Find all subarrays of fixed length with a given ranking












7














I have an array of numbers, for example:



A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]


and an array that determines a rank, for example:



B = [0, 2, 1]


My goal is to find all the subarrays of A that "obey" the rank B. If a subarray obeys the rank, that means that the i-th smallest element of the subarray must have B[i] as its (subarray) index. So for a subarray to match, the smallest element within it must be in position 0, the second smallest must be in position 2, and the biggest element must be in position 1.



So for example here, there are two subarrays of A that match the ranking: [1, 5, 2] (because A[0] < A[2] < A[1]) and [2, 4, 3].



So far, I've managed to find a solution that has an O(mn) (m is len(A) and n is len(B)) time complexity, it iterates over all the subarrays of length 3 and verifies if they are correctly ordered:



A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparaisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)


Result:



Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


This works, but I was wondering if there was a better optimized algorithm (better than O(mn)) to fulfill this task.










share|improve this question









New contributor




ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2




    are you looking for something with a lower time complexity specifically? because i am not sure such a thing exists.
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago










  • @ParitoshSingh Yes, that is what I'm looking for. Maybe it doesn't, but I guess that's why I asked :). What makes me doubt though is that I'm working on subarrays, and some of these subarrays overlap - maybe there's a way to reduce the amount of computations by caching some, like how optimised string searching (such as KMP) algorithms work ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago










  • The issue i see with that is this. consider [0,1,3,2]. In the first sublist, [1,3] would have relative ranks of 1 and 2, whereas in the second sublist, [1,3] would have a relative rank of 0 and 2. Essentially, the result depends on the "window", and so you'd need a re-evaluation to be sure. In such a scenario, whatever result you may cache would end up needing a re-check, losing out on all benefits. (And someone please correct me if im wrong)
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago










  • @ParitoshSingh Correct, however consider subarrays that are of length > 2. For example when I'm going from [0, 1, 3] to [1, 3, 2] (on your list), lets say I've done comparaisons on the first subarray and deduced that it didn't obey. I move on to the second subarray, however I have possibly already done some comparaisons (last two elements become the first two elements of the second subarray). Even though, as you say, knowing that 1 < 3 isn't useful because 2 is in the middle, there are some cases where that overlapping part of the subarrays must be useful - at least, that's what I think.
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago










  • Indeed, but because its "some" cases and not all, you'd have to do a recheck for all cases anyways. And since comparisons are a constant time operation, you'd end up on square 1. changing the window changes everything about the comparisons that are favourable and which aren't.
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago
















7














I have an array of numbers, for example:



A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]


and an array that determines a rank, for example:



B = [0, 2, 1]


My goal is to find all the subarrays of A that "obey" the rank B. If a subarray obeys the rank, that means that the i-th smallest element of the subarray must have B[i] as its (subarray) index. So for a subarray to match, the smallest element within it must be in position 0, the second smallest must be in position 2, and the biggest element must be in position 1.



So for example here, there are two subarrays of A that match the ranking: [1, 5, 2] (because A[0] < A[2] < A[1]) and [2, 4, 3].



So far, I've managed to find a solution that has an O(mn) (m is len(A) and n is len(B)) time complexity, it iterates over all the subarrays of length 3 and verifies if they are correctly ordered:



A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparaisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)


Result:



Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


This works, but I was wondering if there was a better optimized algorithm (better than O(mn)) to fulfill this task.










share|improve this question









New contributor




ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2




    are you looking for something with a lower time complexity specifically? because i am not sure such a thing exists.
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago










  • @ParitoshSingh Yes, that is what I'm looking for. Maybe it doesn't, but I guess that's why I asked :). What makes me doubt though is that I'm working on subarrays, and some of these subarrays overlap - maybe there's a way to reduce the amount of computations by caching some, like how optimised string searching (such as KMP) algorithms work ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago










  • The issue i see with that is this. consider [0,1,3,2]. In the first sublist, [1,3] would have relative ranks of 1 and 2, whereas in the second sublist, [1,3] would have a relative rank of 0 and 2. Essentially, the result depends on the "window", and so you'd need a re-evaluation to be sure. In such a scenario, whatever result you may cache would end up needing a re-check, losing out on all benefits. (And someone please correct me if im wrong)
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago










  • @ParitoshSingh Correct, however consider subarrays that are of length > 2. For example when I'm going from [0, 1, 3] to [1, 3, 2] (on your list), lets say I've done comparaisons on the first subarray and deduced that it didn't obey. I move on to the second subarray, however I have possibly already done some comparaisons (last two elements become the first two elements of the second subarray). Even though, as you say, knowing that 1 < 3 isn't useful because 2 is in the middle, there are some cases where that overlapping part of the subarrays must be useful - at least, that's what I think.
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago










