3418

I have a dictionary of values read from two fields in a database: a string field and a numeric field. The string field is unique, so that is the key of the dictionary.

I can sort on the keys, but how can I sort based on the values?

Note: I have read Stack Overflow question here How do I sort a list of dictionaries by a value of the dictionary? and probably could change my code to have a list of dictionaries, but since I do not really need a list of dictionaries I wanted to know if there is a simpler solution to sort either in ascending or descending order.

Anvesh
  • 47
  • 1
  • 8
Gern Blanston
  • 41,734
  • 19
  • 47
  • 64
  • 9
    The dictionary data structure does not have inherent order. You can iterate through it but there's nothing to guarantee that the iteration will follow any particular order. This is by design, so your best bet is probaly using anohter data structure for representation. – Daishiman Jul 05 '10 at 02:08
  • 135
    "sorted()" can operate on dictionaries (and returns a list of sorted keys), so I think he's aware of this. Without knowing his program, it's absurd to tell someone they're using the wrong data structure. If fast lookups are what you need 90% of the time, then a dict is probably what you want. – bobpaul Feb 15 '13 at 19:04
  • All three outputs (keys, values, both) for sorting dictionaries are covered here in a clear and concise style: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16772071/sort-dict-by-value-python – JStrahl Mar 07 '16 at 10:14
  • 2
    @Daishiman The base class might not be ordered but [OrderedDict](https://docs.python.org/3/library/collections.html#collections.OrderedDict) is of course. – Taylor Edmiston Sep 09 '17 at 01:10
  • 1
    In Python 3.6+ dictionaries preserve insertion order. This is, of course, not the same as possibility of sorting them by value, but on the other hand it is no longer valid to say that "dictionary data structure does not have inherent order". – Konrad Kocik Dec 31 '18 at 13:30

34 Answers34

5717

Python 3.7+ or CPython 3.6

Dicts preserve insertion order in Python 3.7+. Same in CPython 3.6, but it's an implementation detail.

>>> x = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4: 3, 2: 1, 0: 0}
>>> {k: v for k, v in sorted(x.items(), key=lambda item: item[1])}
{0: 0, 2: 1, 1: 2, 4: 3, 3: 4}

or

>>> dict(sorted(x.items(), key=lambda item: item[1]))
{0: 0, 2: 1, 1: 2, 4: 3, 3: 4}

Older Python

It is not possible to sort a dictionary, only to get a representation of a dictionary that is sorted. Dictionaries are inherently orderless, but other types, such as lists and tuples, are not. So you need an ordered data type to represent sorted values, which will be a list—probably a list of tuples.

For instance,

import operator
x = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4: 3, 2: 1, 0: 0}
sorted_x = sorted(x.items(), key=operator.itemgetter(1))

sorted_x will be a list of tuples sorted by the second element in each tuple. dict(sorted_x) == x.

And for those wishing to sort on keys instead of values:

import operator
x = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4: 3, 2: 1, 0: 0}
sorted_x = sorted(x.items(), key=operator.itemgetter(0))

In Python3 since unpacking is not allowed we can use

x = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4: 3, 2: 1, 0: 0}
sorted_x = sorted(x.items(), key=lambda kv: kv[1])

If you want the output as a dict, you can use collections.OrderedDict:

import collections

sorted_dict = collections.OrderedDict(sorted_x)
wjandrea
  • 16,334
  • 5
  • 30
  • 53
Devin Jeanpierre
  • 80,391
  • 4
  • 53
  • 78
  • 46
    for timings on various dictionary sorting by value schemes: http://writeonly.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/sorting-dictionaries-by-value-in-python-improved/ – Gregg Lind Mar 14 '09 at 17:55
  • 180
    `sorted_x.reverse()` will give you a descending ordering (by the second tuple element) – saidimu apale May 03 '10 at 05:24
  • 446
    saidimu: Since we're already using `sorted()`, it's much more efficient to pass in the `reverse=True` argument. – rmh Jul 05 '10 at 02:59
  • 124
    In python3 I used a lambda: `sorted(d.items(), key=lambda x: x[1])`. Will this work in python 2.x? – Keyo Feb 15 '11 at 15:05
  • 86
    OrderedDict added to collections in 2.7. Sorting example shown at: http://docs.python.org/library/collections.html?highlight=ordereddict#ordereddict-examples-and-recipes – monkut Apr 24 '11 at 06:31
  • in case of value have same value how to ensure value with smaller key come first? – haneulkim Apr 25 '21 at 12:38
1407

As simple as: sorted(dict1, key=dict1.get)

Well, it is actually possible to do a "sort by dictionary values". Recently I had to do that in a Code Golf (Stack Overflow question Code golf: Word frequency chart). Abridged, the problem was of the kind: given a text, count how often each word is encountered and display a list of the top words, sorted by decreasing frequency.

