1', 's2', 's3', 's4']) for _ in range(2000000)]
功能
def test1():
# np.where: convert list to array and find indices of a single element
a = np.array(l)
return np.where(a == 's1')
def test2():
# list-comprehension: on list l and find indices of a single element
return [i for i, x in enumerate(l) if x == "s1"]
def test3():
# filter: on list l and find indices of a single element
return list(filter(lambda i: l[i]=="s1", range(len(l))))
def test4():
# use np.where and np.unique to find indices of all unique elements: convert list to array
a = np.array(l)
return {v: np.where(a == v)[0].tolist() for v in np.unique(a)}
def test5():
# list comprehension inside dict comprehension: on list l and find indices of all unique elements
return {req_word: [idx for idx, word in enumerate(l) if word == req_word] for req_word in set(l)}
函数调用
%timeit test1()
%timeit test2()
%timeit test3()
%timeit test4()
%timeit test5()
python 3.10.4
214 ms ± 19.9 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
85.1 ms ± 1.48 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
146 ms ± 1.65 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
365 ms ± 11.4 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
360 ms ± 5.82 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
结果python 3.11.0
209 ms ± 15.7 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
70.4 ms ± 1.86 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
132 ms ± 4.65 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
371 ms ± 20.1 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
314 ms ± 15.9 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
对于所有发生的情况,还有一个解决方案(抱歉,如果重复):
values = [1,2,3,1,2,4,5,6,3,2,1]
map(lambda val: (val, [i for i in xrange(len(values)) if values[i] == val]), values)
一个基于动态列表理解的解决方案,以防我们事先不知道哪个元素:
lst = ['to', 'be', 'or', 'not', 'to', 'be']
{req_word: [idx for idx, word in enumerate(lst) if word == req_word] for req_word in set(lst)}
结果:
{'be': [1, 5], 'or': [2], 'to': [0, 4], 'not': [3]}
您也可以按照相同的思路考虑所有其他方法,但是使用index()您只能找到一个索引,尽管您可以自己设置出现次数。
如何:
In [1]: l=[1,2,3,4,3,2,5,6,7]
In [2]: [i for i,val in enumerate(l) if val==3]
Out[2]: [2, 4]
推荐文章
- Visual Studio Code:如何调试Python脚本的参数
- 如何克隆或复制一个列表在kotlin
- 使用元组/列表等等。从输入vs直接引用类型如list/tuple/etc
- 结合conda环境。Yml和PIP requirements.txt
- 将命名元组转换为字典
- 如何使x轴和y轴的刻度相等呢?
- Numpy在这里函数多个条件
- 在Python中,使用argparse只允许正整数
- 如何排序mongodb与pymongo
- 不可变与可变类型
- 列表是线程安全的吗?
- 操作系统。makdirs在我的路径上不理解“~”
- 如何在Django模板中获得我的网站的域名?
- 如何在c#中连接列表?
- 在django Forms中定义css类