ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How do I split a list into equally-sized chunks?

How do I split a list of arbitrary length into equal sized chunks?

Related question: How to iterate over a list in chunks

Before you post a new answer, consider there are already 60+ answers for this question. Please, make sure that your answer contributes information that is not among existing answers.
The string equivalent of this question: Split string every nth character? (while some answers overlap and apply for both, there are some unique for each)

M
Mateen Ulhaq

Here's a generator that yields evenly-sized chunks:

def chunks(lst, n):
    """Yield successive n-sized chunks from lst."""
    for i in range(0, len(lst), n):
        yield lst[i:i + n]
import pprint
pprint.pprint(list(chunks(range(10, 75), 10)))
[[10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19],
 [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29],
 [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39],
 [40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49],
 [50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59],
 [60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69],
 [70, 71, 72, 73, 74]]

For Python 2, using xrange instead of range:

def chunks(lst, n):
    """Yield successive n-sized chunks from lst."""
    for i in xrange(0, len(lst), n):
        yield lst[i:i + n]

Below is a list comprehension one-liner. The method above is preferable, though, since using named functions makes code easier to understand. For Python 3:

[lst[i:i + n] for i in range(0, len(lst), n)]

For Python 2:

[lst[i:i + n] for i in xrange(0, len(lst), n)]

What happens if we can't tell the length of the list? Try this on itertools.repeat([ 1, 2, 3 ]), e.g.
That's an interesting extension to the question, but the original question clearly asked about operating on a list.
this functions needs to be in the damn standard library
@Calimo: what do you suggest? I hand you a list with 47 elements. How would you like to split it into "evenly sized chunks"? The OP accepted the answer, so they are clearly OK with the last differently sized chunk. Perhaps the English phrase is imprecise?
Most people will be looking at this for batch processing and rate limiting, so it usually doesn't matter if the last chunk is smaller
M
Mateen Ulhaq

Something super simple:

def chunks(xs, n):
    n = max(1, n)
    return (xs[i:i+n] for i in range(0, len(xs), n))

For Python 2, use xrange() instead of range().


Or (if we're doing different representations of this particular function) you could define a lambda function via: lambda x,y: [ x[i:i+y] for i in range(0,len(x),y)] . I love this list-comprehension method!
Using short circuiting, len(l) or 1 to deal with empty lists.
# return generator of chunks of size n from list l
M
Mateen Ulhaq

I know this is kind of old but nobody yet mentioned numpy.array_split:

import numpy as np

lst = range(50)
np.array_split(lst, 5)

Result:

[array([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]),
 array([10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]),
 array([20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]),
 array([30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]),
 array([40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49])]

This allows you to set the total number of chunks, not the number of elements per chunk.
Its not hard to solve for x... : np.array_split(lst, int(len(lst)/5)) to get a list where each sublist's length is 5 or less.
using @PéterSzabó-tóth method makes an error if your number get under 0 and thats bad.
@PéterSzabó-tóth int() rounds the number of chunks downwards, so each chunk will contain 5 or more items. For example, when lst = range(49), you get four chunks of 6 items and five chunks of 5 items.
t
tzot

Directly from the (old) Python documentation (recipes for itertools):

from itertools import izip, chain, repeat

def grouper(n, iterable, padvalue=None):
    "grouper(3, 'abcdefg', 'x') --> ('a','b','c'), ('d','e','f'), ('g','x','x')"
    return izip(*[chain(iterable, repeat(padvalue, n-1))]*n)

The current version, as suggested by J.F.Sebastian:

#from itertools import izip_longest as zip_longest # for Python 2.x
from itertools import zip_longest # for Python 3.x
#from six.moves import zip_longest # for both (uses the six compat library)

def grouper(n, iterable, padvalue=None):
    "grouper(3, 'abcdefg', 'x') --> ('a','b','c'), ('d','e','f'), ('g','x','x')"
    return zip_longest(*[iter(iterable)]*n, fillvalue=padvalue)

I guess Guido's time machine works—worked—will work—will have worked—was working again.

