(Python) I would like to generate all possible combinations with length 9 out of a sorted list list with 150 numbers. However, that\'s not very efficient, so I want to have
Here's a solution using a recursive generator function: the function combinations_max_diff
takes a list of numbers nums
, a number of elements k
, and a maximum difference max_diff
.
The helper
function does all of the work; it takes a partial combination comb
, a number of remaining elements r
, a minimum list index i
for the next element to be chosen in the combination, and a max_next
which controls the maximum size of that next element.
def combinations_max_diff(nums, k, max_diff):
# input list must be sorted
nums = sorted(nums)
n = len(nums)
def helper(comb, r, i, max_next):
if r == 0:
yield comb
else:
for ii in range(i, n - r + 1):
v = nums[ii]
if v > max_next: break
comb_v = comb + (v,)
yield from helper(comb_v, r - 1, ii + 1, v + max_diff)
return helper((), k, 0, nums[-1])
Example usage:
>>> nums = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
>>> for c in combinations_max_diff(nums, 3, 2):
... print(c)
...
(1, 2, 3)
(1, 2, 4)
(1, 3, 4)
(1, 3, 5)
(2, 3, 4)
(2, 3, 5)
(2, 4, 5)
(2, 4, 6)
(3, 4, 5)
(3, 4, 6)
(3, 5, 6)
(3, 5, 7)
(4, 5, 6)
(4, 5, 7)
(4, 6, 7)
(5, 6, 7)
The question asks about efficiency, so here's some idea about that:
>>> import random, timeit
>>> nums = sorted(random.randrange(0, 5000) for _ in range(150))
>>> len(list(combinations_max_diff(nums, 9, 150)))
16932905
>>> timeit.timeit(lambda: list(combinations_max_diff(nums, 9, 150)), number=1)
15.906288493999455
So, about 16 seconds to generate about 17 million combinations, or a little under one microsecond per combination on my machine.
from itertools import combinations, islice, takewhile
def mad_combinations(data, comb_lenth, diff, create_comb=tuple):
assert comb_lenth >= 2
sorted_nums = sorted(frozenset(data))
stop_index = len(sorted_nums) # or use None - what is faster?
combination = [None]*comb_lenth # common memory
def last_combinator(start_index, right_max_number):
"""Last combination place loop"""
return takewhile(right_max_number.__ge__, islice(sorted_nums, start_index, stop_index))
# In other words:
# for x in islice(sorted_nums, start_index, stop_index):
# if x <= right_max_number:
# yield x
# else: return
def _create_combinator(next_place_combinator, current_combination_place):
# this namespace should store variables above
def combinator(start_index, right_max_number):
"""Main loop"""
for i, combination[current_combination_place] in \
enumerate(
takewhile(
right_max_number.__ge__,
islice(sorted_nums, start_index, stop_index)),
start_index + 1):
yield from ( # it yields last combination place number
next_place_combinator(i, combination[current_combination_place] + diff))
return combinator
for combination_place in range(comb_lenth-2, 0, -1): # create chain of loops
last_combinator = _create_combinator(last_combinator, combination_place)
last_index = comb_lenth - 1
# First combination place loop:
for j, combination[0] in enumerate(sorted_nums, 1):
for combination[last_index] in last_combinator(j, combination[0] + diff):
yield create_comb(combination) # don't miss to create a copy!!!
The function above is roughly equivalent to:
def example_of_comb_length_3(data, diff):
sorted_nums = sorted(frozenset(data))
for i1, n1 in enumerate(sorted_nums, 1):
for i2, n2 in enumerate(sorted_nums[i1:], i1 + 1):
if n2 - n1 > diff:break
for n3 in sorted_nums[i2:]:
if n3 - n2 > diff:break
yield (n1, n2, n3)
Versions that use filter:
def insane_combinations(data, comb_lenth, diff):
assert comb_lenth >= 2
for comb in combinations(sorted(frozenset(data)), comb_lenth):
for left, right in zip(comb, islice(comb, 1, comb_lenth)):
if right - left > diff:
break
else:
yield comb
def crazy_combinations(data, comb_lenth, diff):
assert comb_lenth >= 2
last_index = comb_lenth - 1
last_index_m1 = last_index - 1
last_rule = (lambda comb: comb[last_index] - comb[last_index_m1] <= diff)
_create_rule = (lambda next_rule, left, right:
(lambda comb: (comb[right] - comb[left] <= diff) and next_rule(comb)))
for combination_place in range(last_index_m1, 0, -1):
last_rule = _create_rule(last_rule, combination_place - 1, combination_place)
return filter(last_rule, combinations(sorted(frozenset(data)), comb_lenth))
Tests:
def test(fetch, expected, comb_length, diff):
fetch = tuple(fetch)
assert list(insane_combinations(fetch, comb_length, diff)) == \
list(crazy_combinations(fetch, comb_length, diff)) == \
list(mad_combinations(fetch, comb_length, diff)) == list(expected)
if __name__ == '__main__':
test([1,2,3,4,5,6],
comb_length=3, diff=2,
expected=[
(1, 2, 3), (1, 2, 4), (1, 3, 4), (1, 3, 5), (2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 5), (2, 4, 5),
(2, 4, 6), (3, 4, 5), (3, 4, 6), (3, 5, 6), (4, 5, 6)])
test([1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13],
comb_length=3, diff=3,
expected=[
(1, 2, 3), (8, 9, 10), (8, 9, 11), (8, 9, 12), (8, 10, 11), (8, 10, 12),
(8, 10, 13), (8, 11, 12), (8, 11, 13), (9, 10, 11), (9, 10, 12), (9, 10, 13),
(9, 11, 12), (9, 11, 13), (9, 12, 13), (10, 11, 12), (10, 11, 13), (10, 12, 13),
(11, 12, 13)])
I did not bother much with edge cases!! And I've tested only these 2 fetches! If you will find my answer helpful, be sure to test all possible options and write about bugs found (many bugs, I think). To check your concrete fetch use mad_combinations(your_fetch, 9, 150)
.