What is the fastest way to sort an array of whole integers bigger than 0 and less than 100000 in Python? But not using the built in functions like sort.
Im looking at the possibility to combine 2 sport functions depending on input size.
If you are interested in asymptotic time, then counting sort or radix sort provide good performance.
However, if you are interested in wall clock time you will need to compare performance between different algorithms using your particular data sets, as different algorithms perform differently with different datasets. In that case, its always worth trying quicksort:
def qsort(inlist):
if inlist == []:
return []
else:
pivot = inlist[0]
lesser = qsort([x for x in inlist[1:] if x < pivot])
greater = qsort([x for x in inlist[1:] if x >= pivot])
return lesser + [pivot] + greater
Source: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithms/Quicksort#Python
Since you know the range of numbers, you can use Counting Sort which will be linear in time.
Radix sort theoretically runs in linear time (sort time grows roughly in direct proportion to array size ), but in practice Quicksort is probably more suited, unless you're sorting absolutely massive arrays.
If you want to make quicksort a bit faster, you can use insertion sort] when the array size becomes small.
It would probably be helpful to understand the concepts of algorithmic complexity and Big-O notation too.
Early versions of Python used a hybrid of samplesort (a variant of quicksort with large sample size) and binary insertion sort as the built-in sorting algorithm. This proved to be somewhat unstable. S0, from python 2.3 onward uses adaptive mergesort algorithm.
Order of mergesort (average) = O(nlogn).
Order of mergesort (worst) = O(nlogn).
But Order of quick sort (worst) = n*2
if you uses list=[ .............. ]
list.sort() uses mergesort algorithm.
For comparison between sorting algorithm you can read wiki
For detail comparison comp
I might be a little late to the show, but there's an interesting article that compares different sorts at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sorting-efficiently-python-lakshmi-prakash
One of the main takeaways is that while the default sort does great we can do a little better with a compiled version of quicksort. This requires the Numba package.
Here's a link to the Github repo:
https://github.com/lprakash/Sorting-Algorithms/blob/master/sorts.ipynb
We can use count sort using a dictionary to minimize the additional space usage, and keep the running time low as well. The count sort is much slower for small sizes of the input array because of the python vs C implementation overhead. The count sort starts to overtake the regular sort when the size of the array (COUNT) is about 1 million.
If you really want huge speedups for smaller size inputs, implement the count sort in C and call it from Python.
(Fixed a bug which Aaron (+1) helped catch ...)
The python only implementation below compares the 2 approaches...
import random
import time
COUNT = 3000000
array = [random.randint(1,100000) for i in range(COUNT)]
random.shuffle(array)
array1 = array[:]
start = time.time()
array1.sort()
end = time.time()
time1 = (end-start)
print 'Time to sort = ', time1*1000, 'ms'
array2 = array[:]
start = time.time()
ardict = {}
for a in array2:
try:
ardict[a] += 1
except:
ardict[a] = 1
indx = 0
for a in sorted(ardict.keys()):
b = ardict[a]
array2[indx:indx+b] = [a for i in xrange(b)]
indx += b
end = time.time()
time2 = (end-start)
print 'Time to count sort = ', time2*1000, 'ms'
print 'Ratio =', time2/time1
The built in functions are best, but since you can't use them have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort
def sort(l):
p = 0
while(p<len(l)-1):
if(l[p]>l[p+1]):
l[p],l[p+1] = l[p+1],l[p]
if(not(p==0)):
p = p-1
else:
p += 1
return l
this is a algorithm that I created but is really fast. just do sort(l)
l being the list that you want to sort.
#fmark
Some benchmarking of a python merge-sort implementation I wrote against python quicksorts from http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithms/Quicksort#Python
and from top answer.