These solutions work because [iter(iterable)]*n (or the equivalent in the earlier version) creates one iterator, repeated n times in the list. izip_longest then effectively performs a round-robin of "each" iterator; because this is the same iterator, it is advanced by each such call, resulting in each such zip-roundrobin generating one tuple of n items.


upvoted this because it works on generators (no len) and uses the generally faster itertools module.
A classic example of fancy itertools functional approach turning out some unreadable sludge, when compared to a simple and naive pure python implementation
@wim Given that this answer began as a snippet from the Python documentation, I'd suggest you open an issue on bugs.python.org .
s
senderle

I'm surprised nobody has thought of using iter's two-argument form:

from itertools import islice

def chunk(it, size):
    it = iter(it)
    return iter(lambda: tuple(islice(it, size)), ())

Demo:

>>> list(chunk(range(14), 3))
[(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11), (12, 13)]

This works with any iterable and produces output lazily. It returns tuples rather than iterators, but I think it has a certain elegance nonetheless. It also doesn't pad; if you want padding, a simple variation on the above will suffice:

from itertools import islice, chain, repeat

def chunk_pad(it, size, padval=None):
    it = chain(iter(it), repeat(padval))
    return iter(lambda: tuple(islice(it, size)), (padval,) * size)

Demo:

>>> list(chunk_pad(range(14), 3))
[(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11), (12, 13, None)]
>>> list(chunk_pad(range(14), 3, 'a'))
[(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11), (12, 13, 'a')]

Like the izip_longest-based solutions, the above always pads. As far as I know, there's no one- or two-line itertools recipe for a function that optionally pads. By combining the above two approaches, this one comes pretty close:

_no_padding = object()

def chunk(it, size, padval=_no_padding):
    if padval == _no_padding:
        it = iter(it)
        sentinel = ()
    else:
        it = chain(iter(it), repeat(padval))
        sentinel = (padval,) * size
    return iter(lambda: tuple(islice(it, size)), sentinel)

Demo:

>>> list(chunk(range(14), 3))
[(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11), (12, 13)]
>>> list(chunk(range(14), 3, None))
[(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11), (12, 13, None)]
>>> list(chunk(range(14), 3, 'a'))
[(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11), (12, 13, 'a')]

I believe this is the shortest chunker proposed that offers optional padding.

As Tomasz Gandor observed, the two padding chunkers will stop unexpectedly if they encounter a long sequence of pad values. Here's a final variation that works around that problem in a reasonable way:

_no_padding = object()
def chunk(it, size, padval=_no_padding):
    it = iter(it)
    chunker = iter(lambda: tuple(islice(it, size)), ())
    if padval == _no_padding:
        yield from chunker
    else:
        for ch in chunker:
            yield ch if len(ch) == size else ch + (padval,) * (size - len(ch))

Demo:

>>> list(chunk([1, 2, (), (), 5], 2))
[(1, 2), ((), ()), (5,)]
>>> list(chunk([1, 2, None, None, 5], 2, None))
[(1, 2), (None, None), (5, None)]

Wonderful, your simple version is my favorite. Others too came up with the basic islice(it, size) expression and embedded it (like I had done) in a loop construct. Only you thought of the two-argument version of iter() (I was completely unaware of), which makes it super-elegant (and probably most performance-effective). I had no idea that the first argument to iter changes to a 0-argument function when given the sentinel. You return a (pot. infinite) iterator of chunks, can use a (pot. infinite) iterator as input, have no len() and no array slices. Awesome!
One-liner version: ``` from itertools import islice from functools import partial seq = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] size = 3 result = list(iter(partial(lambda it: tuple(islice(it, size)), iter(seq)), ())) assert result == [(1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6), (7,)] ```
T
ThiefMaster

Here is a generator that work on arbitrary iterables:

def split_seq(iterable, size):
    it = iter(iterable)
    item = list(itertools.islice(it, size))
    while item:
        yield item
        item = list(itertools.islice(it, size))

Example:

>>> import pprint
>>> pprint.pprint(list(split_seq(xrange(75), 10)))
[[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9],
 [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19],
 [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29],
 [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39],
 [40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49],
 [50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59],
 [60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69],
 [70, 71, 72, 73, 74]]

k
kevinarpe

Simple yet elegant

L = range(1, 1000)
print [L[x:x+10] for x in xrange(0, len(L), 10)]

or if you prefer:

def chunks(L, n): return [L[x: x+n] for x in xrange(0, len(L), n)]
chunks(L, 10)

