physicalattraction 的答案确实要快得多。它比我的解决方案要快得多,我的解决方案只是添加一个带有该单行集的单独矩阵。虽然加法比切片法快。
对我来说,在 csr_matrix 中设置行或在 csc_matrix 中设置列的最快方法是自己修改基础数据。
def time_copy(A, num_tries = 10000):
start = time.time()
for i in range(num_tries):
B = A.copy()
end = time.time()
return end - start
def test_method(func, A, row_idx, new_row, num_tries = 10000):
start = time.time()
for i in range(num_tries):
func(A.copy(), row_idx, new_row)
end = time.time()
copy_time = time_copy(A, num_tries)
print("Duration {}".format((end - start) - copy_time))
def set_row_csr_slice(A, row_idx, new_row):
A[row_idx,:] = new_row
def set_row_csr_addition(A, row_idx, new_row):
indptr = np.zeros(A.shape[1] + 1)
indptr[row_idx +1:] = A.shape[1]
indices = np.arange(A.shape[1])
A += csr_matrix((new_row, indices, indptr), shape=A.shape)
>>> A = csr_matrix((np.ones(1000), (np.random.randint(0,1000,1000), np.random.randint(0, 1000, 1000))))
>>> test_method(set_row_csr_slice, A, 200, np.ones(A.shape[1]), num_tries = 10000)
Duration 4.938395977020264
>>> test_method(set_row_csr_addition, A, 200, np.ones(A.shape[1]), num_tries = 10000)
Duration 2.4161765575408936
>>> test_method(set_row_csr, A, 200, np.ones(A.shape[1]), num_tries = 10000)
Duration 0.8432261943817139
随着矩阵的大小和稀疏性,切片解决方案的缩放比例也会变得更差。
# Larger matrix, same fraction sparsity
>>> A = csr_matrix((np.ones(10000), (np.random.randint(0,10000,10000), np.random.randint(0, 10000, 10000))))
>>> test_method(set_row_csr_slice, A, 200, np.ones(A.shape[1]), num_tries = 10000)
Duration 18.335174798965454
>>> test_method(set_row_csr, A, 200, np.ones(A.shape[1]), num_tries = 10000)
Duration 1.1089558601379395
# Super sparse matrix
>>> A = csr_matrix((np.ones(100), (np.random.randint(0,10000,100), np.random.randint(0, 10000, 100))))
>>> test_method(set_row_csr_slice, A, 200, np.ones(A.shape[1]), num_tries = 10000)
Duration 13.371600151062012
>>> test_method(set_row_csr, A, 200, np.ones(A.shape[1]), num_tries = 10000)
Duration 1.0454308986663818