清空筛选条件
清空筛选条件

Matlab find unique column-combinations in matrix and respective index

203 次查看（过去 30 天）
Benvaulter
Benvaulter 2017-3-22
编辑： Jan 2017-3-23
I have a large matrix with with multiple rows and a limited (but larger than 1) number of columns containing values between 0 and 9 and would like to find an efficient way to identify unique row-wise combinations and their indices to then build sums (somehwat like a pivot logic). Here is an example of what I am trying to achieve:
a =
1 2 3
2 2 3
3 2 1
1 2 3
3 2 1
uniqueCombs =
1 2 3
2 2 3
3 2 1
numOccurrences =
2
1
2
indizies:
[1;4]
[2]
[3;5]
From matrix a, I want to first identify the unique combinations (row-wise), then count the number occurrences / identify the row-index of the respective combination.
I have achieved this through generating strings with num2str and strcat, but this method appears to be very slow. Along these thoughts I have tried to find a way to form a new unique number through concatenating the values horizontally, but Matlab does not seem to support this (e.g. from [1;2;3] build 123). Sums won't work because they would remove the possibility to identify unique combinations. Any suggestions on how to best achieve this? Thanks!

请先登录，再回答此问题。

采纳的回答

Guillaume
Guillaume 2017-3-22
More or less the same as Jan's, using accumarray instead of splitapply (I'm still old school!):
A = [ 1 2 3
2 2 3
3 2 1
1 2 3
3 2 1];
[B, ~, ib] = unique(A, 'rows');
numoccurences = accumarray(ib, 1);
indices = accumarray(ib, find(ib), [], @(rows){rows}); %the find(ib) simply generates (1:size(a,1))'
  4 个评论
显示 2更早的评论
Guillaume
Guillaume 2017-3-23
编辑：Guillaume 2017-3-23
I suspect that accumarray will be faster as it is built-in compiled code whereas splitapply is m code, but I haven't conducted any test.
Note: for the indices,
indices = accumarray(ib, (1:numel(ib))', [], @(rows){rows});
is probably slightly faster, just not as concise.
Jan
Jan 2017-3-23
编辑：Jan 2017-3-23
@Guillaume: I compare this with cellfun: In older versions Matlab contained the C-sources for this Mex function. Here calling a function handle is very expensive, because the Matlab tier has to be called. Therefore the implicitely defined methods provided by strings are much faster: 'length', 'isclass' etc.
Then using a compiled Mex function is not a real benefit, because mexCallMATLAB has some overhead. This might concern accumarray also. I guess that your accumarray approach is faster than the loop, but I know that it looks very cryptic ;-)
But now I can leave the speculations and run a test: With
A = randi([1, 100], 1e5, 3); % Test data
my loop takes 14.75 seconds, your accumarray approach takes 0.44 seconds. The results differ in the order of the indices. So perhaps this is wanted:
[B, iB, iA] = unique(A, 'rows');
indices = accumarray(iA, (1:numel(iA)).', [], @(r){sort(r)});
The result is clear: @Benvaulter, please unaccept my answer and select Guillaume's, and of course use it also to save time and energy.

请先登录，再进行评论。

更多回答（1 个）

Jan
Jan 2017-3-22
编辑：Jan 2017-3-23
A = [ 1 2 3; ...
2 2 3; ...
3 2 1; ...
1 2 3; ...
3 2 1];
[B, iB, iA] = unique(A, 'rows');
G = unique(iA);
numOccurrences = splitapply(@sum, iA, G);
I cannot test a method to obtain the indices list as wanted. I assume this works with splitapply also. A simple loop approach at least:
n = length(G);
indices = cell(1, n);
for k = 1:n
indices{k} = find(iA == G(k));
end
[EDITED] Code is tested now. Use the much faster solution of Guillaume for productive work.

类别

在 Help Center 和 File Exchange 中查找有关 Matrix Indexing 的更多信息

标签

Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by