searching sorted items into a sorted sequence

Question

I want to find a sequence of items in a sorted array of values. I know that with numpy I can do:

l = np.searchsorted(values, items)

This ha

Answer 1

Some example data:

# some example data
np.random.seed(0)
n_values = 1000000
n_items = 100000
values = np.random.rand(n_values)
items = np.random.rand(n_items)
values.sort()
items.sort()

Your original code snippet as well as an implementation of @PeterE's suggestion:

def original(values, items):
    l = np.empty(items.size, dtype=np.int32)
    k, K = 0, len(values)
    for i, item in enumerate(items):
        while k < K and values[k] < item:
            k += 1
        l[i] = k
    return l

def peter_e(values, items):
    l = np.empty(items.size, dtype=np.int32)
    last_idx = 0
    for i, item in enumerate(items):
        last_idx += values[last_idx:].searchsorted(item)
        l[i] = last_idx
    return l

Test for correctness against naive np.searchsorted:

ss = values.searchsorted(items)

print(all(original(values, items) == ss))
# True

print(all(peter_e(values, items) == ss))
# True

Timings:

In [1]: %timeit original(values, items)
10 loops, best of 3: 115 ms per loop

In [2]: %timeit peter_e(values, items)
10 loops, best of 3: 79.8 ms per loop

In [3]: %timeit values.searchsorted(items)
100 loops, best of 3: 4.09 ms per loop

So for inputs of this size, naive use of np.searchsorted handily beats your original code, as well as PeterE's suggestion.

Update

To avoid any caching effects that might skew the timings, we can generate a new set of random input arrays for each iteration of the benchmark:

In [1]: %%timeit values = np.random.randn(n_values); items = np.random.randn(n_items); values.sort(); items.sort();
original(values, items)
   .....: 
10 loops, best of 3: 115 ms per loop

In [2]: %%timeit values = np.random.randn(n_values); items = np.random.randn(n_items); values.sort(); items.sort();
peter_e(values, items)
   .....: 
10 loops, best of 3: 79.9 ms per loop

In [3]: %%timeit values = np.random.randn(n_values); items = np.random.randn(n_items); values.sort(); items.sort();
values.searchsorted(items)
   .....: 
100 loops, best of 3: 4.08 ms per loop

Update 2

It's not that hard to write a Cython function that will beat np.searchsorted for the case where both values and items are sorted.

search_doubly_sorted.pyx:

import numpy as np
cimport numpy as np
cimport cython

@cython.boundscheck(False)
@cython.wraparound(False)
def search_doubly_sorted(values, items):

    cdef:
        double[:] _values = values.astype(np.double)
        double[:] _items = items.astype(np.double)
        long n_items = items.shape[0]
        long n_values = values.shape[0]
        long[:] out = np.empty(n_items, dtype=np.int64)
        long ii, jj, last_idx

    last_idx = 0
    for ii in range(n_items):
        for jj in range(last_idx, n_values):
             if _items[ii] <= _values[jj]:
                break
        last_idx = jj
        out[ii] = last_idx

    return out.base

Test for correctness:

In [1]: from search_doubly_sorted import search_doubly_sorted

In [2]: print(all(search_doubly_sorted(values, items) == values.searchsorted(items)))                     
# True

Benchmark:

In [3]: %timeit values.searchsorted(items)
100 loops, best of 3: 4.07 ms per loop

In [4]: %timeit search_doubly_sorted(values, items)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.44 ms per loop

The performance improvement is fairly marginal, though. Unless this is a serious bottleneck in your code then you should probably stick with np.searchsorted.