YGA YGA - 1 year ago 96
Python Question

What is the best way to implement nested dictionaries?

I have a data structure which essentially amounts to a nested dictionary. Let's say it looks like this:

{'new jersey': {'mercer county': {'plumbers': 3,
'programmers': 81},
'middlesex county': {'programmers': 81,
'salesmen': 62}},
'new york': {'queens county': {'plumbers': 9,
'salesmen': 36}}}

Now, maintaining and creating this is pretty painful; every time I have a new state/county/profession I have to create the lower layer dictionaries via obnoxious try/catch blocks. Moreover, I have to create annoying nested iterators if I want to go over all the values.

I could also use tuples as keys, like such:

{('new jersey', 'mercer county', 'plumbers'): 3,
('new jersey', 'mercer county', 'programmers'): 81,
('new jersey', 'middlesex county', 'programmers'): 81,
('new jersey', 'middlesex county', 'salesmen'): 62,
('new york', 'queens county', 'plumbers'): 9,
('new york', 'queens county', 'salesmen'): 36}

This makes iterating over the values very simple and natural, but it is more syntactically painful to do things like aggregations and looking at subsets of the dictionary (e.g. if I just want to go state-by-state).

Basically, sometimes I want to think of a nested dictionary as a flat dictionary, and sometimes I want to think of it indeed as a complex hierarchy. I could wrap this all in a class, but it seems like someone might have done this already. Alternatively, it seems like there might be some really elegant syntactical constructions to do this.

How could I do this better?

Addendum: I'm aware of
but it doesn't really make for clean syntax. Also, each sub-dictionary you create still needs to have
manually set.

Answer Source

What is the best way to implement nested dictionaries in Python?

Implement __missing__ on a dict subclass to set and return a new instance!

Here is a more elegant approach that has been available (and documented) since Python 2.5, and (particularly valuable to me) it pretty prints just like a normal dict, instead of the ugly printing of an autovivified defaultdict:

class Vividict(dict):
    def __missing__(self, key):
        value = self[key] = type(self)()
        return value

This is half the lines of code of what was the accepted answer until September 23, 2016.


We're just providing another nested instance of our class Vividict whenever a key is accessed but missing. (Returning the value assignment is useful because it avoids us additionally calling the getter on the dict, and unfortunately, we can't return it as it is being set.)

Note, these are the same semantics as the most upvoted answer but in half the lines of code - nosklo's implementation:

class AutoVivification(dict):
    """Implementation of perl's autovivification feature."""
    def __getitem__(self, item):
            return dict.__getitem__(self, item)
        except KeyError:
            value = self[item] = type(self)()
            return value

Demonstration of Usage

Below is just an example of how this dict could be easily used to create a nested dict structure on the fly. This can quickly create a hierarchical tree structure as deeply as you might want to go.

import pprint

class Vividict(dict):
    def __missing__(self, key):
        value = self[key] = type(self)()
        return value

d = Vividict()


Which outputs:

{'fizz': {'buzz': {}},
 'foo': {'bar': {}, 'baz': {}},
 'primary': {'secondary': {'tertiary': {'quaternary': {}}}}}

And as the last line shows, it pretty prints beautifully and in order for manual inspection. But if you want to visually inspect your data, implementing __missing__ to set a new instance of its class to the key and return it is a far better solution.

Other alternatives, for contrast:


setdefault works great when used in loops and you don't know what you're going to get for keys, but repetitive usage becomes quite burdensome, and I don't think anyone would want to keep up the following:

d = dict()

d.setdefault('foo', {}).setdefault('bar', {})
d.setdefault('foo', {}).setdefault('baz', {})
d.setdefault('fizz', {}).setdefault('buzz', {})
d.setdefault('primary', {}).setdefault('secondary', {}).setdefault('tertiary', {}).setdefault('quaternary', {})

An auto-vivified defaultdict

This is a clean looking implementation, and usage in a script that you're not inspecting the data on would be as useful as implementing __missing__:

from collections import defaultdict

def vivdict():
    return defaultdict(vivdict)

But if you need to inspect your data, the results of an auto-vivified defaultdict populated with data in the same way looks like this:

>>> d = vivdict(); d['foo']['bar']; d['foo']['baz']; d['fizz']['buzz']; d['primary']['secondary']['tertiary']['quaternary']; import pprint; 
>>> pprint.pprint(d)
defaultdict(<function vivdict at 0x17B01870>, {'foo': defaultdict(<function vivdict 
at 0x17B01870>, {'baz': defaultdict(<function vivdict at 0x17B01870>, {}), 'bar': 
defaultdict(<function vivdict at 0x17B01870>, {})}), 'primary': defaultdict(<function 
vivdict at 0x17B01870>, {'secondary': defaultdict(<function vivdict at 0x17B01870>, 
{'tertiary': defaultdict(<function vivdict at 0x17B01870>, {'quaternary': defaultdict(
<function vivdict at 0x17B01870>, {})})})}), 'fizz': defaultdict(<function vivdict at 
0x17B01870>, {'buzz': defaultdict(<function vivdict at 0x17B01870>, {})})})

This output is quite inelegant, and the results are quite unreadable. The solution typically given is to recursively convert back to a dict for manual inspection. This non-trivial solution is left as an exercise for the reader.


Finally, let's look at performance. I'm subtracting the costs of instantiation.

>>> import timeit
>>> min(timeit.repeat(lambda: {}.setdefault('foo', {}))) - min(timeit.repeat(lambda: {}))
>>> min(timeit.repeat(lambda: vivdict()['foo'])) - min(timeit.repeat(lambda: vivdict()))
>>> min(timeit.repeat(lambda: Vividict()['foo'])) - min(timeit.repeat(lambda: Vividict()))
>>> min(timeit.repeat(lambda: AutoVivification()['foo'])) - min(timeit.repeat(lambda: AutoVivification()))

Based on performance, dict.setdefault works the best. I'd highly recommend it for production code, in cases where you care about execution speed.

If you need this for interactive use (in an IPython notebook, perhaps) then performance doesn't really matter - in which case, I'd go with Vividict for readability of the output. Compared to the AutoVivification object (which uses __getitem__ instead of __missing__, which was made for this purpose) it is far superior.


Implementing __missing__ on a subclassed dict to set and return a new instance is slightly more difficult than alternatives but has the benefits of

  • easy instantiation
  • easy data population
  • easy data viewing

and because it is less complicated and more performant than modifying __getitem__, it should be preferred to that method.

Recommended from our users: Dynamic Network Monitoring from WhatsUp Gold from IPSwitch. Free Download