If you construct a dictionary with the words as keys and the number of occurrences of each word as value, simplified here as:

from collections import defaultdict
d = defaultdict(int)
for w in text.split():
    d[w] += 1

then you can get a list of the words, ordered by frequency of use with sorted(d, key=d.get) - the sort iterates over the dictionary keys, using the number of word occurrences as a sort key .

for w in sorted(d, key=d.get, reverse=True):
    print(w, d[w])

I am writing this detailed explanation to illustrate what people often mean by "I can easily sort a dictionary by key, but how do I sort by value" - and I think the original post was trying to address such an issue. And the solution is to do sort of list of the keys, based on the values, as shown above.

Boris
  • 7,044
  • 6
  • 62
  • 63
Nas Banov
  • 25,505
  • 6
  • 44
  • 67
  • 35
    This is also good but *`key=operator.itemgetter(1)`* should be more scalable for efficiency than *`key=d.get`* – smci Dec 09 '11 at 21:18
  • 12
    @bli `sorted_keys = sorted(d.items(), key=itemgetter(1), reverse=True)` and `for key, val in sorted_keys: print "%s: %d" % (key, val)` - itemgetter creates a function when it's called, you don't use it directly like in your example. And a plain iteration on a dict uses the keys without the values – Izkata Aug 19 '14 at 20:21
  • 21
    i have come from the future to tell you of `collections.Counter`, which has a `most_common` method that might interest you :) – Eevee Jun 25 '17 at 20:47
965

You could use:

sorted(d.items(), key=lambda x: x[1])

This will sort the dictionary by the values of each entry within the dictionary from smallest to largest.

To sort it in descending order just add reverse=True:

sorted(d.items(), key=lambda x: x[1], reverse=True)

Input:

d = {'one':1,'three':3,'five':5,'two':2,'four':4}
a = sorted(d.items(), key=lambda x: x[1])    
print(a)

Output:

[('one', 1), ('two', 2), ('three', 3), ('four', 4), ('five', 5)]
Suresh2692
  • 3,243
  • 3
  • 14
  • 25
Mark
  • 9,675
  • 1
  • 13
  • 4
  • From what I've seen (http://docs.python.org/2/library/collections.html?highlight=ordereddict#ordereddict-examples-and-recipes), there is a class called OrderedDict which can be sorted and retain order whilst still being a dictionary. From the code examples, you can use lambda to sort it, but I haven't tried it out personally :P – UsAndRufus Feb 20 '13 at 10:38
  • 60
    I'd prefer `key=lambda (k, v): v` personally – Claudiu Apr 09 '15 at 23:08
  • @Keyo shouldn't that be it returns an ordered list of keys (sorted by values) not `(k,v)` tuples? That's what I get with Python 2.7.10. @Nyxynyx add the parameter reverse=True to sort in descending order. – dhj Nov 16 '15 at 16:49
  • 40
    @Claudiu I like that `(k, v)` syntax too, but it's not available in Python 3 where [tuple parameter unpacking](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3113/) was removed. – Bob Stein Feb 05 '16 at 17:53
  • If you wrap this in an `OrderedDict()` instance you will get a (ordered) dict instead of list of tuples! – tsveti_iko Mar 21 '19 at 10:30
  • 5
    ```dict(sorted(d.items(), key=lambda x: x[1]))``` . – Dr_Hope Jul 16 '19 at 15:39
248

Dicts can't be sorted, but you can build a sorted list from them.

A sorted list of dict values:

sorted(d.values())

A list of (key, value) pairs, sorted by value:

from operator import itemgetter
sorted(d.items(), key=itemgetter(1))
Roberto Bonvallet
  • 27,307
  • 5
  • 37
  • 57
  • What order are keys with the same value placed in? I sorted the list by keys first, then by values, but the order of the keys with the same value does not remain. – SabreWolfy Jun 18 '12 at 10:04
  • 4
    Dicts can now be sorted, starting with CPython 3.6 and all other Python implementations starting with 3.7 – Boris Apr 24 '20 at 19:38
168

In recent Python 2.7, we have the new OrderedDict type, which remembers the order in which the items were added.

>>> d = {"third": 3, "first": 1, "fourth": 4, "second": 2}

>>> for k, v in d.items():
...     print "%s: %s" % (k, v)
...
second: 2
fourth: 4
third: 3
first: 1

>>> d
{'second': 2, 'fourth': 4, 'third': 3, 'first': 1}

To make a new ordered dictionary from the original, sorting by the values:

>>> from collections import OrderedDict
>>> d_sorted_by_value = OrderedDict(sorted(d.items(), key=lambda x: x[1]))

The OrderedDict behaves like a normal dict:

>>> for k, v in d_sorted_by_value.items():
...     print "%s: %s" % (k, v)
...
first: 1
second: 2
third: 3
fourth: 4

