11

I want count the same elements of two lists. Lists can have duplicate elements, so I can't convert this to sets and use & operator.

a=[2,2,1,1]
b=[1,1,3,3]

set(a) & set(b) work
a & b don't work

It is possible to do it withoud set and dictonary?

6
  • Why don't you want to use sets? Commented Apr 28, 2010 at 8:03
  • 1
    I have duplicate elements in list Commented Apr 28, 2010 at 9:08
  • 2
    what is the expected return values for [1, 2, 1] and [1, 3, 2]? Commented Apr 28, 2010 at 9:40
  • 1
    ... and what's the desired output for [1, 2, 2] and [1, 1, 2]? Commented Apr 28, 2010 at 10:32
  • I guess he expects [1, 2] in both cases Commented Apr 28, 2010 at 10:39

3 Answers 3

12

In Python 3.x (and Python 2.7, when it's released), you can use collections.Counter for this:

>>> from collections import Counter
>>> list((Counter([2,2,1,1]) & Counter([1,3,3,1])).elements())
[1, 1]

Here's an alternative using collections.defaultdict (available in Python 2.5 and later). It has the nice property that the order of the result is deterministic (it essentially corresponds to the order of the second list).

from collections import defaultdict

def list_intersection(list1, list2):
    bag = defaultdict(int)
    for elt in list1:
        bag[elt] += 1

    result = []
    for elt in list2:
        if elt in bag:
            # remove elt from bag, making sure
            # that bag counts are kept positive
            if bag[elt] == 1:
                del bag[elt]
            else:
                bag[elt] -= 1
            result.append(elt)

    return result

For both these solutions, the number of occurrences of any given element x in the output list is the minimum of the numbers of occurrences of x in the two input lists. It's not clear from your question whether this is the behavior that you want.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

2 Comments

if bag[elt]: adds an item elt: 0 to the bag when elt in bag is false. When (as the OP hinted) there are few duplicates, it may be better to do if elt in bag and bag[elt]: otherwise bag may become bloated with useless 0 values.
@John Machin: Hmm. Good point. An alternative would be to make sure that bag counts are always strictly positive, by following bag[elt] -= 1 with an if not bag[elt]: del bag[elt]. Then the if test could just be if elt in bag:, which reads more nicely. I'll edit the answer.
8

Using sets is the most efficient, but you could always do r = [i for i in l1 if i in l2].

4 Comments

A distinct difference: The suggested set() & set() method will return a single value that is common between the two lists (set([1]) in this example) whereas your solution will return [1, 1] and so on.
Thanks, but is it some more perfomence solution?
I want function which return [1,1]
@Thomas: This solution gives [1, 1] if l1 == [1, 1] and l2 == [1], but it gives [1] if l1 == [1] and l2 == [1, 1]. Is that the behavior that you want?
0

SilentGhost, Mark Dickinson and Lo'oris are right, Thanks very much for report this problem - I need common part of lists, so for:

a=[1,1,1,2]

b=[1,1,3,3]

result should be [1,1]

Sorry for comment in not suitable place - I have registered today.

I modified yours solutions:

def count_common(l1,l2):
        l2_copy=list(l2)
        counter=0
        for i in l1:
            if i in l2_copy:
                counter+=1
                l2_copy.remove(i)
        return counter

l1=[1,1,1]
l2=[1,2]
print count_common(l1,l2)

1

1 Comment

welcome! You might want to email [email protected] and ask them to merge your newly registered account with the previous temporary account. See: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/…

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.