A fast way to find the largest N elements in an numpy array

Perhaps heapq.nlargest

import numpy as np
import heapq

x = np.array([1,-5,4,6,-3,3])

z = heapq.nlargest(3,x)

Result:

>>> z
[6, 4, 3]

If you want to find the indices of the n largest elements using bottleneck you could use
bottleneck.argpartsort

>>> x = np.array([1,-5,4,6,-3,3])
>>> z = bottleneck.argpartsort(-x, 3)[:3]
>>> z
array([3, 2, 5]

If storing the array as a list of numbers isn’t problematic, you can use

import heapq
heapq.nlargest(N, a)

to get the N largest members.

Each negative sign in the proposed bottleneck solution

-bottleneck.partsort(-a, 10)[:10]

makes a copy of the data. We can remove the copies by doing

bottleneck.partsort(a, a.size-10)[-10:]

Also the proposed numpy solution

a.argsort()[-10:]

returns indices not values. The fix is to use the indices to find the values:

a[a.argsort()[-10:]]

The relative speed of the two bottleneck solutions depends on the ordering of the elements in the initial array because the two approaches partition the data at different points.

In other words, timing with any one particular random array can make either method look faster.

Averaging the timing across 100 random arrays, each with 1,000,000 elements, gives

-bn.partsort(-a, 10)[:10]: 1.76 ms per loop
bn.partsort(a, a.size-10)[-10:]: 0.92 ms per loop
a[a.argsort()[-10:]]: 15.34 ms per loop

where the timing code is as follows:

import time
import numpy as np
import bottleneck as bn

def bottleneck_1(a):
    return -bn.partsort(-a, 10)[:10]

def bottleneck_2(a):
    return bn.partsort(a, a.size-10)[-10:]

def numpy(a):
    return a[a.argsort()[-10:]]

def do_nothing(a):
    return a

def benchmark(func, size=1000000, ntimes=100):
    t1 = time.time()
    for n in range(ntimes):
        a = np.random.rand(size)
        func(a)
    t2 = time.time()
    ms_per_loop = 1000000 * (t2 - t1) / size
    return ms_per_loop

t1 = benchmark(bottleneck_1)
t2 = benchmark(bottleneck_2)
t3 = benchmark(numpy)
t4 = benchmark(do_nothing)

print "-bn.partsort(-a, 10)[:10]: %0.2f ms per loop" % (t1 - t4)
print "bn.partsort(a, a.size-10)[-10:]: %0.2f ms per loop" % (t2 - t4)
print "a[a.argsort()[-10:]]: %0.2f ms per loop" % (t3 - t4)

numpy 1.8 implements partition and argpartition that perform partial sort ( in O(n) time as opposed to full sort that is O(n) * log(n)).

import numpy as np

test = np.array([9,1,3,4,8,7,2,5,6,0])

temp = np.argpartition(-test, 4)
result_args = temp[:4]

temp = np.partition(-test, 4)
result = -temp[:4]

Result:

>>> result_args
array([0, 4, 8, 5]) # indices of highest vals
>>> result
array([9, 8, 6, 7]) # highest vals

Timing:

In [16]: a = np.arange(10000)

In [17]: np.random.shuffle(a)

In [18]: %timeit np.argsort(a)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.02 ms per loop

In [19]: %timeit np.argpartition(a, 100)
10000 loops, best of 3: 139 us per loop

In [20]: %timeit np.argpartition(a, 1000)
10000 loops, best of 3: 141 us per loop

You can also use numpy’s percentile function. In my case it was slightly faster then bottleneck.partsort():

import timeit
import bottleneck as bn

N,M,K = 10,1000000,100

start = timeit.default_timer()
for k in range(K):
    a=np.random.uniform(size=M)
    tmp=-bn.partsort(-a, N)[:N]
stop = timeit.default_timer()
print (stop - start)/K

start = timeit.default_timer()
perc = (np.arange(M-N,M)+1.0)/M*100
for k in range(K):
    a=np.random.uniform(size=M)
    tmp=np.percentile(a,perc)
stop = timeit.default_timer()
print (stop - start)/K

Average time per loop:

• bottleneck.partsort(): 59 ms
• np.percentile(): 54 ms

I had this problem and, since this question is 5 years old, I had to redo all benchmarks and change the syntax of bottleneck (there is no partsort anymore, it’s partition now).

I used the same arguments as kwgoodman, except the number of elements retrieved, which I increased to 50 (to better fit my particular situation).

I got these results:

bottleneck 1: 01.12 ms per loop
bottleneck 2: 00.95 ms per loop
pandas      : 01.65 ms per loop
heapq       : 08.61 ms per loop
numpy       : 12.37 ms per loop
numpy 2     : 00.95 ms per loop

So, bottleneck_2 and numpy_2 (adas’s solution) were tied.
But, using np.percentile (numpy_2) you have those topN elements already sorted, which is not the case for the other solutions. On the other hand, if you are also interested on the indexes of those elements, percentile is not useful.

I added pandas too, which uses bottleneck underneath, if available (http://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/install.html#recommended-dependencies). If you already have a pandas Series or DataFrame to start with, you are in good hands, just use nlargest and you’re done.

The code used for the benchmark is as follows (python 3, please):

import time
import numpy as np
import bottleneck as bn
import pandas as pd
import heapq

def bottleneck_1(a, n):
    return -bn.partition(-a, n)[:n]

def bottleneck_2(a, n):
    return bn.partition(a, a.size-n)[-n:]

def numpy(a, n):
    return a[a.argsort()[-n:]]

def numpy_2(a, n):
    M = a.shape[0]
    perc = (np.arange(M-n,M)+1.0)/M*100
    return np.percentile(a,perc)

def pandas(a, n):
    return pd.Series(a).nlargest(n)

def hpq(a, n):
    return heapq.nlargest(n, a)

def do_nothing(a, n):
    return a[:n]

def benchmark(func, size=1000000, ntimes=100, topn=50):
    t1 = time.time()
    for n in range(ntimes):
        a = np.random.rand(size)
        func(a, topn)
    t2 = time.time()
    ms_per_loop = 1000000 * (t2 - t1) / size
    return ms_per_loop

t1 = benchmark(bottleneck_1)
t2 = benchmark(bottleneck_2)
t3 = benchmark(pandas)
t4 = benchmark(hpq)
t5 = benchmark(numpy)
t6 = benchmark(numpy_2)
t0 = benchmark(do_nothing)

print("bottleneck 1: {:05.2f} ms per loop".format(t1 - t0))
print("bottleneck 2: {:05.2f} ms per loop".format(t2 - t0))
print("pandas      : {:05.2f} ms per loop".format(t3 - t0))
print("heapq       : {:05.2f} ms per loop".format(t4 - t0))
print("numpy       : {:05.2f} ms per loop".format(t5 - t0))
print("numpy 2     : {:05.2f} ms per loop".format(t6 - t0))