>>> d_sorted_by_value
OrderedDict([('first': 1), ('second': 2), ('third': 3), ('fourth': 4)])
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
mykhal
  • 16,760
  • 11
  • 69
  • 76
  • 5
    This is not what the question is about - it is not about maintaining order of keys but about "sorting by value" – Nas Banov Jul 05 '10 at 07:07
  • 10
    @Nas Banov: it is NOT sorting by the key. it is sorting in the order, we create the items. in our case, we sort by the value. unfortunately, the 3-item dict was unfortunately chosen so the order was the same, when sorted voth by value and key, so i expanded the sample dict. – mykhal Jul 05 '10 at 10:56
  • `sorted(d.items(), key=lambda x: x[1])` Can you explain what the `x` means, why it can take `x[1]` to lambda? Why does it can't be `x[0]`? Thank you very much! – JZAU Nov 08 '13 at 05:12
  • @jie `d.items()` returns a list of key/value pairs from the dictionary and `x` is an element of this tuple. `x[0]` will be key and `x[1]` will be the value. As we intend to sort on the value, we pass `x[1]` to the lambda. – CadentOrange Nov 19 '13 at 09:06
  • may be a stupid question: `x: x[1]` - what does the `1` access? The value itself? What is `0` then? The key? – Boern Aug 31 '17 at 14:28
  • 1
    @Boern `d.items()` returns a list-like container of `(key, value)` tuples. `[0]` accesses the first element of the tuple -- the key -- and `[1]` accesses the second element -- the value. – BallpointBen Apr 10 '18 at 14:29
  • 2
    Note: As of 3.6 (as a CPython/PyPy implementation detail) and as of 3.7 (as a Python language guarantee), plain `dict` is insertion ordered as well, so you can just replace `OrderedDict` with `dict` for code running on modern Python. `OrderedDict` isn't really needed anymore unless you need to rearrange the order of an existing `dict` (with `move_to_end`/`popitem`) or need equality comparisons to be order-sensitive. It uses a lot more memory than plain `dict`, so if you can, `dict` is the way to go. – ShadowRanger Sep 04 '19 at 13:09
110

UPDATE: 5 DECEMBER 2015 using Python 3.5

Whilst I found the accepted answer useful, I was also surprised that it hasn't been updated to reference OrderedDict from the standard library collections module as a viable, modern alternative - designed to solve exactly this type of problem.

from operator import itemgetter
from collections import OrderedDict

x = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4: 3, 2: 1, 0: 0}
sorted_x = OrderedDict(sorted(x.items(), key=itemgetter(1)))
# OrderedDict([(0, 0), (2, 1), (1, 2), (4, 3), (3, 4)])

The official OrderedDict documentation offers a very similar example too, but using a lambda for the sort function:

# regular unsorted dictionary
d = {'banana': 3, 'apple':4, 'pear': 1, 'orange': 2}

# dictionary sorted by value
OrderedDict(sorted(d.items(), key=lambda t: t[1]))
# OrderedDict([('pear', 1), ('orange', 2), ('banana', 3), ('apple', 4)])
arcseldon
  • 29,753
  • 14
  • 104
  • 117
97

Pretty much the same as Hank Gay's answer:

sorted([(value,key) for (key,value) in mydict.items()])

Or optimized slightly as suggested by John Fouhy:

sorted((value,key) for (key,value) in mydict.items())
user26294
  • 4,737
  • 2
  • 20
  • 18
  • 10
    ..and as with Hank Gay's answer, you don't need the square brackets. sorted() will happily take any iterable, such as a generator expression. – John Fouhy Mar 05 '09 at 01:45
  • You may still need to swap the (value,key) tuple elements to end up with the (key, value). Another list comprehension is then needed. `[(key, value) for (value, key) in sorted_list_of_tuples]` – saidimu apale May 03 '10 at 05:22
  • no, it's better to leave square brackets, because `sorted` will have to rebuild the list anyway, and rebuilding from gencomp will be faster. Good for codegolfing, bad for speed. Keep the ugly `([])` version. – Jean-François Fabre Dec 07 '17 at 21:21
78

As of Python 3.6 the built-in dict will be ordered

Good news, so the OP's original use case of mapping pairs retrieved from a database with unique string ids as keys and numeric values as values into a built-in Python v3.6+ dict, should now respect the insert order.

If say the resulting two column table expressions from a database query like:

SELECT a_key, a_value FROM a_table ORDER BY a_value;

would be stored in two Python tuples, k_seq and v_seq (aligned by numerical index and with the same length of course), then:

k_seq = ('foo', 'bar', 'baz')
v_seq = (0, 1, 42)
ordered_map = dict(zip(k_seq, v_seq))

Allow to output later as:

for k, v in ordered_map.items():
    print(k, v)

yielding in this case (for the new Python 3.6+ built-in dict!):

foo 0
bar 1
baz 42

in the same ordering per value of v.

Where in the Python 3.5 install on my machine it currently yields:

bar 1
foo 0
baz 42

Details:

As proposed in 2012 by Raymond Hettinger (cf. mail on python-dev with subject "More compact dictionaries with faster iteration") and now (in 2016) announced in a mail by Victor Stinner to python-dev with subject "Python 3.6 dict becomes compact and gets a private version; and keywords become ordered" due to the fix/implementation of issue 27350 "Compact and ordered dict" in Python 3.6 we will now be able, to use a built-in dict to maintain insert order!!

