Velocity Reviews > Numeric/Numarray equivalent to zip ?

# Numeric/Numarray equivalent to zip ?

George Sakkis
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-30-2005
What's the fastest and most elegant equivalent of zip() in
Numeric/Numarray between two equally sized 1D arrays ? That is, how to
combine two (N,)-shaped arrays to one (N,2) (or (2,N)) shaped ? I
expect the fastest and the most elegant idiom to be identical, as it is
usually the case in this excellent library, but if not, both would be
useful to know. Thanks,

George

Robert Kern
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-30-2005
George Sakkis wrote:
> What's the fastest and most elegant equivalent of zip() in
> Numeric/Numarray between two equally sized 1D arrays ? That is, how to
> combine two (N,)-shaped arrays to one (N,2) (or (2,N)) shaped ? I
> expect the fastest and the most elegant idiom to be identical, as it is
> usually the case in this excellent library, but if not, both would be
> useful to know. Thanks,

Look at combining concatenate(), reshape(), and transpose(). In Scipy, I
would use hstack() and vstack().

--
Robert Kern
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Peter Otten
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-01-2005
George Sakkis wrote:

> What's the fastest and most elegant equivalent of zip() in
> Numeric/Numarray between two equally sized 1D arrays ? That is, how to
> combine two (N,)-shaped arrays to one (N,2) (or (2,N)) shaped ? I
> expect the fastest and the most elegant idiom to be identical, as it is
> usually the case in this excellent library, but if not, both would be
> useful to know. Thanks,

>>> import Numeric as nu
>>> a = nu.array(range(3))
>>> nu.array([a, a])

array([[0, 1, 2],
[0, 1, 2]])
>>> nu.transpose(nu.array([a, a]))

array([[0, 0],
[1, 1],
[2, 2]])

Or am I missing something? As to speed, it seems to be the fastest to
write...

Peter

George Sakkis
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-01-2005
"Peter Otten" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> George Sakkis wrote:
>
> > What's the fastest and most elegant equivalent of zip() in
> > Numeric/Numarray between two equally sized 1D arrays ? That is, how

to
> > combine two (N,)-shaped arrays to one (N,2) (or (2,N)) shaped ? I
> > expect the fastest and the most elegant idiom to be identical, as

it is
> > usually the case in this excellent library, but if not, both would

be
> > useful to know. Thanks,

>
> >>> import Numeric as nu
> >>> a = nu.array(range(3))
> >>> nu.array([a, a])

> array([[0, 1, 2],
> [0, 1, 2]])
> >>> nu.transpose(nu.array([a, a]))

> array([[0, 0],
> [1, 1],
> [2, 2]])
>
> Or am I missing something? As to speed, it seems to be the fastest to
> write...

Though not the fastest to execute; using concatenate instead of
initializing an array from a list [a,a] is more than 2,5 time faster in
my system (~4.6 vs 11.8 usec per loop according to timeit.py), and it's
not harder either. One difference is that the equivalent expression for
concatenate expects arrays of shape (1,len(a)) instead of 1D arrays os
shape (len(a),):

>>> a = reshape(range(5), (1,5))
>>> a

array([ [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]])
>>> concatenate((a,a))

array([[0, 1, 2, 3, 4],
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4]])

George

Peter Otten
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-01-2005
George Sakkis wrote:

> Though not the fastest to execute; using concatenate instead of
> initializing an array from a list [a,a] is more than 2,5 time faster in
> my system (~4.6 vs 11.8 usec per loop according to timeit.py), and it's
> not harder either.

That surprises me. I would expect essentially the same amount of
data-shuffling.

> One difference is that the equivalent expression for
> concatenate expects arrays of shape (1,len(a)) instead of 1D arrays os
> shape (len(a),):

If you want to start out with 1D arrays, just reorder the operations:

>>> a = array(range(5))
>>> reshape(concatenate((a, a)), (2, 5))

array([[0, 1, 2, 3, 4],
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4]])
>>>

Peter

George Sakkis
Guest
Posts: n/a

 05-01-2005
"Peter Otten" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> George Sakkis wrote:
>
> > Though not the fastest to execute; using concatenate instead of
> > initializing an array from a list [a,a] is more than 2,5 time

faster in
> > my system (~4.6 vs 11.8 usec per loop according to timeit.py), and

it's
> > not harder either.

>
> That surprises me. I would expect essentially the same amount of
> data-shuffling.

Here are some timing comparisons of four versions I tried. The first
three work on 1D arrays directly and the fourth on 2D row arrays (i.e.
shape (1,len(a))):

from Numeric import *

# 11.5 usec/loop
def ziparrays_1(*arrays):
return array(arrays)

# 8.1 usec/loop
def ziparrays_2(*arrays):
a = zeros((len(arrays),len(arrays[0])))
for i in xrange(len(arrays)):
a[i] = arrays[i]
return a

# 13.6 usec/loop
def ziparrays_3(*arrays):
return reshape(concatenate(arrays), (len(arrays),len(arrays[0])))

# 4.6 usec/loop
def ziparrays_4(*arrays):
return concatenate(arrays)

of 1D. Comparing versions 3 and 4, it's surprising that reshape takes
twice as much as concatenate.

George