Size of the list and size of numbers in list irrelevant
merge sort wins, however it uses builtin int() to floor
import numpy as np
x = list(np.random.rand(100))
# TEST 1, merge_sort
def merge(l, p, q, r):
n1 = q - p + 1
n2 = r - q
left = l[p : p + n1]
right = l[q + 1 : q + 1 + n2]
i = 0
j = 0
k = p
while k < r + 1:
if i == n1:
l[k] = right[j]
j += 1
elif j == n2:
l[k] = left[i]
i += 1
elif left[i] <= right[j]:
l[k] = left[i]
i += 1
else:
l[k] = right[j]
j += 1
k += 1
def _merge_sort(l, p, r):
if p < r:
q = int((p + r)/2)
_merge_sort(l, p, q)
_merge_sort(l, q+1, r)
merge(l, p, q, r)
def merge_sort(l):
_merge_sort(l, 0, len(l)-1)
# TEST 2
def quicksort(array):
_quicksort(array, 0, len(array) - 1)
def _quicksort(array, start, stop):
if stop - start > 0:
pivot, left, right = array[start], start, stop
while left <= right:
while array[left] < pivot:
left += 1
while array[right] > pivot:
right -= 1
if left <= right:
array[left], array[right] = array[right], array[left]
left += 1
right -= 1
_quicksort(array, start, right)
_quicksort(array, left, stop)
# TEST 3
def qsort(inlist):
if inlist == []:
return []
else:
pivot = inlist[0]
lesser = qsort([x for x in inlist[1:] if x < pivot])
greater = qsort([x for x in inlist[1:] if x >= pivot])
return lesser + [pivot] + greater
def test1():
merge_sort(x)
def test2():
quicksort(x)
def test3():
qsort(x)
if __name__ == '__main__':
import timeit
print('merge_sort:', timeit.timeit("test1()", setup="from __main__ import test1, x;", number=10000))
print('quicksort:', timeit.timeit("test2()", setup="from __main__ import test2, x;", number=10000))
print('qsort:', timeit.timeit("test3()", setup="from __main__ import test3, x;", number=10000))
Bucket sort with bucket size = 1. Memory is O(m) where m = the range of values being sorted. Running time is O(n) where n = the number of items being sorted. When the integer type used to record counts is bounded, this approach will fail if any value appears more than MAXINT times.
def sort(items):
seen = [0] * 100000
for item in items:
seen[item] += 1
index = 0
for value, count in enumerate(seen):
for _ in range(count):
items[index] = value
index += 1
Related
I am trying to count the number of unique numbers in a sorted array using binary search. I need to get the edge of the change from one number to the next to count. I was thinking of doing this without using recursion. Is there an iterative approach?
def unique(x):
start = 0
end = len(x)-1
count =0
# This is the current number we are looking for
item = x[start]
while start <= end:
middle = (start + end)//2
if item == x[middle]:
start = middle+1
elif item < x[middle]:
end = middle -1
#when item item greater, change to next number
count+=1
# if the number
return count
unique([1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5])
Thank you.
Edit: Even if the runtime benefit is negligent from o(n), what is my binary search missing? It's confusing when not looking for an actual item. How can I fix this?
Working code exploiting binary search (returns 3 for given example).