Thou shalt not dub a variable in the likeness of an Arabic number. In some fonts, 1 and l are indistinguishable. As are 0 and O. And sometimes even I and 1.
@Alfe Defective fonts. People shouldn't use such fonts. Not for programming, not for anything.
Lambdas are meant to be used as unnamed functions. There is no point in using them like that. In addition it makes debugging more difficult as the traceback will report "in " instead of "in chunks" in case of error. I wish you luck finding a problem if you have whole bunch of these :)
T
ThiefMaster
def chunk(input, size):
    return map(None, *([iter(input)] * size))

Doesn't work in Python 3.8, is that for 2.x?
For Python 3.x: return map(lambda *x: x, *([iter(input)] * size)). Yet it drops tail of the list if it cannot be divided in the equal chunks
R
Russia Must Remove Putin

How do you split a list into evenly sized chunks?

"Evenly sized chunks", to me, implies that they are all the same length, or barring that option, at minimal variance in length. E.g. 5 baskets for 21 items could have the following results:

>>> import statistics
>>> statistics.variance([5,5,5,5,1]) 
3.2
>>> statistics.variance([5,4,4,4,4]) 
0.19999999999999998

A practical reason to prefer the latter result: if you were using these functions to distribute work, you've built-in the prospect of one likely finishing well before the others, so it would sit around doing nothing while the others continued working hard.

Critique of other answers here

When I originally wrote this answer, none of the other answers were evenly sized chunks - they all leave a runt chunk at the end, so they're not well balanced, and have a higher than necessary variance of lengths.

For example, the current top answer ends with:

[60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69],
[70, 71, 72, 73, 74]]

Others, like list(grouper(3, range(7))), and chunk(range(7), 3) both return: [(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, None, None)]. The None's are just padding, and rather inelegant in my opinion. They are NOT evenly chunking the iterables.

Why can't we divide these better?

Cycle Solution

A high-level balanced solution using itertools.cycle, which is the way I might do it today. Here's the setup:

from itertools import cycle
items = range(10, 75)
number_of_baskets = 10

Now we need our lists into which to populate the elements:

baskets = [[] for _ in range(number_of_baskets)]

Finally, we zip the elements we're going to allocate together with a cycle of the baskets until we run out of elements, which, semantically, it exactly what we want:

for element, basket in zip(items, cycle(baskets)):
    basket.append(element)

Here's the result:

>>> from pprint import pprint
>>> pprint(baskets)
[[10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70],
 [11, 21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 71],
 [12, 22, 32, 42, 52, 62, 72],
 [13, 23, 33, 43, 53, 63, 73],
 [14, 24, 34, 44, 54, 64, 74],
 [15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65],
 [16, 26, 36, 46, 56, 66],
 [17, 27, 37, 47, 57, 67],
 [18, 28, 38, 48, 58, 68],
 [19, 29, 39, 49, 59, 69]]

To productionize this solution, we write a function, and provide the type annotations:

from itertools import cycle
from typing import List, Any

def cycle_baskets(items: List[Any], maxbaskets: int) -> List[List[Any]]:
    baskets = [[] for _ in range(min(maxbaskets, len(items)))]
    for item, basket in zip(items, cycle(baskets)):
        basket.append(item)
    return baskets

In the above, we take our list of items, and the max number of baskets. We create a list of empty lists, in which to append each element, in a round-robin style.

Slices

Another elegant solution is to use slices - specifically the less-commonly used step argument to slices. i.e.:

start = 0
stop = None
step = number_of_baskets

first_basket = items[start:stop:step]

This is especially elegant in that slices don't care how long the data are - the result, our first basket, is only as long as it needs to be. We'll only need to increment the starting point for each basket.

In fact this could be a one-liner, but we'll go multiline for readability and to avoid an overlong line of code:

from typing import List, Any

def slice_baskets(items: List[Any], maxbaskets: int) -> List[List[Any]]:
    n_baskets = min(maxbaskets, len(items))
    return [items[i::n_baskets] for i in range(n_baskets)]

And islice from the itertools module will provide a lazily iterating approach, like that which was originally asked for in the question.