  • Indeed, but because its "some" cases and not all, you'd have to do a recheck for all cases anyways. And since comparisons are a constant time operation, you'd end up on square 1. changing the window changes everything about the comparisons that are favourable and which aren't.
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago














7












7








7


4





I have an array of numbers, for example:



A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]


and an array that determines a rank, for example:



B = [0, 2, 1]


My goal is to find all the subarrays of A that "obey" the rank B. If a subarray obeys the rank, that means that the i-th smallest element of the subarray must have B[i] as its (subarray) index. So for a subarray to match, the smallest element within it must be in position 0, the second smallest must be in position 2, and the biggest element must be in position 1.



So for example here, there are two subarrays of A that match the ranking: [1, 5, 2] (because A[0] < A[2] < A[1]) and [2, 4, 3].



So far, I've managed to find a solution that has an O(mn) (m is len(A) and n is len(B)) time complexity, it iterates over all the subarrays of length 3 and verifies if they are correctly ordered:



A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparaisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)


Result:



Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


This works, but I was wondering if there was a better optimized algorithm (better than O(mn)) to fulfill this task.










share|improve this question









New contributor




ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I have an array of numbers, for example:



A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]


and an array that determines a rank, for example:



B = [0, 2, 1]


My goal is to find all the subarrays of A that "obey" the rank B. If a subarray obeys the rank, that means that the i-th smallest element of the subarray must have B[i] as its (subarray) index. So for a subarray to match, the smallest element within it must be in position 0, the second smallest must be in position 2, and the biggest element must be in position 1.



So for example here, there are two subarrays of A that match the ranking: [1, 5, 2] (because A[0] < A[2] < A[1]) and [2, 4, 3].



So far, I've managed to find a solution that has an O(mn) (m is len(A) and n is len(B)) time complexity, it iterates over all the subarrays of length 3 and verifies if they are correctly ordered:



A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparaisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)


Result:



Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


This works, but I was wondering if there was a better optimized algorithm (better than O(mn)) to fulfill this task.







python algorithm ranking






share|improve this question









New contributor




ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago





















New contributor




ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









ping guo

364




364




New contributor




ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






ping guo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 2




    are you looking for something with a lower time complexity specifically? because i am not sure such a thing exists.
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago










  • @ParitoshSingh Yes, that is what I'm looking for. Maybe it doesn't, but I guess that's why I asked :). What makes me doubt though is that I'm working on subarrays, and some of these subarrays overlap - maybe there's a way to reduce the amount of computations by caching some, like how optimised string searching (such as KMP) algorithms work ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago










  • The issue i see with that is this. consider [0,1,3,2]. In the first sublist, [1,3] would have relative ranks of 1 and 2, whereas in the second sublist, [1,3] would have a relative rank of 0 and 2. Essentially, the result depends on the "window", and so you'd need a re-evaluation to be sure. In such a scenario, whatever result you may cache would end up needing a re-check, losing out on all benefits. (And someone please correct me if im wrong)
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago










  • @ParitoshSingh Correct, however consider subarrays that are of length > 2. For example when I'm going from [0, 1, 3] to [1, 3, 2] (on your list), lets say I've done comparaisons on the first subarray and deduced that it didn't obey. I move on to the second subarray, however I have possibly already done some comparaisons (last two elements become the first two elements of the second subarray). Even though, as you say, knowing that 1 < 3 isn't useful because 2 is in the middle, there are some cases where that overlapping part of the subarrays must be useful - at least, that's what I think.
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago










  • Indeed, but because its "some" cases and not all, you'd have to do a recheck for all cases anyways. And since comparisons are a constant time operation, you'd end up on square 1. changing the window changes everything about the comparisons that are favourable and which aren't.
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago














  • 2




    are you looking for something with a lower time complexity specifically? because i am not sure such a thing exists.
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago










  • @ParitoshSingh Yes, that is what I'm looking for. Maybe it doesn't, but I guess that's why I asked :). What makes me doubt though is that I'm working on subarrays, and some of these subarrays overlap - maybe there's a way to reduce the amount of computations by caching some, like how optimised string searching (such as KMP) algorithms work ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago










  • The issue i see with that is this. consider [0,1,3,2]. In the first sublist, [1,3] would have relative ranks of 1 and 2, whereas in the second sublist, [1,3] would have a relative rank of 0 and 2. Essentially, the result depends on the "window", and so you'd need a re-evaluation to be sure. In such a scenario, whatever result you may cache would end up needing a re-check, losing out on all benefits. (And someone please correct me if im wrong)
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago










  • @ParitoshSingh Correct, however consider subarrays that are of length > 2. For example when I'm going from [0, 1, 3] to [1, 3, 2] (on your list), lets say I've done comparaisons on the first subarray and deduced that it didn't obey. I move on to the second subarray, however I have possibly already done some comparaisons (last two elements become the first two elements of the second subarray). Even though, as you say, knowing that 1 < 3 isn't useful because 2 is in the middle, there are some cases where that overlapping part of the subarrays must be useful - at least, that's what I think.
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago










  • Indeed, but because its "some" cases and not all, you'd have to do a recheck for all cases anyways. And since comparisons are a constant time operation, you'd end up on square 1. changing the window changes everything about the comparisons that are favourable and which aren't.
    – Paritosh Singh
    4 hours ago








2




2




are you looking for something with a lower time complexity specifically? because i am not sure such a thing exists.
– Paritosh Singh
4 hours ago




are you looking for something with a lower time complexity specifically? because i am not sure such a thing exists.
– Paritosh Singh
4 hours ago












@ParitoshSingh Yes, that is what I'm looking for. Maybe it doesn't, but I guess that's why I asked :). What makes me doubt though is that I'm working on subarrays, and some of these subarrays overlap - maybe there's a way to reduce the amount of computations by caching some, like how optimised string searching (such as KMP) algorithms work ?
– ping guo
4 hours ago




@ParitoshSingh Yes, that is what I'm looking for. Maybe it doesn't, but I guess that's why I asked :). What makes me doubt though is that I'm working on subarrays, and some of these subarrays overlap - maybe there's a way to reduce the amount of computations by caching some, like how optimised string searching (such as KMP) algorithms work ?
– ping guo
4 hours ago












The issue i see with that is this. consider [0,1,3,2]. In the first sublist, [1,3] would have relative ranks of 1 and 2, whereas in the second sublist, [1,3] would have a relative rank of 0 and 2. Essentially, the result depends on the "window", and so you'd need a re-evaluation to be sure. In such a scenario, whatever result you may cache would end up needing a re-check, losing out on all benefits. (And someone please correct me if im wrong)
– Paritosh Singh
4 hours ago




The issue i see with that is this. consider [0,1,3,2]. In the first sublist, [1,3] would have relative ranks of 1 and 2, whereas in the second sublist, [1,3] would have a relative rank of 0 and 2. Essentially, the result depends on the "window", and so you'd need a re-evaluation to be sure. In such a scenario, whatever result you may cache would end up needing a re-check, losing out on all benefits. (And someone please correct me if im wrong)
– Paritosh Singh
4 hours ago












@ParitoshSingh Correct, however consider subarrays that are of length > 2. For example when I'm going from [0, 1, 3] to [1, 3, 2] (on your list), lets say I've done comparaisons on the first subarray and deduced that it didn't obey. I move on to the second subarray, however I have possibly already done some comparaisons (last two elements become the first two elements of the second subarray). Even though, as you say, knowing that 1 < 3 isn't useful because 2 is in the middle, there are some cases where that overlapping part of the subarrays must be useful - at least, that's what I think.
– ping guo
4 hours ago




@ParitoshSingh Correct, however consider subarrays that are of length > 2. For example when I'm going from [0, 1, 3] to [1, 3, 2] (on your list), lets say I've done comparaisons on the first subarray and deduced that it didn't obey. I move on to the second subarray, however I have possibly already done some comparaisons (last two elements become the first two elements of the second subarray). Even though, as you say, knowing that 1 < 3 isn't useful because 2 is in the middle, there are some cases where that overlapping part of the subarrays must be useful - at least, that's what I think.
– ping guo
4 hours ago












Indeed, but because its "some" cases and not all, you'd have to do a recheck for all cases anyways. And since comparisons are a constant time operation, you'd end up on square 1. changing the window changes everything about the comparisons that are favourable and which aren't.
– Paritosh Singh
4 hours ago




Indeed, but because its "some" cases and not all, you'd have to do a recheck for all cases anyways. And since comparisons are a constant time operation, you'd end up on square 1. changing the window changes everything about the comparisons that are favourable and which aren't.
– Paritosh Singh
4 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2














Here's a numpy solution based on some linear algebra.