Hopefully this will lead to a thin layer OrderedDict implementation as a first step. As @JimFasarakis-Hilliard indicated, some see use cases for the OrderedDict type also in the future. I think the Python community at large will carefully inspect, if this will stand the test of time, and what the next steps will be.

Time to rethink our coding habits to not miss the possibilities opened by stable ordering of:

  • Keyword arguments and
  • (intermediate) dict storage

The first because it eases dispatch in the implementation of functions and methods in some cases.

The second as it encourages to more easily use dicts as intermediate storage in processing pipelines.

Raymond Hettinger kindly provided documentation explaining "The Tech Behind Python 3.6 Dictionaries" - from his San Francisco Python Meetup Group presentation 2016-DEC-08.

And maybe quite some Stack Overflow high decorated question and answer pages will receive variants of this information and many high quality answers will require a per version update too.

Caveat Emptor (but also see below update 2017-12-15):

As @ajcr rightfully notes: "The order-preserving aspect of this new implementation is considered an implementation detail and should not be relied upon." (from the whatsnew36) not nit picking, but the citation was cut a bit pessimistic ;-). It continues as " (this may change in the future, but it is desired to have this new dict implementation in the language for a few releases before changing the language spec to mandate order-preserving semantics for all current and future Python implementations; this also helps preserve backwards-compatibility with older versions of the language where random iteration order is still in effect, e.g. Python 3.5)."

So as in some human languages (e.g. German), usage shapes the language, and the will now has been declared ... in whatsnew36.

Update 2017-12-15:

In a mail to the python-dev list, Guido van Rossum declared:

Make it so. "Dict keeps insertion order" is the ruling. Thanks!

So, the version 3.6 CPython side-effect of dict insertion ordering is now becoming part of the language spec (and not anymore only an implementation detail). That mail thread also surfaced some distinguishing design goals for collections.OrderedDict as reminded by Raymond Hettinger during discussion.

Dilettant
  • 2,962
  • 3
  • 25
  • 27
  • 16
    The warning on the 'whatsnew' page you've linked to should be emphasised: **the order-preserving aspect of this new implementation is considered an implementation detail and should not be relied upon**. Nobody should be assuming that the `dict` type will respect insertion order in their code. This is not part of the language's definition and the implementation could change in any future release. Continue using `OrderedDict` to guarantee order. – Alex Riley Sep 10 '16 at 20:15
  • @ajcr thanks for the caveat, very appreciated - as smileys and maybe's were weaved into my response,these should indicated, the change is massive but of course, only available for CPython (reference implementation) and PyPy. For something completely different ... I rarely talk to non-implementation details when coding man-machine instructions. If it would only have been Jython ;-) ... I might not have had the courage to write it. – Dilettant Sep 10 '16 at 20:22
  • `OrderedDict` definitely won't be dropped; instead, it will become a thin wrapper around the current dict implementation (so you might add that it will become more compact, too). Adding that snippet with the `ImportError` isn't quite the best idea due to it misleading readers that `OrderedDict` has no use. – Dimitris Fasarakis Hilliard Dec 10 '16 at 13:33
  • @JimFasarakis-Hilliard thank you for the feedback. "Quite best ideas" made me smile - future is often hard to predict. But I like your suggestion will check the sources, try it and then update the answer accordingly. Thanks again. – Dilettant Dec 10 '16 at 13:58
  • In a response to this answer, and structured dicts, I posted [a new answer](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/613183/how-do-i-sort-a-dictionary-by-value/49073645#49073645). Feedback welcome! – Bram Vanroy Mar 02 '18 at 16:49
  • 8
    @AlexRiley This caveat is no longer accurate. Python3.7 guarantees ordered dictionaries. – gerrit Dec 19 '18 at 17:12
78

It can often be very handy to use namedtuple. For example, you have a dictionary of 'name' as keys and 'score' as values and you want to sort on 'score':

import collections
Player = collections.namedtuple('Player', 'score name')
d = {'John':5, 'Alex':10, 'Richard': 7}

sorting with lowest score first:

worst = sorted(Player(v,k) for (k,v) in d.items())

sorting with highest score first:

best = sorted([Player(v,k) for (k,v) in d.items()], reverse=True)

Now you can get the name and score of, let's say the second-best player (index=1) very Pythonically like this:

player = best[1]
player.name
    'Richard'
player.score
    7
vallentin
  • 19,107
  • 6
  • 43
  • 68
Remi
  • 17,911
  • 8
  • 51
  • 41
44

I had the same problem, and I solved it like this:

WantedOutput = sorted(MyDict, key=lambda x : MyDict[x]) 

(People who answer "It is not possible to sort a dict" did not read the question! In fact, "I can sort on the keys, but how can I sort based on the values?" clearly means that he wants a list of the keys sorted according to the value of their values.)

Please notice that the order is not well defined (keys with the same value will be in an arbitrary order in the output list).

Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
jimifiki
  • 4,779
  • 1
  • 28
  • 53
  • 1
    You are missing the value from the result – Dejell Jan 07 '14 at 20:54
  • Note that you're both iterating the dictionary and fetching values by their key, so performance wise this is not an optimal solution. – Ron Klein Sep 21 '16 at 08:00
  • 1
    @Dejell: as the contributor says, he interprets the question as "can I get the list of keys sorted according to the values". We don't need the values in the result, we have them in the dictionary. – Max Jan 12 '19 at 03:19
41

If values are numeric you may also use Counter from collections.

from collections import Counter

x = {'hello': 1, 'python': 5, 'world': 3}
c = Counter(x)
print(c.most_common())

>> [('python', 5), ('world', 3), ('hello', 1)]    
Georgy
  • 6,348
  • 7
  • 46
  • 58
Ivan Sas
  • 853
  • 1
  • 9
  • 13
  • what about if you dictionary is >>> x={'hello':1,'python':5, 'world':300} – James Dec 28 '13 at 13:17
  • @yopy `Counter({'hello':1, 'python':5, 'world':300}).most_common()` gives `[('world', 300), ('python', 5), ('hello', 1)]`. This actually works for any sortable value type (although many *other* Counter operations do require values to be comparable to ints). – lvc Dec 28 '13 at 13:58
35

In Python 2.7, simply do:

from collections import OrderedDict
# regular unsorted dictionary
d = {'banana': 3, 'apple':4, 'pear': 1, 'orange': 2}

# dictionary sorted by key
OrderedDict(sorted(d.items(), key=lambda t: t[0]))
OrderedDict([('apple', 4), ('banana', 3), ('orange', 2), ('pear', 1)])

# dictionary sorted by value
OrderedDict(sorted(d.items(), key=lambda t: t[1]))
OrderedDict([('pear', 1), ('orange', 2), ('banana', 3), ('apple', 4)])

copy-paste from : http://docs.python.org/dev/library/collections.html#ordereddict-examples-and-recipes

Enjoy ;-)

sweetdream
  • 1,053
  • 11
  • 13
27

Try the following approach. Let us define a dictionary called mydict with the following data:

mydict = {'carl':40,
          'alan':2,
          'bob':1,
          'danny':3}

If one wanted to sort the dictionary by keys, one could do something like:

for key in sorted(mydict.iterkeys()):
    print "%s: %s" % (key, mydict[key])

This should return the following output:

alan: 2
bob: 1
carl: 40
danny: 3

On the other hand, if one wanted to sort a dictionary by value (as is asked in the question), one could do the following:

for key, value in sorted(mydict.iteritems(), key=lambda (k,v): (v,k)):
    print "%s: %s" % (key, value)

The result of this command (sorting the dictionary by value) should return the following:

bob: 1
alan: 2
danny: 3
carl: 40
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Nathaniel Payne
  • 2,579
  • 1
  • 23
  • 31
  • Awesome! `for key, value in sorted(mydict.iteritems(), key=lambda (k,v): v["score"]):` allows you to sort by a subkey – Andomar Jul 07 '17 at 19:08
27

This is the code:

import operator
origin_list = [
    {"name": "foo", "rank": 0, "rofl": 20000},
    {"name": "Silly", "rank": 15, "rofl": 1000},
    {"name": "Baa", "rank": 300, "rofl": 20},
    {"name": "Zoo", "rank": 10, "rofl": 200},
    {"name": "Penguin", "rank": -1, "rofl": 10000}
]
print ">> Original >>"
for foo in origin_list:
    print foo

print "\n>> Rofl sort >>"
for foo in sorted(origin_list, key=operator.itemgetter("rofl")):
    print foo

print "\n>> Rank sort >>"
for foo in sorted(origin_list, key=operator.itemgetter("rank")):
    print foo

Here are the results:

Original

{'name': 'foo', 'rank': 0, 'rofl': 20000}
{'name': 'Silly', 'rank': 15, 'rofl': 1000}
{'name': 'Baa', 'rank': 300, 'rofl': 20}
{'name': 'Zoo', 'rank': 10, 'rofl': 200}
{'name': 'Penguin', 'rank': -1, 'rofl': 10000}

Rofl

{'name': 'Baa', 'rank': 300, 'rofl': 20}
{'name': 'Zoo', 'rank': 10, 'rofl': 200}
{'name': 'Silly', 'rank': 15, 'rofl': 1000}
{'name': 'Penguin', 'rank': -1, 'rofl': 10000}
{'name': 'foo', 'rank': 0, 'rofl': 20000}

Rank

{'name': 'Penguin', 'rank': -1, 'rofl': 10000}
{'name': 'foo', 'rank': 0, 'rofl': 20000}
{'name': 'Zoo', 'rank': 10, 'rofl': 200}
{'name': 'Silly', 'rank': 15, 'rofl': 1000}
{'name': 'Baa', 'rank': 300, 'rofl': 20}
icedwater
  • 4,280
  • 3
  • 31
  • 47
PedroMorgan
  • 848
  • 12
  • 15
25

Starting from Python 3.6, dict objects are now ordered by insertion order. It's officially in the specs of Python 3.7.

>>> words = {"python": 2, "blah": 4, "alice": 3}
>>> dict(sorted(words.items(), key=lambda x: x[1]))
{'python': 2, 'alice': 3, 'blah': 4}

Before that, you had to use OrderedDict.