As discussed in comments, complexity is about O(k*log(n)) where k is number of unique items, so this approach works well when k is small compared with n, and might become worse than linear scan in case of k ~ n
def countuniquebs(A):
n = len(A)
t = A[0]
l = 1
count = 0
while l < n - 1:
r = n - 1
while l < r:
m = (r + l) // 2
if A[m] > t:
r = m
else:
l = m + 1
count += 1
if l < n:
t = A[l]
return count
print(countuniquebs([1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5]))
I wouldn't quite call it "using a binary search", but this binary divide-and-conquer algorithm works in O(k*log(n)/log(k)) time, which is better than a repeated binary search, and never worse than a linear scan:
def countUniques(A, start, end):
len = end-start
if len < 1:
return 0
if A[start] == A[end-1]:
return 1
if len < 3:
return 2
mid = start + len//2
return countUniques(A, start, mid+1) + countUniques(A, mid, end) - 1
A = [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5]
print(countUniques(A,0,len(A)))
import random, timeit
#Qucik sort
def quick_sort(A,first,last):
global Qs,Qc
if first>=last: return
left, right= first+1, last
pivot = A[first]
while left <= right:
while left <=last and A[left]<pivot:
Qc= Qc+1
left= left + 1
while right > first and A[right] >= pivot:
Qc=Qc+1
right = right -1
if left <= right:
A[left],A[right]=A[right],A[left]
Qs = Qs+1
left= left +1
right= right-1
A[first],A[right]=A[right],A[first]
Qs=Qs+1
quick_sort(A,first,right-1)
quick_sort(A,right+1,last)
#Merge sort
def merge_sort(A, first, last): # merge sort A[first] ~ A[last]
global Ms,Mc
if first >= last: return
middle = (first+last)//2
merge_sort(A, first, middle)
merge_sort(A, middle+1, last)
B = []
i = first
j = middle+1
while i <= middle and j <= last:
Mc=Mc+1
if A[i] <= A[j]:
B.append(A[i])
i += 1
else:
B.append(A[j])
j += 1
for i in range(i, middle+1):
B.append(A[i])
Ms=Ms+1
for j in range(j, last+1):
B.append(A[j])
for k in range(first, last+1): A[k] = B[k-first]
#Heap sort
def heap_sort(A):
global Hs, Hc
n = len(A)
for i in range(n - 1, -1, -1):
while 2 * i + 1 < n:
left, right = 2 * i + 1, 2 * i + 2
if left < n and A[left] > A[i]:
m = left
Hc += 1
else:
m = i
Hc += 1
if right < n and A[right] > A[m]:
m = right
Hc += 1
if m != i:
A[i], A[m] = A[m], A[i]
i = m
Hs += 1
else:
break
for i in range(n - 1, -1, -1):
A[0], A[i] = A[i], A[0]
n -= 1
k = 0
while 2 * k + 1 < n:
left, right = 2 * k + 1, 2 * k + 2
if left < n and A[left] > A[k]:
m = left
Hc += 1
else:
m = k
Hc += 1
if right < n and A[right] > A[m]:
m = right
Hc += 1
if m != k:
A[k], A[m] = A[m], A[k]
k = m
Hs += 1
else:
break
#
def check_sorted(A):
for i in range(n-1):
if A[i] > A[i+1]: return False
return True
#
#
Qc, Qs, Mc, Ms, Hc, Hs = 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
n = int(input())
random.seed()
A = []
for i in range(n):
A.append(random.randint(-1000,1000))
B = A[:]
C = A[:]
print("")
print("Quick sort:")
print("time =", timeit.timeit("quick_sort(A, 0, n-1)", globals=globals(), number=1))
print(" comparisons = {:10d}, swaps = {:10d}\n".format(Qc, Qs))
print("Merge sort:")
print("time =", timeit.timeit("merge_sort(B, 0, n-1)", globals=globals(), number=1))
print(" comparisons = {:10d}, swaps = {:10d}\n".format(Mc, Ms))
print("Heap sort:")
print("time =", timeit.timeit("heap_sort(C)", globals=globals(), number=1))
print(" comparisons = {:10d}, swaps = {:10d}\n".format(Hc, Hs))
assert(check_sorted(A))
assert(check_sorted(B))
assert(check_sorted(C))
I made the code that tells how much time it takes to sort list size n(number input) with 3 ways of sorts. However, I found that my result is quite unexpected.
Quick sort:
time = 0.0001289689971599728
comparisons = 474, swaps = 168
Merge sort:
time = 0.00027709499408956617
comparisons = 541, swaps = 80
Heap sort:
time = 0.0002578190033091232
comparisons = 744, swaps = 478
Quick sort:
time = 1.1767549149953993
comparisons = 3489112, swaps = 352047
Merge sort:
time = 0.9040642600011779
comparisons = 1536584, swaps = 77011
Heap sort:
time = 1.665754442990874
comparisons = 2227949, swaps = 1474542
Quick sort:
time = 4.749891302999458
comparisons = 11884246, swaps = 709221
Merge sort:
time = 3.1966246420051903
comparisons = 3272492, swaps = 154723
Heap sort:
time = 6.2041203819972
comparisons = 4754829, swaps = 3148479
as you see, my results are very different from what I learned. Can you please tell me why quick sort is not the fastest in my code? and why merge is the fastest one.