I don't expect most use-cases to benefit very much, as the original data is already fully materialized in a list, but for large datasets, it could save nearly half the memory usage.

from itertools import islice
from typing import List, Any, Generator
    
def yield_islice_baskets(items: List[Any], maxbaskets: int) -> Generator[List[Any], None, None]:
    n_baskets = min(maxbaskets, len(items))
    for i in range(n_baskets):
        yield islice(items, i, None, n_baskets)

View results with:

from pprint import pprint

items = list(range(10, 75))
pprint(cycle_baskets(items, 10))
pprint(slice_baskets(items, 10))
pprint([list(s) for s in yield_islice_baskets(items, 10)])

Updated prior solutions

Here's another balanced solution, adapted from a function I've used in production in the past, that uses the modulo operator:

def baskets_from(items, maxbaskets=25):
    baskets = [[] for _ in range(maxbaskets)]
    for i, item in enumerate(items):
        baskets[i % maxbaskets].append(item)
    return filter(None, baskets) 

And I created a generator that does the same if you put it into a list:

def iter_baskets_from(items, maxbaskets=3):
    '''generates evenly balanced baskets from indexable iterable'''
    item_count = len(items)
    baskets = min(item_count, maxbaskets)
    for x_i in range(baskets):
        yield [items[y_i] for y_i in range(x_i, item_count, baskets)]
    

And finally, since I see that all of the above functions return elements in a contiguous order (as they were given):

def iter_baskets_contiguous(items, maxbaskets=3, item_count=None):
    '''
    generates balanced baskets from iterable, contiguous contents
    provide item_count if providing a iterator that doesn't support len()
    '''
    item_count = item_count or len(items)
    baskets = min(item_count, maxbaskets)
    items = iter(items)
    floor = item_count // baskets 
    ceiling = floor + 1
    stepdown = item_count % baskets
    for x_i in range(baskets):
        length = ceiling if x_i < stepdown else floor
        yield [items.next() for _ in range(length)]

Output

To test them out:

print(baskets_from(range(6), 8))
print(list(iter_baskets_from(range(6), 8)))
print(list(iter_baskets_contiguous(range(6), 8)))
print(baskets_from(range(22), 8))
print(list(iter_baskets_from(range(22), 8)))
print(list(iter_baskets_contiguous(range(22), 8)))
print(baskets_from('ABCDEFG', 3))
print(list(iter_baskets_from('ABCDEFG', 3)))
print(list(iter_baskets_contiguous('ABCDEFG', 3)))
print(baskets_from(range(26), 5))
print(list(iter_baskets_from(range(26), 5)))
print(list(iter_baskets_contiguous(range(26), 5)))

Which prints out:

[[0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]
[[0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]
[[0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]
[[0, 8, 16], [1, 9, 17], [2, 10, 18], [3, 11, 19], [4, 12, 20], [5, 13, 21], [6, 14], [7, 15]]
[[0, 8, 16], [1, 9, 17], [2, 10, 18], [3, 11, 19], [4, 12, 20], [5, 13, 21], [6, 14], [7, 15]]
[[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8], [9, 10, 11], [12, 13, 14], [15, 16, 17], [18, 19], [20, 21]]
[['A', 'D', 'G'], ['B', 'E'], ['C', 'F']]
[['A', 'D', 'G'], ['B', 'E'], ['C', 'F']]
[['A', 'B', 'C'], ['D', 'E'], ['F', 'G']]
[[0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25], [1, 6, 11, 16, 21], [2, 7, 12, 17, 22], [3, 8, 13, 18, 23], [4, 9, 14, 19, 24]]
[[0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25], [1, 6, 11, 16, 21], [2, 7, 12, 17, 22], [3, 8, 13, 18, 23], [4, 9, 14, 19, 24]]
[[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8, 9, 10], [11, 12, 13, 14, 15], [16, 17, 18, 19, 20], [21, 22, 23, 24, 25]]

Notice that the contiguous generator provide chunks in the same length patterns as the other two, but the items are all in order, and they are as evenly divided as one may divide a list of discrete elements.


