Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Check if two unordered lists are equal [duplicate]

I'm looking for an easy (and quick) way to determine if two unordered lists contain the same elements:

For example:

['one', 'two', 'three'] == ['one', 'two', 'three'] :  true
['one', 'two', 'three'] == ['one', 'three', 'two'] :  true
['one', 'two', 'three'] == ['one', 'two', 'three', 'three'] :  false
['one', 'two', 'three'] == ['one', 'two', 'three', 'four'] :  false
['one', 'two', 'three'] == ['one', 'two', 'four'] :  false
['one', 'two', 'three'] == ['one'] :  false

I'm hoping to do this without using a map.

like image 552
Paul Avatar asked Mar 08 '12 18:03

Paul


People also ask

How do you check if two lists are exactly the same?

Using Counter() , we usually are able to get frequency of each element in list, checking for it, for both the list, we can check if two lists are identical or not. But this method also ignores the ordering of the elements in the list and only takes into account the frequency of elements.

How do you check if two sets are equal in Python?

We can test if two sets are equal using the normal “==” operator. Notice – since sets are unordered, it doesn't matter that the set other_nums looks like its elements are in a different order. Set equality comparison just takes into account if the two sets share the exact same elements, regardless of order.


4 Answers

Python has a built-in datatype for an unordered collection of (hashable) things, called a set. If you convert both lists to sets, the comparison will be unordered.

set(x) == set(y)

Documentation on set


EDIT: @mdwhatcott points out that you want to check for duplicates. set ignores these, so you need a similar data structure that also keeps track of the number of items in each list. This is called a multiset; the best approximation in the standard library is a collections.Counter:

>>> import collections
>>> compare = lambda x, y: collections.Counter(x) == collections.Counter(y)
>>> 
>>> compare([1,2,3], [1,2,3,3])
False
>>> compare([1,2,3], [1,2,3])
True
>>> compare([1,2,3,3], [1,2,2,3])
False
>>> 
like image 136
Katriel Avatar answered Nov 30 '22 18:11

Katriel


If elements are always nearly sorted as in your example then builtin .sort() (timsort) should be fast:

>>> a = [1,1,2]
>>> b = [1,2,2]
>>> a.sort()
>>> b.sort()
>>> a == b
False

If you don't want to sort inplace you could use sorted().

In practice it might always be faster then collections.Counter() (despite asymptotically O(n) time being better then O(n*log(n)) for .sort()). Measure it; If it is important.

like image 29
jfs Avatar answered Nov 30 '22 18:11

jfs


sorted(x) == sorted(y)

Copying from here: Check if two unordered lists are equal

I think this is the best answer for this question because

  1. It is better than using counter as pointed in this answer
  2. x.sort() sorts x, which is a side effect. sorted(x) returns a new list.
like image 26
Md Enzam Hossain Avatar answered Nov 30 '22 17:11

Md Enzam Hossain


You want to see if they contain the same elements, but don't care about the order.

You can use a set:

>>> set(['one', 'two', 'three']) == set(['two', 'one', 'three'])
True

But the set object itself will only contain one instance of each unique value, and will not preserve order.

>>> set(['one', 'one', 'one']) == set(['one'])
True

So, if tracking duplicates/length is important, you probably want to also check the length:

def are_eq(a, b):
    return set(a) == set(b) and len(a) == len(b)
like image 22
Matimus Avatar answered Nov 30 '22 18:11

Matimus