I can see that you are choosing the first element of the array as the pivot in quicksort. Now, consider the order of the elements of the unsorted array. Is it random? How do you generate the input array?
You see, if the pivot was either the min or max value of the aray, or somewhere close to the mind/max value, the running time of quicksort in that case (worst case) will be in the order of O(n^2). That is because on each iteration, you are partitioning the arry by breaking off only one element.
For optimal quicksort performance of O(n log n), your pivot should be as close to the median value as possible. In order to increase the likelihood of that being the case, consider initially picking 3 values at random in from the array, and use the median value as the pivot. Obviously, the more values you choose the median from initially the better the probability that your pivot is more efficient, but you are adding extra moves by choosing those values to begin with, so it's a trade off. I imagine one would even be able to calculate exactly how many elements should be selected in relation to the size of the array for optimal performance.
Merge sort on the other hand, always has the complexity in the order of O(n log n) irrespective of input, which is why you got consistent results with it over different samples.
TL:DR my guess is that the input array's first element is very close to being the smallest or largest value of that array, and it ends up being the pivot of your quicksort algorithm.
I need to write a function that returns the number of ways of reaching a certain number by adding numbers of a list. For example:
print(p([3,5,8,9,11,12,20], 20))
should return:5
The code I wrote is:
def pow(lis):
power = [[]]
for lst in lis:
for po in power:
power = power + [list(po)+[lst]]
return power
def p(lst, n):
counter1 = 0
counter2 = 0
power_list = pow(lst)
print(power_list)
for p in power_list:
for j in p:
counter1 += j
if counter1 == n:
counter2 += 1
counter1 == 0
else:
counter1 == 0
return counter2
pow() is a function that returns all of the subsets of the list and p should return the number of ways to reach the number n. I keep getting an output of zero and I don't understand why. I would love to hear your input for this.
Thanks in advance.
There are two typos in your code: counter1 == 0 is a boolean, it does not reset anything.
This version should work:
def p(lst, n):
counter2 = 0
power_list = pow(lst)
for p in power_list:
counter1 = 0 #reset the counter for every new subset
for j in p:
counter1 += j
if counter1 == n:
counter2 += 1
return counter2
As tobias_k and Faibbus mentioned, you have a typo: counter1 == 0 instead of counter1 = 0, in two places. The counter1 == 0 produces a boolean object of True or False, but since you don't assign the result of that expression the result gets thrown away. It doesn't raise a SyntaxError, since an expression that isn't assigned is legal Python.
As John Coleman and B. M. mention it's not efficient to create the full powerset and then test each subset to see if it has the correct sum. This approach is ok if the input sequence is small, but it's very slow for even moderately sized sequences, and if you actually create a list containing the subsets rather than using a generator and testing the subsets as they're yielded you'll soon run out of RAM.
B. M.'s first solution is quite efficient since it doesn't produce subsets that are larger than the target sum. (I'm not sure what B. M. is doing with that dict-based solution...).
But we can enhance that approach by sorting the list of sums. That way we can break out of the inner for loop as soon as we detect a sum that's too high. True, we need to sort the sums list on each iteration of the outer for loop, but fortunately Python's TimSort is very efficient, and it's optimized to handle sorting a list that contains sorted sub-sequences, so it's ideal for this application.
def subset_sums(seq, goal):
sums = [0]
for x in seq:
subgoal = goal - x
temp = []
for y in sums:
if y > subgoal:
break
temp.append(y + x)
sums.extend(temp)
sums.sort()
return sum(1 for y in sums if y == goal)
# test
lst = [3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 20]
total = 20
print(subset_sums(lst, total))
lst = range(1, 41)
total = 70
print(subset_sums(lst, total))
output
5
28188
With lst = range(1, 41) and total = 70, this code is around 3 times faster than the B.M. lists version.