You say that none of the above provides evenly-sized chunks. But this one does, as does this one.
@senderle, The first one, list(grouper(3, xrange(7))), and the second one, chunk(xrange(7), 3) both return: [(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, None, None)]. The None's are just padding, and rather inelegant in my opinion. They are NOT evenly chunking the iterables. Thanks for your vote!
You raise the question (without doing it explicitly, so I do that now here) whether equally-sized chunks (except the last, if not possible) or whether a balanced (as good as possible) result is more often what will be needed. You assume that the balanced solution is to prefer; this might be true if what you program is close to the real world (e. g. a card-dealing algorithm for a simulated card game). In other cases (like filling lines with words) one will rather like to keep the lines as full as possible. So I can't really prefer one over the other; they are just for different use cases.
@ChristopherBarrington-Leigh Good point, for DataFrames, you should probably use slices, since I believe DataFrame objects do not usually copy on slicing, e.g. import pandas as pd; [pd.DataFrame(np.arange(7))[i::3] for i in xrange(3)]
@AaronHall Oops. I deleted my comment because I second-guessed my critique, but you were quick on the draw. Thanks! In fact, my claim that it doesn't work for dataframes is true. If items is a dataframe, just use yield items[range(x_i, item_count, baskets)] as the last line. I offered a separate (yet another) answer, in which you specify the desired (minimum) group size.
c
cardamom

If you know list size:

def SplitList(mylist, chunk_size):
    return [mylist[offs:offs+chunk_size] for offs in range(0, len(mylist), chunk_size)]

If you don't (an iterator):

def IterChunks(sequence, chunk_size):
    res = []
    for item in sequence:
        res.append(item)
        if len(res) >= chunk_size:
            yield res
            res = []
    if res:
        yield res  # yield the last, incomplete, portion

In the latter case, it can be rephrased in a more beautiful way if you can be sure that the sequence always contains a whole number of chunks of given size (i.e. there is no incomplete last chunk).


0
0 _

I saw the most awesome Python-ish answer in a duplicate of this question:

from itertools import zip_longest

a = range(1, 16)
i = iter(a)
r = list(zip_longest(i, i, i))
>>> print(r)
[(1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6), (7, 8, 9), (10, 11, 12), (13, 14, 15)]

You can create n-tuple for any n. If a = range(1, 15), then the result will be:

[(1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6), (7, 8, 9), (10, 11, 12), (13, 14, None)]

If the list is divided evenly, then you can replace zip_longest with zip, otherwise the triplet (13, 14, None) would be lost. Python 3 is used above. For Python 2, use izip_longest.


that is nice if your list and chunks are short, how could you adapt this to split your list in to chunks of 1000 though? you"re not going to code zip(i,i,i,i,i,i,i,i,i,i.....i=1000)
zip(i, i, i, ... i) with "chunk_size" arguments to zip() can be written as zip(*[i]*chunk_size) Whether that's a good idea or not is debatable, of course.
The downside of this is that if you aren't dividing evenly, you'll drop elements, as zip stops at the shortest iterable - & izip_longest would add default elements.
zip_longest should be used, as done in: stackoverflow.com/a/434411/1959808
The answer with range(1, 15) is already missing elements, because there are 14 elements in range(1, 15), not 15.
p
pylang

Don't reinvent the wheel.

Given

import itertools as it
import collections as ct

import more_itertools as mit


iterable = range(11)
n = 3

Code

more_itertools+

list(mit.chunked(iterable, n))
# [[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8], [9, 10]]

list(mit.sliced(iterable, n))
# [range(0, 3), range(3, 6), range(6, 9), range(9, 11)]

list(mit.grouper(n, iterable))
# [(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, None)]

list(mit.windowed(iterable, len(iterable)//n, step=n))
# [(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, None)]

list(mit.chunked_even(iterable, n))
# [[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8], [9, 10]]

(or DIY, if you want)

The Standard Library

list(it.zip_longest(*[iter(iterable)] * n))
# [(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, None)]
d = {}
for i, x in enumerate(iterable):
    d.setdefault(i//n, []).append(x)
    

list(d.values())
# [[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8], [9, 10]]
dd = ct.defaultdict(list)
for i, x in enumerate(iterable):
    dd[i//n].append(x)
    

list(dd.values())
# [[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8], [9, 10]]