Python 3.7 documentation says:

Changed in version 3.7: Dictionary order is guaranteed to be insertion order. This behavior was implementation detail of CPython from 3.6.

Maxime Chéramy
  • 14,912
  • 7
  • 43
  • 67
23

You can create an "inverted index", also

from collections import defaultdict
inverse= defaultdict( list )
for k, v in originalDict.items():
    inverse[v].append( k )

Now your inverse has the values; each value has a list of applicable keys.

for k in sorted(inverse):
    print k, inverse[k]
S.Lott
  • 359,791
  • 75
  • 487
  • 757
20

You can use the collections.Counter. Note, this will work for both numeric and non-numeric values.

>>> x = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4:3, 2:1, 0:0}
>>> from collections import Counter
>>> #To sort in reverse order
>>> Counter(x).most_common()
[(3, 4), (4, 3), (1, 2), (2, 1), (0, 0)]
>>> #To sort in ascending order
>>> Counter(x).most_common()[::-1]
[(0, 0), (2, 1), (1, 2), (4, 3), (3, 4)]
>>> #To get a dictionary sorted by values
>>> from collections import OrderedDict
>>> OrderedDict(Counter(x).most_common()[::-1])
OrderedDict([(0, 0), (2, 1), (1, 2), (4, 3), (3, 4)])
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Abhijit
  • 55,716
  • 14
  • 105
  • 186
  • 7
    How is this different from [Ivan Sas's answer](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/613183/python-sort-a-dictionary-by-value/11230132#11230132)? – Peter Mortensen Apr 03 '14 at 17:07
15

You can use a skip dict which is a dictionary that's permanently sorted by value.

>>> data = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4: 3, 2: 1, 0: 0}
>>> SkipDict(data)
{0: 0.0, 2: 1.0, 1: 2.0, 4: 3.0, 3: 4.0}

If you use keys(), values() or items() then you'll iterate in sorted order by value.

It's implemented using the skip list datastructure.

malthe
  • 688
  • 6
  • 16
15

You can also use custom function that can be passed to key.

def dict_val(x):
    return x[1]
x = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4: 3, 2: 1, 0: 0}
sorted_x = sorted(x.items(), key=dict_val)
Georgy
  • 6,348
  • 7
  • 46
  • 58
Vishwanath Rawat
  • 407
  • 6
  • 10
13
from django.utils.datastructures import SortedDict

def sortedDictByKey(self,data):
    """Sorted dictionary order by key"""
    sortedDict = SortedDict()
    if data:
        if isinstance(data, dict):
            sortedKey = sorted(data.keys())
            for k in sortedKey:
                sortedDict[k] = data[k]
    return sortedDict
Argun
  • 368
  • 4
  • 19
  • 2
    question was: sort by value, not by keys... I like seeing a function. You can import collections and of course use sorted(data.values()) – Remi Aug 30 '11 at 00:38
12

Of course, remember, you need to use OrderedDict because regular Python dictionaries don't keep the original order.

from collections import OrderedDict
a = OrderedDict(sorted(originalDict.items(), key=lambda x: x[1]))

If you do not have Python 2.7 or higher, the best you can do is iterate over the values in a generator function. (There is an OrderedDict for 2.4 and 2.6 here, but

a) I don't know about how well it works

and

b) You have to download and install it of course. If you do not have administrative access, then I'm afraid the option's out.)


def gen(originalDict):
    for x, y in sorted(zip(originalDict.keys(), originalDict.values()), key=lambda z: z[1]):
        yield (x, y)
    #Yields as a tuple with (key, value). You can iterate with conditional clauses to get what you want. 

for bleh, meh in gen(myDict):
    if bleh == "foo":
        print(myDict[bleh])

You can also print out every value

for bleh, meh in gen(myDict):
    print(bleh, meh)

Please remember to remove the parentheses after print if not using Python 3.0 or above

Georgy
  • 6,348
  • 7
  • 46
  • 58
ytpillai
  • 3,194
  • 25
  • 43
11

As pointed out by Dilettant, Python 3.6 will now keep the order! I thought I'd share a function I wrote that eases the sorting of an iterable (tuple, list, dict). In the latter case, you can sort either on keys or values, and it can take numeric comparison into account. Only for >= 3.6!

When you try using sorted on an iterable that holds e.g. strings as well as ints, sorted() will fail. Of course you can force string comparison with str(). However, in some cases you want to do actual numeric comparison where 12 is smaller than 20 (which is not the case in string comparison). So I came up with the following. When you want explicit numeric comparison you can use the flag num_as_num which will try to do explicit numeric sorting by trying to convert all values to floats. If that succeeds, it will do numeric sorting, otherwise it'll resort to string comparison.