First convert B to a basis:



import numpy as np
A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

b = np.eye(len(B))[B]
print(b)
#array([[1, 0, 0],
# [0, 0, 1],
# [0, 1, 0]])


Now we can go through each subarray of A and project it into this space. If the resulting vector is sorted, that means the subarray followed the ranking.



for i in range(0, (len(A) - len(B))+1):
a = np.array(A[i:i+len(B)])
if (np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all():
print(a)
#[1 5 2]
#[2 4 3]


I'm not a numpy expert, so there may be a way to optimize this further and eliminate the loop.





Update, here's a cleaner version:



def get_ranked_subarrays(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
b = np.eye(n)[B]
a = np.array([A[i:i+n] for i in range(0, m - n+1)])
return a[(np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all(1)].tolist()

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]




Performance Results:



Your solution is very good for small n, but the numpy solution outperforms as the size of A grows large:



Here's your code which I turned into a function that returns the desired subarrays (instead of printing):



def get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
out =
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
out.append(current_subarray)
return out


Timing results for a large random A:



array_size = 1000000
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = [0, 2, 1]

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.57 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 890 ms per loop


However, if m also grows large, your solution is slightly better because of the short circuiting (the likelihood of a short circuit grows large for large m). Here is the timing results of we let m be 100.



array_size = 1000000
basis_size = 100
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = range(basis_size)
np.random.shuffle(B)

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.9 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 2.79 s per loop





share|improve this answer























  • Thanks for this answer - I'd never have thought of doing it that way ! However, although this improves the speed, it looks to me like its still O(nm) because dot product is O(n) :(. And yes on top of that the large m lead to a smaller time thanks to the break.
    – ping guo
    15 mins ago



















1














Instead of iterating over B to compare ranks, you could use scipy.stats.rankdata to get the ranks directly:



from scipy.stats import rankdata

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

m = len(A)
n = len(B)

for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]

ranked_numbers = (rankdata(current_subarray).astype(int) - 1).tolist()
if ranked_numbers == B:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)

# Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
# Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


Note: rankdata() starts ranks from 1 instead of 0, which is why the above minuses 1 from every element in the numpy array.






share|improve this answer























  • Thanks, however I'm more interested in the algorithm used, and I've looked at the scipy source - correct me if I'm wrong - but it looks like they're sorting the list - so in the end the complexity isn't better than O(mn) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @pingguo Yeah it looks like it uses mergesort or quicksort from the source code. In that case the above will probably be slower since it needs to perform O(nlogn) sorting for each ranking. You would have to time both to be sure. I don't think you can do any better than the solution you have.
    – RoadRunner
    4 hours ago





















1














You can loop over A and check the resulting subarrays:



A, B = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3], [0, 2, 1]
def results(a, b):
_l = len(b)
for c in range(len(a)-_l+1):
_r = a[c:c+_l]
new_r = [_r[i] for i in b]
if all(new_r[i] < new_r[i+1] for i in range(len(new_r)-1)):
yield _r

print(list(results(A, B)))


Output:



[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]





share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    What's with all the underscores you've been using in your variables?
    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago










  • @coldspeed Merely a personal style
    – Ajax1234
    4 hours ago










  • Thanks for the prompt answer ! However maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question, I only need the subarrays of A that obey the ranking. Your solution gives me all the possible subarrays that obey the ranking, but most of these aren't subarrays of A. Doesn't that make this method longer (as I have to remove the subarrays that are not of A) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago












  • @pingguo Based on the results of the timings, it appears that you really can't get any better than what you already have for a solution.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago










  • @pault I added new timings, however, if you feel they are inaccurate, I will remove them.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






ping guo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54054370%2ffind-all-subarrays-of-fixed-length-with-a-given-ranking%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














Here's a numpy solution based on some linear algebra.



First convert B to a basis:



import numpy as np
A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

b = np.eye(len(B))[B]
print(b)
#array([[1, 0, 0],
# [0, 0, 1],
# [0, 1, 0]])


Now we can go through each subarray of A and project it into this space. If the resulting vector is sorted, that means the subarray followed the ranking.



for i in range(0, (len(A) - len(B))+1):
a = np.array(A[i:i+len(B)])
if (np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all():
print(a)
#[1 5 2]
#[2 4 3]


I'm not a numpy expert, so there may be a way to optimize this further and eliminate the loop.