References

more_itertools.chunked (related posted)

more_itertools.sliced

more_itertools.grouper (related post)

more_itertools.windowed (see also stagger, zip_offset)

more_itertools.chunked_even

zip_longest (related post, related post)

setdefault (ordered results requires Python 3.6+)

collections.defaultdict (ordered results requires Python 3.6+)

+ A third-party library that implements itertools recipes and more. > pip install more_itertools


R
Riaz Rizvi
[AA[i:i+SS] for i in range(len(AA))[::SS]]

Where AA is array, SS is chunk size. For example:

>>> AA=range(10,21);SS=3
>>> [AA[i:i+SS] for i in range(len(AA))[::SS]]
[[10, 11, 12], [13, 14, 15], [16, 17, 18], [19, 20]]
# or [range(10, 13), range(13, 16), range(16, 19), range(19, 21)] in py3

To expand the ranges in py3 do

(py3) >>> [list(AA[i:i+SS]) for i in range(len(AA))[::SS]]
[[10, 11, 12], [13, 14, 15], [16, 17, 18], [19, 20]]

n
ninjagecko

If you had a chunk size of 3 for example, you could do:

zip(*[iterable[i::3] for i in range(3)]) 

source: http://code.activestate.com/recipes/303060-group-a-list-into-sequential-n-tuples/

I would use this when my chunk size is fixed number I can type, e.g. '3', and would never change.


This doesn't work if len(iterable)%3 != 0. The last (short) group of numbers won't be returned.
@sherbang There is zip_longest from itertools: docs.python.org/3/library/itertools.html#itertools.zip_longest
z
zach

The toolz library has the partition function for this:

from toolz.itertoolz.core import partition

list(partition(2, [1, 2, 3, 4]))
[(1, 2), (3, 4)]

n
nirvana-msu

With Assignment Expressions in Python 3.8 it becomes quite nice:

import itertools

def batch(iterable, size):
    it = iter(iterable)
    while item := list(itertools.islice(it, size)):
        yield item

This works on an arbitrary iterable, not just a list.

>>> import pprint
>>> pprint.pprint(list(batch(range(75), 10)))
[[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9],
 [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19],
 [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29],
 [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39],
 [40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49],
 [50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59],
 [60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69],
 [70, 71, 72, 73, 74]]

Looks like islice() is the bigger star here.
A
Alex T

I was curious about the performance of different approaches and here it is:

Tested on Python 3.5.1

import time
batch_size = 7
arr_len = 298937

#---------slice-------------

print("\r\nslice")
start = time.time()
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
while True:
    if not arr:
        break

    tmp = arr[0:batch_size]
    arr = arr[batch_size:-1]
print(time.time() - start)

#-----------index-----------

print("\r\nindex")
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
start = time.time()
for i in range(0, round(len(arr) / batch_size + 1)):
    tmp = arr[batch_size * i : batch_size * (i + 1)]
print(time.time() - start)

#----------batches 1------------

def batch(iterable, n=1):
    l = len(iterable)
    for ndx in range(0, l, n):
        yield iterable[ndx:min(ndx + n, l)]

print("\r\nbatches 1")
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
start = time.time()
for x in batch(arr, batch_size):
    tmp = x
print(time.time() - start)

#----------batches 2------------

from itertools import islice, chain

def batch(iterable, size):
    sourceiter = iter(iterable)
    while True:
        batchiter = islice(sourceiter, size)
        yield chain([next(batchiter)], batchiter)


print("\r\nbatches 2")
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
start = time.time()
for x in batch(arr, batch_size):
    tmp = x
print(time.time() - start)

#---------chunks-------------
def chunks(l, n):
    """Yield successive n-sized chunks from l."""
    for i in range(0, len(l), n):
        yield l[i:i + n]
print("\r\nchunks")
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
start = time.time()
for x in chunks(arr, batch_size):
    tmp = x
print(time.time() - start)

