-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50.4k
Refactor apriori algorithm #14579
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
JossGeek
wants to merge
5
commits into
TheAlgorithms:master
Choose a base branch
from
JossGeek:refactor-apriori-algorithm
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+73
−63
Open
Refactor apriori algorithm #14579
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
63b316e
refactor: streamline candidate generation and pruning in Apriori algo…
JossGeek ac19e67
refactor: improve candidate generation and output formatting in Aprio…
JossGeek 7bb97a8
[pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks
pre-commit-ci[bot] e4d1ba0
refactor: add type hints to helper functions in Apriori algorithm
JossGeek db8d328
refactor: add return types to helper functions in Apriori algorithm
JossGeek File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Using defaultdict(int) here is cleaner than the old counts = [0] *
len(itemset) approach — no more index tracking with enumerate().
One suggestion: the support counting loop (lines 93-96) could use
the new get_support() helper you defined earlier to avoid duplication
and keep the main apriori() function cleaner:
frequent = {
c: get_support(c, transactions)
for c in candidates
if get_support(c, transactions) >= min_support
}
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actual logic
The actual implementation is optimal:
It passes over each transactions once, count all candidates at once, and avoid repeated scans, which make it algorithmically better.
Your suggestion
It calls the get_suppor() twice per candidate, which literally double the cost:
So it improves readability, but definitely not the performance.
Aligned with your suggestion
Here we computes support only once avoiding duplications, but we keep the logic readable. This way, we assure readability and performance.