Update, here's a cleaner version:



def get_ranked_subarrays(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
b = np.eye(n)[B]
a = np.array([A[i:i+n] for i in range(0, m - n+1)])
return a[(np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all(1)].tolist()

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]




Performance Results:



Your solution is very good for small n, but the numpy solution outperforms as the size of A grows large:



Here's your code which I turned into a function that returns the desired subarrays (instead of printing):



def get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
out =
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
out.append(current_subarray)
return out


Timing results for a large random A:



array_size = 1000000
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = [0, 2, 1]

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.57 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 890 ms per loop


However, if m also grows large, your solution is slightly better because of the short circuiting (the likelihood of a short circuit grows large for large m). Here is the timing results of we let m be 100.



array_size = 1000000
basis_size = 100
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = range(basis_size)
np.random.shuffle(B)

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.9 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 2.79 s per loop





share|improve this answer























  • Thanks for this answer - I'd never have thought of doing it that way ! However, although this improves the speed, it looks to me like its still O(nm) because dot product is O(n) :(. And yes on top of that the large m lead to a smaller time thanks to the break.
    – ping guo
    15 mins ago
















2














Here's a numpy solution based on some linear algebra.



First convert B to a basis:



import numpy as np
A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

b = np.eye(len(B))[B]
print(b)
#array([[1, 0, 0],
# [0, 0, 1],
# [0, 1, 0]])


Now we can go through each subarray of A and project it into this space. If the resulting vector is sorted, that means the subarray followed the ranking.



for i in range(0, (len(A) - len(B))+1):
a = np.array(A[i:i+len(B)])
if (np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all():
print(a)
#[1 5 2]
#[2 4 3]


I'm not a numpy expert, so there may be a way to optimize this further and eliminate the loop.





Update, here's a cleaner version:



def get_ranked_subarrays(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
b = np.eye(n)[B]
a = np.array([A[i:i+n] for i in range(0, m - n+1)])
return a[(np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all(1)].tolist()

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]




Performance Results:



Your solution is very good for small n, but the numpy solution outperforms as the size of A grows large:



Here's your code which I turned into a function that returns the desired subarrays (instead of printing):



def get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
out =
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
out.append(current_subarray)
return out


Timing results for a large random A:



array_size = 1000000
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = [0, 2, 1]

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.57 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 890 ms per loop


However, if m also grows large, your solution is slightly better because of the short circuiting (the likelihood of a short circuit grows large for large m). Here is the timing results of we let m be 100.



array_size = 1000000
basis_size = 100
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = range(basis_size)
np.random.shuffle(B)

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.9 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 2.79 s per loop





share|improve this answer























  • Thanks for this answer - I'd never have thought of doing it that way ! However, although this improves the speed, it looks to me like its still O(nm) because dot product is O(n) :(. And yes on top of that the large m lead to a smaller time thanks to the break.
    – ping guo
    15 mins ago














2












2








2






Here's a numpy solution based on some linear algebra.



First convert B to a basis:



import numpy as np
A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

b = np.eye(len(B))[B]
print(b)
#array([[1, 0, 0],
# [0, 0, 1],
# [0, 1, 0]])


Now we can go through each subarray of A and project it into this space. If the resulting vector is sorted, that means the subarray followed the ranking.



for i in range(0, (len(A) - len(B))+1):
a = np.array(A[i:i+len(B)])
if (np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all():
print(a)
#[1 5 2]
#[2 4 3]


I'm not a numpy expert, so there may be a way to optimize this further and eliminate the loop.





Update, here's a cleaner version:



def get_ranked_subarrays(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
b = np.eye(n)[B]
a = np.array([A[i:i+n] for i in range(0, m - n+1)])
return a[(np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all(1)].tolist()

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]




Performance Results:



Your solution is very good for small n, but the numpy solution outperforms as the size of A grows large:



Here's your code which I turned into a function that returns the desired subarrays (instead of printing):



def get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
out =
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
out.append(current_subarray)
return out


Timing results for a large random A:



array_size = 1000000
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = [0, 2, 1]

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.57 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 890 ms per loop


However, if m also grows large, your solution is slightly better because of the short circuiting (the likelihood of a short circuit grows large for large m). Here is the timing results of we let m be 100.



array_size = 1000000
basis_size = 100
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = range(basis_size)
np.random.shuffle(B)

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.9 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 2.79 s per loop





share|improve this answer














Here's a numpy solution based on some linear algebra.



First convert B to a basis:



import numpy as np
A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

b = np.eye(len(B))[B]
print(b)
#array([[1, 0, 0],
# [0, 0, 1],
# [0, 1, 0]])


Now we can go through each subarray of A and project it into this space. If the resulting vector is sorted, that means the subarray followed the ranking.



for i in range(0, (len(A) - len(B))+1):
a = np.array(A[i:i+len(B)])
if (np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all():
print(a)
#[1 5 2]
#[2 4 3]


I'm not a numpy expert, so there may be a way to optimize this further and eliminate the loop.