#-----------grouper-----------

from itertools import zip_longest # for Python 3.x
#from six.moves import zip_longest # for both (uses the six compat library)

def grouper(iterable, n, padvalue=None):
    "grouper(3, 'abcdefg', 'x') --> ('a','b','c'), ('d','e','f'), ('g','x','x')"
    return zip_longest(*[iter(iterable)]*n, fillvalue=padvalue)

arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
print("\r\ngrouper")
start = time.time()
for x in grouper(arr, batch_size):
    tmp = x
print(time.time() - start)

Results:

slice
31.18285083770752

index
0.02184295654296875

batches 1
0.03503894805908203

batches 2
0.22681021690368652

chunks
0.019841909408569336

grouper
0.006506919860839844

n
nikipore

I like the Python doc's version proposed by tzot and J.F.Sebastian a lot, but it has two shortcomings:

it is not very explicit

I usually don't want a fill value in the last chunk

I'm using this one a lot in my code:

from itertools import islice

def chunks(n, iterable):
    iterable = iter(iterable)
    while True:
        yield tuple(islice(iterable, n)) or iterable.next()

UPDATE: A lazy chunks version:

from itertools import chain, islice

def chunks(n, iterable):
   iterable = iter(iterable)
   while True:
       yield chain([next(iterable)], islice(iterable, n-1))

M
Moinuddin Quadri

You may also use get_chunks function of utilspie library as:

>>> from utilspie import iterutils
>>> a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

>>> list(iterutils.get_chunks(a, 5))
[[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8, 9]]

You can install utilspie via pip:

sudo pip install utilspie

Disclaimer: I am the creator of utilspie library.


b
buhtz

code:

def split_list(the_list, chunk_size):
    result_list = []
    while the_list:
        result_list.append(the_list[:chunk_size])
        the_list = the_list[chunk_size:]
    return result_list

a_list = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

print split_list(a_list, 3)

result:

[[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9], [10]]

m
mazieres

At this point, I think we need a recursive generator, just in case...

In python 2:

def chunks(li, n):
    if li == []:
        return
    yield li[:n]
    for e in chunks(li[n:], n):
        yield e

In python 3:

def chunks(li, n):
    if li == []:
        return
    yield li[:n]
    yield from chunks(li[n:], n)

Also, in case of massive Alien invasion, a decorated recursive generator might become handy:

def dec(gen):
    def new_gen(li, n):
        for e in gen(li, n):
            if e == []:
                return
            yield e
    return new_gen

@dec
def chunks(li, n):
    yield li[:n]
    for e in chunks(li[n:], n):
        yield e

s
slav0nic

heh, one line version

In [48]: chunk = lambda ulist, step:  map(lambda i: ulist[i:i+step],  xrange(0, len(ulist), step))

In [49]: chunk(range(1,100), 10)
Out[49]: 
[[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10],
 [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20],
 [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30],
 [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40],
 [41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50],
 [51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60],
 [61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70],
 [71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80],
 [81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90],
 [91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99]]

Please, use "def chunk" instead of "chunk = lambda". It works the same. One line. Same features. MUCH easier to the n00bz to read and understand.
@S.Lott: not if the n00bz come from scheme :P this isn't a real problem. there's even a keyword to google! what other features show we avoid for the sake of the n00bz? i guess yield isn't imperative/c-like enough to be n00b friendly either then.
The function object resulting from def chunk instead of chunk=lambda has .__name__ attribute 'chunk' instead of '<lambda>'. The specific name is more useful in tracebacks.
C
Corey Goldberg
def split_seq(seq, num_pieces):
    start = 0
    for i in xrange(num_pieces):
        stop = start + len(seq[i::num_pieces])
        yield seq[start:stop]
        start = stop

usage:

seq = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

for seq in split_seq(seq, 3):
    print seq

R
Ranaivo

Another more explicit version.

def chunkList(initialList, chunkSize):
    """
    This function chunks a list into sub lists 
    that have a length equals to chunkSize.

