Warning: file_get_contents(/data/phpspider/zhask/data//catemap/2/python/341.json): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /data/phpspider/zhask/libs/function.php on line 167

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /data/phpspider/zhask/libs/tag.function.php on line 1116

Notice: Undefined index: in /data/phpspider/zhask/libs/function.php on line 180

Warning: array_chunk() expects parameter 1 to be array, null given in /data/phpspider/zhask/libs/function.php on line 181
Python Cython numpy阵列索引器速度改进_Python_Performance_Numpy_Cython - Fatal编程技术网

Python Cython numpy阵列索引器速度改进

Python Cython numpy阵列索引器速度改进,python,performance,numpy,cython,Python,Performance,Numpy,Cython,我用纯python编写了以下代码,其功能的描述在docstrings中: import numpy as np from scipy.ndimage.measurements import find_objects import itertools def alt_indexer(arr): """ Returns a dictionary with the elements of arr as key and the corresponding slice as v

我用纯python编写了以下代码,其功能的描述在docstrings中:

import numpy as np
from scipy.ndimage.measurements import find_objects
import itertools

def alt_indexer(arr):

    """
    Returns a dictionary with the elements of arr as key
    and the corresponding slice as value.

    Note:

        This function assumes arr is sorted.

    Example:

        >>> arr = [0,0,3,2,1,2,3]
        >>> loc = _indexer(arr)
        >>> loc
        {0: (slice(0L, 2L, None),),
        1: (slice(2L, 3L, None),),
        2: (slice(3L, 5L, None),),
        3: (slice(5L, 7L, None),)}
        >>> arr = sorted(arr)
        >>> arr[loc[3][0]]
        [3, 3]
        >>> arr[loc[2][0]]
        [2, 2]

    """

    unique, counts = np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
    labels = np.arange(1,len(unique)+1)
    labels = np.repeat(labels,counts)

    slicearr = find_objects(labels)
    index_dict = dict(itertools.izip(unique,slicearr))

    return index_dict
由于我将为非常大的数组编制索引,因此我希望通过使用cython来加速操作,下面是等效的实现:

import numpy as np
cimport numpy as np

def _indexer(arr):

    cdef tuple unique_counts = np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
    cdef np.ndarray[np.int32_t,ndim=1] unique = unique_counts[0]
    cdef np.ndarray[np.int32_t,ndim=1] counts = unique_counts[1].astype(int)

    cdef int start=0
    cdef int end
    cdef int i
    cdef dict d ={}

    for i in xrange(len(counts)):
        if i>0:
            start = counts[i-1]+start
        end=counts[i]+start
        d[unique[i]]=slice(start,end)
    return d
基准 我比较了完成这两项操作所需的时间:

In [26]: import numpy as np

In [27]: rr=np.random.randint(0,1000,1000000)

In [28]: %timeit _indexer(rr)
10 loops, best of 3: 40.5 ms per loop

In [29]: %timeit alt_indexer(rr) #pure python
10 loops, best of 3: 51.4 ms per loop
正如你所看到的,速度的提高是最小的。我确实意识到,自从我使用numpy以来,我的代码已经进行了部分优化

有没有我不知道的瓶颈? 我是否应该使用
np.unique
并编写自己的实现


谢谢。

由于
arr
具有非负、不太大和许多重复的
int
数字,这里有一种替代方法,用于模拟与
np.unique相同的行为(arr,return\u counts=True)
-

运行时测试

案例1:

案例2:

案例#3:让我们运行一个案例,其中
unique
在从最小到最大的范围内有一些缺失的数字,并根据
np.unique
版本验证结果,作为健全性检查。在这种情况下,我们不会有太多重复的数字,因此,我们也不希望性能更好

In [98]: arr = np.random.randint(0,10000,(1000)) # Input array

In [99]: unique, counts = np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
    ...: unique1, counts1 = unique_counts(arr)
    ...: 

In [100]: np.allclose(unique,unique1)
Out[100]: True

In [101]: np.allclose(counts,counts1)
Out[101]: True

In [102]: %timeit np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
10000 loops, best of 3: 61.9 µs per loop

In [103]: %timeit unique_counts(arr)
10000 loops, best of 3: 71.8 µs per loop

cython
如果可以将循环转换为纯
C
,则循环速度更快。在您的例子中,循环仍然使用
numpy.unique
和Python字典和切片对象。很好的解决方案!不幸的是,整数从1000000开始。在某些情况下,数组将包含浮点数。@snowleopard是的,那么我们应该寻找其他方法进行优化。但你是对的,似乎np.unique需要被某些东西取代。我真正需要的是一个切片的dict,似乎有一些冗余的操作。
In [83]: arr = np.random.randint(0,100,(1000)) # Input array

In [84]: unique, counts = np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
    ...: unique1, counts1 = unique_counts(arr)
    ...: 

In [85]: np.allclose(unique,unique1)
Out[85]: True

In [86]: np.allclose(counts,counts1)
Out[86]: True

In [87]: %timeit np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
10000 loops, best of 3: 53.2 µs per loop

In [88]: %timeit unique_counts(arr)
100000 loops, best of 3: 10.2 µs per loop
In [89]: arr = np.random.randint(0,1000,(10000)) # Input array

In [90]: %timeit np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
1000 loops, best of 3: 713 µs per loop

In [91]: %timeit unique_counts(arr)
10000 loops, best of 3: 39.1 µs per loop
In [98]: arr = np.random.randint(0,10000,(1000)) # Input array

In [99]: unique, counts = np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
    ...: unique1, counts1 = unique_counts(arr)
    ...: 

In [100]: np.allclose(unique,unique1)
Out[100]: True

In [101]: np.allclose(counts,counts1)
Out[101]: True

In [102]: %timeit np.unique(arr, return_counts=True)
10000 loops, best of 3: 61.9 µs per loop

In [103]: %timeit unique_counts(arr)
10000 loops, best of 3: 71.8 µs per loop