Update, here's a cleaner version:



def get_ranked_subarrays(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
b = np.eye(n)[B]
a = np.array([A[i:i+n] for i in range(0, m - n+1)])
return a[(np.diff(a.dot(b))>0).all(1)].tolist()

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]




Performance Results:



Your solution is very good for small n, but the numpy solution outperforms as the size of A grows large:



Here's your code which I turned into a function that returns the desired subarrays (instead of printing):



def get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B):
m = len(A)
n = len(B)
out =
for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]
# we now do n - 1 comparisons to check whether the subarray is correctly ordered.
for B_index in range(n - 1):
if current_subarray[B[B_index]] > current_subarray[B[B_index + 1]]:
break
else:
out.append(current_subarray)
return out


Timing results for a large random A:



array_size = 1000000
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = [0, 2, 1]

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.57 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 890 ms per loop


However, if m also grows large, your solution is slightly better because of the short circuiting (the likelihood of a short circuit grows large for large m). Here is the timing results of we let m be 100.



array_size = 1000000
basis_size = 100
A = np.random.randint(low=0, high=10, size=array_size)
B = range(basis_size)
np.random.shuffle(B)

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays_op(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 1.9 s per loop

%%timeit
get_ranked_subarrays(A, B)
#1 loop, best of 3: 2.79 s per loop






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









pault

14.2k31947




14.2k31947












  • Thanks for this answer - I'd never have thought of doing it that way ! However, although this improves the speed, it looks to me like its still O(nm) because dot product is O(n) :(. And yes on top of that the large m lead to a smaller time thanks to the break.
    – ping guo
    15 mins ago


















  • Thanks for this answer - I'd never have thought of doing it that way ! However, although this improves the speed, it looks to me like its still O(nm) because dot product is O(n) :(. And yes on top of that the large m lead to a smaller time thanks to the break.
    – ping guo
    15 mins ago
















Thanks for this answer - I'd never have thought of doing it that way ! However, although this improves the speed, it looks to me like its still O(nm) because dot product is O(n) :(. And yes on top of that the large m lead to a smaller time thanks to the break.
– ping guo
15 mins ago




Thanks for this answer - I'd never have thought of doing it that way ! However, although this improves the speed, it looks to me like its still O(nm) because dot product is O(n) :(. And yes on top of that the large m lead to a smaller time thanks to the break.
– ping guo
15 mins ago













1














Instead of iterating over B to compare ranks, you could use scipy.stats.rankdata to get the ranks directly:



from scipy.stats import rankdata

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

m = len(A)
n = len(B)

for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]

ranked_numbers = (rankdata(current_subarray).astype(int) - 1).tolist()
if ranked_numbers == B:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)

# Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
# Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


Note: rankdata() starts ranks from 1 instead of 0, which is why the above minuses 1 from every element in the numpy array.






share|improve this answer























  • Thanks, however I'm more interested in the algorithm used, and I've looked at the scipy source - correct me if I'm wrong - but it looks like they're sorting the list - so in the end the complexity isn't better than O(mn) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @pingguo Yeah it looks like it uses mergesort or quicksort from the source code. In that case the above will probably be slower since it needs to perform O(nlogn) sorting for each ranking. You would have to time both to be sure. I don't think you can do any better than the solution you have.
    – RoadRunner
    4 hours ago


















1














Instead of iterating over B to compare ranks, you could use scipy.stats.rankdata to get the ranks directly:



from scipy.stats import rankdata

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

m = len(A)
n = len(B)

for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]

ranked_numbers = (rankdata(current_subarray).astype(int) - 1).tolist()
if ranked_numbers == B:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)

# Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
# Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


Note: rankdata() starts ranks from 1 instead of 0, which is why the above minuses 1 from every element in the numpy array.






share|improve this answer























  • Thanks, however I'm more interested in the algorithm used, and I've looked at the scipy source - correct me if I'm wrong - but it looks like they're sorting the list - so in the end the complexity isn't better than O(mn) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @pingguo Yeah it looks like it uses mergesort or quicksort from the source code. In that case the above will probably be slower since it needs to perform O(nlogn) sorting for each ranking. You would have to time both to be sure. I don't think you can do any better than the solution you have.
    – RoadRunner
    4 hours ago
