    Example:
    lst = [3, 4, 9, 7, 1, 1, 2, 3]
    print(chunkList(lst, 3)) 
    returns
    [[3, 4, 9], [7, 1, 1], [2, 3]]
    """
    finalList = []
    for i in range(0, len(initialList), chunkSize):
        finalList.append(initialList[i:i+chunkSize])
    return finalList

(2016 Sep 12) This answer is the most language independent and easiest to read.
p
parity3

Without calling len() which is good for large lists:

def splitter(l, n):
    i = 0
    chunk = l[:n]
    while chunk:
        yield chunk
        i += n
        chunk = l[i:i+n]

And this is for iterables:

def isplitter(l, n):
    l = iter(l)
    chunk = list(islice(l, n))
    while chunk:
        yield chunk
        chunk = list(islice(l, n))

The functional flavour of the above:

def isplitter2(l, n):
    return takewhile(bool,
                     (tuple(islice(start, n))
                            for start in repeat(iter(l))))

OR:

def chunks_gen_sentinel(n, seq):
    continuous_slices = imap(islice, repeat(iter(seq)), repeat(0), repeat(n))
    return iter(imap(tuple, continuous_slices).next,())

OR:

def chunks_gen_filter(n, seq):
    continuous_slices = imap(islice, repeat(iter(seq)), repeat(0), repeat(n))
    return takewhile(bool,imap(tuple, continuous_slices))

There is no reason to avoid len() on large lists; it's a constant-time operation.
B
BomberMan

See this reference

>>> orange = range(1, 1001)
>>> otuples = list( zip(*[iter(orange)]*10))
>>> print(otuples)
[(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), ... (991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000)]
>>> olist = [list(i) for i in otuples]
>>> print(olist)
[[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], ..., [991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000]]
>>> 

Python3


Nice, but drops elements at the end if the size does not match whole numbers of chunks, e. g. zip(*[iter(range(7))]*3) only returns [(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5)] and forgets the 6 from the input.
OP wrote: 'I have a list of arbitrary length, and I need to split it up into equal size chunks and operate on it.'. Maybe I miss something but how to get 'equal size chunks' from list of arbitrary length without dropping chunk which is shorter than 'equal size'
R
Rusty Rob
def chunks(iterable,n):
    """assumes n is an integer>0
    """
    iterable=iter(iterable)
    while True:
        result=[]
        for i in range(n):
            try:
                a=next(iterable)
            except StopIteration:
                break
            else:
                result.append(a)
        if result:
            yield result
        else:
            break

g1=(i*i for i in range(10))
g2=chunks(g1,3)
print g2
'<generator object chunks at 0x0337B9B8>'
print list(g2)
'[[0, 1, 4], [9, 16, 25], [36, 49, 64], [81]]'

While this may not look as short or as pretty as many of the itertools based responses this one actually works if you want to print out the second sub-list before accessing the first, i.e., you can set i0=next(g2); i1=next(g2); and use i1 before using i0 and it doesn't break!!
v
vishes_shell

Since everybody here talking about iterators. boltons has perfect method for that, called iterutils.chunked_iter.

from boltons import iterutils

list(iterutils.chunked_iter(list(range(50)), 11))

Output:

[[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10],
 [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21],
 [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32],
 [33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43],
 [44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]]

But if you don't want to be mercy on memory, you can use old-way and store the full list in the first place with iterutils.chunked.


And this one actually works regardless of order one looks at the subiterators!!
s
schwartrer

Consider using matplotlib.cbook pieces

for example:

import matplotlib.cbook as cbook
segments = cbook.pieces(np.arange(20), 3)
for s in segments:
     print s

Looks like you accidentally created two accounts. You can contact the team to have them merged, which will allow you to regain direct editing privileges on your contributions.
A
AdvilUser
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
CHUNK = 4
[a[i*CHUNK:(i+1)*CHUNK] for i in xrange((len(a) + CHUNK - 1) / CHUNK )]

Can you explain more your answer please ?
Working from backwards: (len(a) + CHUNK -1) / CHUNK Gives you the number of chunks that you will end up with. Then, for each chunk at index i, we are generating a sub-array of the original array like this: a[ i * CHUNK : (i + 1) * CHUNK ] where, i * CHUNK is the index of the first element to put into the subarray, and, (i + 1) * CHUNK is 1 past the last element to put into the subarray. This solution uses list comprehension, so it might be faster for large arrays.