Suppose I have an array my_array
and a singular value my_val
. (Note that my_array
is always sorted).
my_array = np.array([1, 2, 3, 4, 5])
my_val = 1.5
Because my_val
is 1.5, I want to put it in between 1 and 2, giving me the array [1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5]
.
My question is: What's the fastest way (i.e. in microseconds) of producing the ordered output array as my_array
grows arbitrarily large?
The original way I though of was concatenating the value to the original array and then sorting:
arr_out = np.sort(np.concatenate((my_array, np.array([my_val]))))
[ 1. 1.5 2. 3. 4. 5. ]
I know that np.concatenate
is fast but I'm unsure how np.sort
would scale as my_array
grows, even given that my_array
will always be sorted.
Edit:
I've compiled the times for the various methods listed at the time an answer was accepted:
Input:
import timeit
timeit_setup = 'import numpy as np\n' \
'my_array = np.array([i for i in range(1000)], dtype=np.float64)\n' \
'my_val = 1.5'
num_trials = 1000
my_time = timeit.timeit(
'np.sort(np.concatenate((my_array, np.array([my_val]))))',
setup=timeit_setup, number=num_trials
)
pauls_time = timeit.timeit(
'idx = my_array.searchsorted(my_val)\n'
'np.concatenate((my_array[:idx], [my_val], my_array[idx:]))',
setup=timeit_setup, number=num_trials
)
sanchit_time = timeit.timeit(
'np.insert(my_array, my_array.searchsorted(my_val), my_val)',
setup=timeit_setup, number=num_trials
)
print('Times for 1000 repetitions for array of length 1000:')
print("My method took {}s".format(my_time))
print("Paul Panzer's method took {}s".format(pauls_time))
print("Sanchit Anand's method took {}s".format(sanchit_time))
Output:
Times for 1000 repetitions for array of length 1000:
My method took 0.017865657746239747s
Paul Panzer's method took 0.005813951002013821s
Sanchit Anand's method took 0.014003945532323987s
And the same for 100 repetitions for an array of length 1,000,000:
Times for 100 repetitions for array of length 1000000:
My method took 3.1770704101754195s
Paul Panzer's method took 0.3931240139911161s
Sanchit Anand's method took 0.40981490723551417s
Use np.searchsorted
to find the insertion point in logarithmic time:
>>> idx = my_array.searchsorted(my_val)
>>> np.concatenate((my_array[:idx], [my_val], my_array[idx:]))
array([1. , 1.5, 2. , 3. , 4. , 5. ])
Note 1: I recommend looking at @Willem Van Onselm's and @hpaulj's insightful comments.
Note 2: Using np.insert
as suggested by @Sanchit Anand may be slightly more convenient if all datatypes are matching from the beginning. It is, however, worth mentioning that this convenience comes at the cost of significant overhead:
>>> def f_pp(my_array, my_val):
... idx = my_array.searchsorted(my_val)
... return np.concatenate((my_array[:idx], [my_val], my_array[idx:]))
...
>>> def f_sa(my_array, my_val):
... return np.insert(my_array, my_array.searchsorted(my_val), my_val)
...
>>> my_farray = my_array.astype(float)
>>> from timeit import repeat
>>> kwds = dict(globals=globals(), number=100000)
>>> repeat('f_sa(my_farray, my_val)', **kwds)
[1.2453778409981169, 1.2268288589984877, 1.2298014000116382]
>>> repeat('f_pp(my_array, my_val)', **kwds)
[0.2728819379990455, 0.2697303680033656, 0.2688361559994519]
try
my_array = np.insert(my_array,my_array.searchsorted(my_val),my_val)
[EDIT] make sure that the array is of type float32 or float64, or add a decimal point to any of the list elements while initializing it.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With