1












1








1






Instead of iterating over B to compare ranks, you could use scipy.stats.rankdata to get the ranks directly:



from scipy.stats import rankdata

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

m = len(A)
n = len(B)

for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]

ranked_numbers = (rankdata(current_subarray).astype(int) - 1).tolist()
if ranked_numbers == B:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)

# Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
# Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


Note: rankdata() starts ranks from 1 instead of 0, which is why the above minuses 1 from every element in the numpy array.






share|improve this answer














Instead of iterating over B to compare ranks, you could use scipy.stats.rankdata to get the ranks directly:



from scipy.stats import rankdata

A = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3]
B = [0, 2, 1]

m = len(A)
n = len(B)

for i in range(m - n + 1):
current_subarray = A[i:i + n]

ranked_numbers = (rankdata(current_subarray).astype(int) - 1).tolist()
if ranked_numbers == B:
print("Subarray found:", current_subarray)

# Subarray found: [1, 5, 2]
# Subarray found: [2, 4, 3]


Note: rankdata() starts ranks from 1 instead of 0, which is why the above minuses 1 from every element in the numpy array.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 4 hours ago

























answered 4 hours ago









RoadRunner

10.7k31340




10.7k31340












  • Thanks, however I'm more interested in the algorithm used, and I've looked at the scipy source - correct me if I'm wrong - but it looks like they're sorting the list - so in the end the complexity isn't better than O(mn) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @pingguo Yeah it looks like it uses mergesort or quicksort from the source code. In that case the above will probably be slower since it needs to perform O(nlogn) sorting for each ranking. You would have to time both to be sure. I don't think you can do any better than the solution you have.
    – RoadRunner
    4 hours ago




















  • Thanks, however I'm more interested in the algorithm used, and I've looked at the scipy source - correct me if I'm wrong - but it looks like they're sorting the list - so in the end the complexity isn't better than O(mn) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    @pingguo Yeah it looks like it uses mergesort or quicksort from the source code. In that case the above will probably be slower since it needs to perform O(nlogn) sorting for each ranking. You would have to time both to be sure. I don't think you can do any better than the solution you have.
    – RoadRunner
    4 hours ago


















Thanks, however I'm more interested in the algorithm used, and I've looked at the scipy source - correct me if I'm wrong - but it looks like they're sorting the list - so in the end the complexity isn't better than O(mn) ?
– ping guo
4 hours ago




Thanks, however I'm more interested in the algorithm used, and I've looked at the scipy source - correct me if I'm wrong - but it looks like they're sorting the list - so in the end the complexity isn't better than O(mn) ?
– ping guo
4 hours ago




1




1




@pingguo Yeah it looks like it uses mergesort or quicksort from the source code. In that case the above will probably be slower since it needs to perform O(nlogn) sorting for each ranking. You would have to time both to be sure. I don't think you can do any better than the solution you have.
– RoadRunner
4 hours ago






@pingguo Yeah it looks like it uses mergesort or quicksort from the source code. In that case the above will probably be slower since it needs to perform O(nlogn) sorting for each ranking. You would have to time both to be sure. I don't think you can do any better than the solution you have.
– RoadRunner
4 hours ago













1














You can loop over A and check the resulting subarrays:



A, B = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3], [0, 2, 1]
def results(a, b):
_l = len(b)
for c in range(len(a)-_l+1):
_r = a[c:c+_l]
new_r = [_r[i] for i in b]
if all(new_r[i] < new_r[i+1] for i in range(len(new_r)-1)):
yield _r

print(list(results(A, B)))


Output:



[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]





share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    What's with all the underscores you've been using in your variables?
    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago










  • @coldspeed Merely a personal style
    – Ajax1234
    4 hours ago










  • Thanks for the prompt answer ! However maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question, I only need the subarrays of A that obey the ranking. Your solution gives me all the possible subarrays that obey the ranking, but most of these aren't subarrays of A. Doesn't that make this method longer (as I have to remove the subarrays that are not of A) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago












  • @pingguo Based on the results of the timings, it appears that you really can't get any better than what you already have for a solution.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago










  • @pault I added new timings, however, if you feel they are inaccurate, I will remove them.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago
















1














You can loop over A and check the resulting subarrays:



A, B = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3], [0, 2, 1]
def results(a, b):
_l = len(b)
for c in range(len(a)-_l+1):
_r = a[c:c+_l]
new_r = [_r[i] for i in b]
if all(new_r[i] < new_r[i+1] for i in range(len(new_r)-1)):
yield _r

print(list(results(A, B)))