A one pass solution with one counter, which minimize additions.
def one_pass_sum(L,target):
sums = [0]
cnt = 0
for x in L:
for y in sums[:]:
z = x+y
if z <= target :
sums.append(z)
if z == target : cnt += 1
return cnt
This way if n=len(L), you make less than 2^n additions against n/2 * 2^n by calculating all the sums.
EDIT :
A more efficient solution, that just counts ways. The idea is to see that if there is k ways to make z-x, there is k more way to do z when x arise.
def enhanced_sum_with_lists(L,target):
cnt=[1]+[0]*target # 1 way to make 0
for x in L:
for z in range(target,x-1,-1): # [target, ..., x+1, x]
cnt[z] += cnt[z-x]
return cnt[target]
But order is important : z must be considered descendant here, to have the good counts (Thanks to PM 2Ring).
This can be very fast (n*target additions) for big lists.
For example :
>>> enhanced_sum_with_lists(range(1,100),2500)
875274644371694133420180815
is obtained in 61 ms. It will take the age of the universe to compute it by the first method.
from itertools import chain, combinations
def powerset_generator(i):
for subset in chain.from_iterable(combinations(i, r) for r in range(len(i)+1)):
yield set(subset)
def count_sum(s, cnt):
return sum(1 for i in powerset_generator(s) if sum(k for k in i) == cnt)
print(count_sum(set([3,5,8,9,11,12,20]), 20))
After analyzing the fastest subset sum algorithm which runs in 2^(n/2) time, I noticed a slight optimization that can be done. I'm not sure if it really counts as an optimization and if it does, I'm wondering if it can be improved by recursion.
Basically from the original algorithm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset_sum_problem (see part with title Exponential time algorithm)
it takes the list and splits it into two
then it generates the sorted power sets of both in 2^(n/2) time
then it does a linear search in both lists to see if 1 value in both lists sum to x using a clever trick
In my version with the optimization
it takes the list and removes the last element last
then it splits the list in two
then it generates the sorted power sets of both in 2^((n-1)/2) time
then it does a linear search in both lists to see if 1 value in both lists sum to x or x-last (at same time with same running time) using a clever trick
If it finds either, then I will know it worked. I tried using python time functions to test with lists of size 22, and my version is coming like twice as fast apparently.
After running the below code, it shows
0.050999879837 <- the original algorithm
0.0250000953674 <- my algorithm
My logic for the recursion part is, well if it works for a size n list in 2^((n-1)/1) time, can we not repeat this again and again?
Does any of this make sense, or am I totally wrong?
Thanks
I created this python code:
from math import log, ceil, floor
import helper # my own code
from random import randint, uniform
import time
# gets a list of unique random floats
# s = how many random numbers
# l = smallest float can be
# h = biggest float can be
def getRandomList(s, l, h):
lst = []
while len(lst) != s:
r = uniform(l,h)
if not r in lst:
lst.append(r)