Comments for improvement welcome.

def sort_iterable(iterable, sort_on=None, reverse=False, num_as_num=False):
    def _sort(i):
      # sort by 0 = keys, 1 values, None for lists and tuples
      try:
        if num_as_num:
          if i is None:
            _sorted = sorted(iterable, key=lambda v: float(v), reverse=reverse)
          else:
            _sorted = dict(sorted(iterable.items(), key=lambda v: float(v[i]), reverse=reverse))
        else:
          raise TypeError
      except (TypeError, ValueError):
        if i is None:
          _sorted = sorted(iterable, key=lambda v: str(v), reverse=reverse)
        else:
          _sorted = dict(sorted(iterable.items(), key=lambda v: str(v[i]), reverse=reverse))
      
      return _sorted
      
    if isinstance(iterable, list):
      sorted_list = _sort(None)
      return sorted_list
    elif isinstance(iterable, tuple):
      sorted_list = tuple(_sort(None))
      return sorted_list
    elif isinstance(iterable, dict):
      if sort_on == 'keys':
        sorted_dict = _sort(0)
        return sorted_dict
      elif sort_on == 'values':
        sorted_dict = _sort(1)
        return sorted_dict
      elif sort_on is not None:
        raise ValueError(f"Unexpected value {sort_on} for sort_on. When sorting a dict, use key or values")
    else:
      raise TypeError(f"Unexpected type {type(iterable)} for iterable. Expected a list, tuple, or dict")
Bram Vanroy
  • 22,919
  • 16
  • 101
  • 195
10

Here is a solution using zip on d.values() and d.keys(). A few lines down this link (on Dictionary view objects) is:

This allows the creation of (value, key) pairs using zip(): pairs = zip(d.values(), d.keys()).

So we can do the following:

d = {'key1': 874.7, 'key2': 5, 'key3': 8.1}

d_sorted = sorted(zip(d.values(), d.keys()))

print d_sorted 
# prints: [(5, 'key2'), (8.1, 'key3'), (874.7, 'key1')]
Scott
  • 4,853
  • 4
  • 30
  • 47
8

Use ValueSortedDict from dicts:

from dicts.sorteddict import ValueSortedDict
d = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4:3, 2:1, 0:0}
sorted_dict = ValueSortedDict(d)
print sorted_dict.items() 

[(0, 0), (2, 1), (1, 2), (4, 3), (3, 4)]
ponty
  • 554
  • 7
  • 7
7

Just learned relevant skill from Python for Everybody.

You may use a temporary list to help you to sort the dictionary:

#Assume dictionary to be:
d = {'apple': 500.1, 'banana': 1500.2, 'orange': 1.0, 'pineapple': 789.0}

# create a temporary list
tmp = []

# iterate through the dictionary and append each tuple into the temporary list 
for key, value in d.items():
    tmptuple = (value, key)
    tmp.append(tmptuple)

# sort the list in ascending order
tmp = sorted(tmp)

print (tmp)

If you want to sort the list in descending order, simply change the original sorting line to:

tmp = sorted(tmp, reverse=True)

Using list comprehension, the one liner would be:

#Assuming the dictionary looks like
d = {'apple': 500.1, 'banana': 1500.2, 'orange': 1.0, 'pineapple': 789.0}
#One liner for sorting in ascending order
print (sorted([(v, k) for k, v in d.items()]))
#One liner for sorting in descending order
print (sorted([(v, k) for k, v in d.items()], reverse=True))

Sample Output:

#Asending order
[(1.0, 'orange'), (500.1, 'apple'), (789.0, 'pineapple'), (1500.2, 'banana')]
#Descending order
[(1500.2, 'banana'), (789.0, 'pineapple'), (500.1, 'apple'), (1.0, 'orange')]
mcgag
  • 155
  • 1
  • 12
  • this is sorting by keys, not by values. – Rubel Feb 04 '20 at 13:50
  • If you want to print it in the initial format you should do:print ([(k,v) for v,k in sorted([(v,k) for k,v in d.items()])]) . The output is: [('orange', 1.0), ('apple', 500.1), ('pineapple', 789.0), ('banana', 1500.2)]. With [(k,v) for v,k in sorted([(v,k) for k,v in d.items()], reverse = True)] the output is: [('banana', 1500.2), ('pineapple', 789.0), ('apple', 500.1), ('orange', 1.0)] – Hermes Morales May 04 '20 at 20:14
7

Iterate through a dict and sort it by its values in descending order:

$ python --version
Python 3.2.2

$ cat sort_dict_by_val_desc.py 
dictionary = dict(siis = 1, sana = 2, joka = 3, tuli = 4, aina = 5)
for word in sorted(dictionary, key=dictionary.get, reverse=True):
  print(word, dictionary[word])

$ python sort_dict_by_val_desc.py 
aina 5
tuli 4
joka 3
sana 2
siis 1
juhoh
  • 79
  • 1
  • 1
6

For the sake of completeness, I am posting a solution using heapq. Note, this method will work for both numeric and non-numeric values

>>> x = {1: 2, 3: 4, 4:3, 2:1, 0:0}
>>> x_items = x.items()
>>> heapq.heapify(x_items)
>>> #To sort in reverse order
>>> heapq.nlargest(len(x_items),x_items, operator.itemgetter(1))
[(3, 4), (4, 3), (1, 2), (2, 1), (0, 0)]
>>> #To sort in ascending order
>>> heapq.nsmallest(len(x_items),x_items, operator.itemgetter(1))
[(0, 0), (2, 1), (1, 2), (4, 3), (3, 4)]
Abhijit
  • 55,716
  • 14
  • 105
  • 186
6

This works in 3.1.x:

import operator
slovar_sorted=sorted(slovar.items(), key=operator.itemgetter(1), reverse=True)
print(slovar_sorted)
Nathaniel Ford
  • 16,853
  • 18
  • 74
  • 88
iFail
  • 69
  • 1
  • 1
5

If your values are integers, and you use Python 2.7 or newer, you can use collections.Counter instead of dict. The most_common method will give you all items, sorted by the value.