Output:



[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]





share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    What's with all the underscores you've been using in your variables?
    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago










  • @coldspeed Merely a personal style
    – Ajax1234
    4 hours ago










  • Thanks for the prompt answer ! However maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question, I only need the subarrays of A that obey the ranking. Your solution gives me all the possible subarrays that obey the ranking, but most of these aren't subarrays of A. Doesn't that make this method longer (as I have to remove the subarrays that are not of A) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago












  • @pingguo Based on the results of the timings, it appears that you really can't get any better than what you already have for a solution.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago










  • @pault I added new timings, however, if you feel they are inaccurate, I will remove them.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago














1












1








1






You can loop over A and check the resulting subarrays:



A, B = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3], [0, 2, 1]
def results(a, b):
_l = len(b)
for c in range(len(a)-_l+1):
_r = a[c:c+_l]
new_r = [_r[i] for i in b]
if all(new_r[i] < new_r[i+1] for i in range(len(new_r)-1)):
yield _r

print(list(results(A, B)))


Output:



[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]





share|improve this answer














You can loop over A and check the resulting subarrays:



A, B = [1, 5, 2, 4, 3], [0, 2, 1]
def results(a, b):
_l = len(b)
for c in range(len(a)-_l+1):
_r = a[c:c+_l]
new_r = [_r[i] for i in b]
if all(new_r[i] < new_r[i+1] for i in range(len(new_r)-1)):
yield _r

print(list(results(A, B)))


Output:



[[1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 3]]






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 4 hours ago









Ajax1234

40.4k42653




40.4k42653








  • 3




    What's with all the underscores you've been using in your variables?
    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago










  • @coldspeed Merely a personal style
    – Ajax1234
    4 hours ago










  • Thanks for the prompt answer ! However maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question, I only need the subarrays of A that obey the ranking. Your solution gives me all the possible subarrays that obey the ranking, but most of these aren't subarrays of A. Doesn't that make this method longer (as I have to remove the subarrays that are not of A) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago












  • @pingguo Based on the results of the timings, it appears that you really can't get any better than what you already have for a solution.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago










  • @pault I added new timings, however, if you feel they are inaccurate, I will remove them.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago














  • 3




    What's with all the underscores you've been using in your variables?
    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago










  • @coldspeed Merely a personal style
    – Ajax1234
    4 hours ago










  • Thanks for the prompt answer ! However maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question, I only need the subarrays of A that obey the ranking. Your solution gives me all the possible subarrays that obey the ranking, but most of these aren't subarrays of A. Doesn't that make this method longer (as I have to remove the subarrays that are not of A) ?
    – ping guo
    4 hours ago












  • @pingguo Based on the results of the timings, it appears that you really can't get any better than what you already have for a solution.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago










  • @pault I added new timings, however, if you feel they are inaccurate, I will remove them.
    – Ajax1234
    3 hours ago








3




3




What's with all the underscores you've been using in your variables?
– coldspeed
4 hours ago




What's with all the underscores you've been using in your variables?
– coldspeed
4 hours ago












@coldspeed Merely a personal style
– Ajax1234
4 hours ago




@coldspeed Merely a personal style
– Ajax1234
4 hours ago












Thanks for the prompt answer ! However maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question, I only need the subarrays of A that obey the ranking. Your solution gives me all the possible subarrays that obey the ranking, but most of these aren't subarrays of A. Doesn't that make this method longer (as I have to remove the subarrays that are not of A) ?
– ping guo
4 hours ago






Thanks for the prompt answer ! However maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question, I only need the subarrays of A that obey the ranking. Your solution gives me all the possible subarrays that obey the ranking, but most of these aren't subarrays of A. Doesn't that make this method longer (as I have to remove the subarrays that are not of A) ?
– ping guo
4 hours ago














@pingguo Based on the results of the timings, it appears that you really can't get any better than what you already have for a solution.
– Ajax1234
3 hours ago




@pingguo Based on the results of the timings, it appears that you really can't get any better than what you already have for a solution.
– Ajax1234
3 hours ago












@pault I added new timings, however, if you feel they are inaccurate, I will remove them.
– Ajax1234
3 hours ago




@pault I added new timings, however, if you feel they are inaccurate, I will remove them.
– Ajax1234
3 hours ago










ping guo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















ping guo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













ping guo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












ping guo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54054370%2ffind-all-subarrays-of-fixed-length-with-a-given-ranking%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

CARDNET

Boot-repair Failure: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386

濃尾地震