return lst
# This just generates the two powerset sorted lists that the 2^(n/2) algorithm makes.
# This is just a lazy way of doing it, this running time is way worse, but since
# this can be done in 2^(n/2) time, I just pretend its that running time lol
def getSortedPowerSets(lst):
n = len(lst)
l1 = lst[:n/2]
l2 = lst[n/2:]
xs = range(2**(n/2))
ys1 = helper.getNums(l1, xs)
ys2 = helper.getNums(l2, xs)
return ys1, ys2
# this just checks using the regular 2^(n/2) algorithm to see if two values
# sum to the specified value
def checkListRegular(lst, x):
lst1, lst2 = getSortedPowerSets(lst)
left = 0
right = len(lst2)-1
while left < len(lst1) and right >= 0:
sum = lst1[left] + lst2[right]
if sum < x:
left += 1
elif sum > x:
right -= 1
else:
return True
return False
# this is my improved version of the above version
def checkListSmaller(lst, x):
last = lst.pop()
x1, x2 = x, x - last
return checkhelper(lst, x1, x2)
# this is the same as the function 'checkListRegular', but it checks 2 values
# at the same time
def checkhelper(lst, x1, x2):
lst1, lst2 = getSortedPowerSets(lst)
left = [0,0]
right = [len(lst2)-1, len(lst2)-1]
while 1:
check = 0
if left[0] < len(lst1) and right[0] >= 0:
check += 1
sum = lst1[left[0]] + lst2[right[0]]
if sum < x1:
left[0] += 1
elif sum > x1:
right[0] -= 1
else:
return True
if left[1] < len(lst1) and right[1] >= 0:
check += 1
sum = lst1[left[1]] + lst2[right[1]]
if sum < x2:
left[1] += 1
elif sum > x2:
right[1] -= 1
else:
return True
if check == 0:
return False
n = 22
lst = getRandomList(n, 1, 3000)
startTime = time.time()
print checkListRegular(lst, -50) # -50 so it does worst case scenario
startTime2 = time.time()
print checkListSmaller(lst, -50) # -50 so it does worst case scenario
startTime3 = time.time()
print (startTime2 - startTime)
print (startTime3 - startTime2)
This is the helper library which I just use to generate the powerset list.
def dec_to_bin(x):
return int(bin(x)[2:])
def getNums(lst, xs):
sums = []
n = len(lst)
for i in xs:
bin = str(dec_to_bin(i))
bin = (n-len(bin))*"0" + bin
chosen_items = getList(bin, lst)
sums.append(sum(chosen_items))
sums.sort()
return sums
def getList(binary, lst):
s = []
for i in range(len(binary)):
if binary[i]=="1":
s.append(float(lst[i]))
return s
then it generates the sorted power sets of both in 2^((n-1)/2) time
OK, since now the list has one less lement. However, this is not a big deal its just a constant time improvement of 2^(1/2)...
then it does a linear search in both lists to see if 1 value in both lists sum to x or x-last (at same time with same running time) using a clever trick
... and this improvement will go away because now you do twice as many operations to check for both x and x-last sums instead of only for x
can we not repeat this again and again?
No you can't, for the same reason why you couldn't split the original algorithm again and again. The trick only works for once because once you start looking for values in more than two lists you can't use the sorting trick anymore.
def bubble(lst):
swap = 'True'
counter = 0
n = len(lst)
m = len(lst)
while swap == 'True':
for j in range(n-1):
if lst[j] > lst[j+1]:
lst[j],lst[j+1] = lst[j+1],lst[j]
counter += 1
swap = 'True'
else:
swap = 'False'
n = n - 1
return counter
How do I shorten the time this function takes because I want to use it on a larger list.
Change algorithm.
Use MergeSort or QuickSort.
BubbleSort is O(n*n).
The only reason it exists is to show students how they should not sort arrays :)
MergeSort is worst case O(n log n).
QuickSort is O(n * n) worst case, average case O(n log n), but with "low constants", so it's usually faster than merge sort.
Search for them on the web.
If i'm not wrong... (don't rage at me if I am please)... I think I understood what you want to do:
def bubble(lst):
n = len(lst)
while True
newn = 0
for i in range(1, n-1):
if lst[i-1] > lst[i]:
lst[i-1],lst[i] = lst[i],lst[i-1]
newn = i
counter += 1
if newn <= 0:
return counter
n = newn
The complexity however will be always O(n * n) so you will not notice any important difference.
For example:
If your list is 2000 items and you use bubble sort, O(2000 * 2000) = 4000000 loop steps. This is huge.
O(2000 * log2 2000) = about 21931 of loop steps, and this is manageable.
def bubble(lol):
lol.sort()
return lol