Petr Viktorin
  • 58,535
  • 6
  • 72
  • 77
4
months = {"January": 31, "February": 28, "March": 31, "April": 30, "May": 31,
          "June": 30, "July": 31, "August": 31, "September": 30, "October": 31,
          "November": 30, "December": 31}

def mykey(t):
    """ Customize your sorting logic using this function.  The parameter to
    this function is a tuple.  Comment/uncomment the return statements to test
    different logics.
    """
    return t[1]              # sort by number of days in the month
    #return t[1], t[0]       # sort by number of days, then by month name
    #return len(t[0])        # sort by length of month name
    #return t[0][-1]         # sort by last character of month name


# Since a dictionary can't be sorted by value, what you can do is to convert
# it into a list of tuples with tuple length 2.
# You can then do custom sorts by passing your own function to sorted().
months_as_list = sorted(months.items(), key=mykey, reverse=False)

for month in months_as_list:
    print month
lessthanl0l
  • 887
  • 2
  • 10
  • 19
4

Because of requirements to retain backward compatability with older versions of Python I think the OrderedDict solution is very unwise. You want something that works with Python 2.7 and older versions.

But the collections solution mentioned in another answer is absolutely superb, because you retrain a connection between the key and value which in the case of dictionaries is extremely important.

I don't agree with the number one choice presented in another answer, because it throws away the keys.

I used the solution mentioned above (code shown below) and retained access to both keys and values and in my case the ordering was on the values, but the importance was the ordering of the keys after ordering the values.

from collections import Counter

x = {'hello':1, 'python':5, 'world':3}
c=Counter(x)
print c.most_common()


>> [('python', 5), ('world', 3), ('hello', 1)]
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
Eamonn Kenny
  • 1,281
  • 11
  • 14
1

Beside using builtin module etc, i try solve it manually..... first i made a function whose job is to returning minimal value each items of the dict :

def returnminDict(_dct):
    dict_items = _dct.items()
    list_items = list(dict_items)
    init_items = list_items[0]
    for i in range(len(list_items)):
        if list_items[i][1] > init_items[1]:
           continue
        else:
           init_items = list_items[i]
    return init_items

Second, now we have a function which return item that has minimal value, then i make a new dict then loop over the dict :

def SelectDictSort(_dct):
    new_dict = {}
    while _dct:
        mindict = returnminDict(_dct)
        new_dict.update(dict((mindict,)))
        _dct.pop(mindict[0])
    return new_dict

i try this SelectDictSort({2: 5, 5: 1, 4: 3, 1: 1, 0: 1, 9: 2, 8: 2}) will return :

{0: 1, 1: 1, 5: 1, 8: 2, 9: 2, 4: 3, 2: 5}

Hmmm... i dont know which is correct but this what i have tried....

(updated code from retrun new_dct to return new_dict)

Wira Bhakti
  • 354
  • 2
  • 12
0

Using Python 3.2:

x = {"b":4, "a":3, "c":1}
for i in sorted(x.values()):
    print(list(x.keys())[list(x.values()).index(i)])
Peter Mortensen
  • 28,342
  • 21
  • 95
  • 123
raton
  • 370
  • 3
  • 13
-1

This method will not use lambda and works well on Python 3.6:

 # sort dictionary by value
d = {'a1': 'fsdfds', 'g5': 'aa3432ff', 'ca':'zz23432'}
def getkeybyvalue(d,i):
    for k, v in d.items():
        if v == i:
            return (k)

sortvaluelist = sorted(d.values())

# In >> Python 3.6+ << the INSERTION-ORDER of a dict is preserved. That is,
# when creating a NEW dictionary and filling it 'in sorted order',
# that order will be maintained.
sortresult ={}
for i1 in sortvaluelist:   
    key = getkeybyvalue(d,i1)
    sortresult[key] = i1
print ('=====sort by value=====')
print (sortresult)
print ('=======================')
user2864740
  • 54,112
  • 10
  • 112
  • 187
xiyurui
  • 171
  • 1
  • 4
  • 3
    **From review queue:** May I request you to please add some context around your source-code. Code-only answers are difficult to understand. It will help the asker and future readers both if you can add more information in your post. – HDJEMAI May 24 '17 at 03:37
  • 1
    this is a very inefficient solution, with linear search and all – Jean-François Fabre May 17 '19 at 19:20