If performance matters, you can use np.apply_along_axis()
.
import numpy as np
have = np.array([[1, 2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7, 8]])
use = np.array([[2], [3]])
def rep1st(arr):
rep = arr[0]
res = np.repeat(arr[1], rep)
res = np.concatenate([res, arr[rep+1:]])
return res
solution = np.apply_along_axis(rep1st, 1, np.concatenate([use, have], axis=1))
update:
As @hpaulj said, actually the method using apply_along_axis
above is not as efficient as I expected. I misunderstood it. Reference: numpy np.apply_along_axis function speed up?.
However, I made some test on current methods:
import numpy as np
from timeit import timeit
def rep1st(arr):
rep = arr[0]
res = np.repeat(arr[1], rep)
res = np.concatenate([res, arr[rep + 1:]])
return res
def test(row, col, run):
have = np.random.randint(0, 100, size=(row, col))
use = np.random.randint(0, col, size=(row, 1))
d = locals()
d.update(globals())
# method by me
t1 = timeit("np.apply_along_axis(rep1st, 1, np.concatenate([use, have], axis=1))", number=run, globals=d)
# method by @quantummind
t2 = timeit("np.array([[a[0]] * b[0] + list(a[b[0]:]) for a, b in zip(have, use)])", number=run, globals=d)
# method by @Amit Vikram Singh
t3 = timeit(
"np.where(np.repeat(np.arange(have.shape[1])[None, :], have.shape[0], axis=0) < use, have[:, 0:1], have)",
number=run, globals=d
)
print(f"{t1:8.6f}, {t2:8.6f}, {t3:8.6f}")
test(1000, 10, 10)
test(100, 100, 10)
test(10, 1000, 10)
test(1000000, 10, 1)
test(100000, 100, 1)
test(10000, 1000, 1)
test(1000, 10000, 1)
test(100, 100000, 1)
test(10, 1000000, 1)
results:
0.062488, 0.028484, 0.000408
0.010787, 0.013811, 0.000270
0.001057, 0.009146, 0.000216
6.146863, 3.210017, 0.044232
0.585289, 1.186013, 0.034110
0.091086, 0.961570, 0.026294
0.039448, 0.917052, 0.022553
0.028719, 0.919377, 0.022751
0.035121, 1.027036, 0.025216
It shows that the second method proposed by @Amit Vikram Singh always works well even when the arrays are huge.