Develop Reference

Efficiently reading few lines from a very large binary file

Here is a simple example to illustrate my problem:
I have a large binary file with 10 million values.
I want to get 5K values from certain points in this file.
I have a list of indexes giving me the exact place in the file I have my value in.
To solve this I tried two methods:
Going through the values and simply using seek() (from the start of the file) to get each value, something like this:
binaryFile_new = open(binary_folder_path, "r+b")
for index in index_list:
binaryFile_new.seek (size * (index), 0)
wanted_line = binaryFile_new.read (size)
wanted_line_list.append(wanted_line)
binaryFile_new.close()
But as I understand this solution reads through from the beginning for each index, therefore the complexity is O(N**2) in terms of file size.
Sorting the indexes so I could go through the file "once" while seeking from the current position with something like that:
binaryFile_new = open(binary_folder_path, "r+b")
sorted_index_list = sorted(index_list)
for i, index in enumerate(sorted_index_list):
if i == 0:
binaryFile_new.seek (size * (v), 0)
else:
binaryFile_new.seek ((index - sorted_index_list[i-1]) * size - size, 1)
binaryFile_new.seek (size * (index), 0)
wanted_line = binaryFile_new.read (size)
wanted_line_list.append(wanted_line)
binaryFile_new.close()
I expected the second solution to be much faster because in theory it would go through the whole file once O(N).
But for some reason both solutions run the same.
I also have a hard constraint on memory usage, as I run this operation in parallel and on many files, so I can't read files into memory.
Maybe the mmap package will help? Though, I think mmap also scans the entire file until it gets to the index so it's not "true" random access.

I'd go with #1:
for index in index_list:
binary_file.seek(size * index)
# ...
(I cleaned up your code a bit to comply with Python naming conventions and to avoid using a magic 0 constant, as SEEK_SET is default anyway.)
as I understand this solution reads through from the beginning for each index, therefore the complexity is O(N**2) in terms of file size.
No, a seek() does not "read through from the beginning", that would defeat the point of seeking. Seeking to the beginning of file and to the end of file have roughly the same cost.
Sorting the indexes so I could go through the file "once" while seeking from the current position
I can't quickly find a reference for this, but I believe there's absolutely no point in calculating the relative offset in order to use SEEK_CUR instead of SEEK_SET.
There might be a small improvement just from seeking to the positions you need in order instead of randomly, as there's an increased chance your random reads will be serviced from cache, in case many of the points you need to read happen to be close to each other (and so your read patterns trigger read-ahead in the file system).
Maybe the mmap package will help? Though, I think mmap also scans the entire file until it gets to the index so it's not "true" random access.
mmap doesn't scan the file. It sets up a region in your program's virtual memory to correspond to the file, so that accessing any page from this region the first time leads to a page fault, during which the OS reads that page (several KB) from the file (assuming it's not in the page cache) before letting your program proceed.
The internet is full of discussions of relative merits of read vs mmap, but I recommend you don't bother with trying to optimize by using mmap and use this time to learn about the virtual memory and the page cache.
[edit] reading in chunks larger than the size of your values might save you a bit of CPU time in case many of the values you need to read are in the same chunk (which is not a given) - but unless your program is CPU bound in production, I wouldn't bother with that either.

Python hangs silently on large file write

I am trying to write a big list of numpy nd_arrays to disk.
The list is ~50000 elements long
Each element is a nd_array of size (~2048,2) of ints. The arrays have different shapes.
The method I am (curently) using is
#staticmethod
def _write_with_yaml(path, obj):
with io.open(path, 'w+', encoding='utf8') as outfile:
yaml.dump(obj, outfile, default_flow_style=False, allow_unicode=True)
I have also tried pickle which also give the same problem:
On small lists (~3400 long), this works fine, finishes fast enough (<30 sec).
On ~6000 long lists, this finishes after ~2 minutes.
When the list gets larger, the process seems not to do anything. No change in RAM or disk activity.
I stopped waiting after 30 minutes.
After force stopping the process, the file suddenly became of significant size (~600MB).
I can't know if it finished writing or not.
What is the correct way to write such large lists, know if he write succeeded, and, if possible, knowing when the write/read is going to finish?
How can I debug what's happening when the process seems to hang?
I prefer not to break and assemble the lists manually in my code, I expect the serialization libraries to be able to do that for me.

For the code
import numpy as np
import yaml
x = []
for i in range(0,50000):
x.append(np.random.rand(2048,2))
print("Arrays generated")
with open("t.yaml", 'w+', encoding='utf8') as outfile:
yaml.dump(x, outfile, default_flow_style=False, allow_unicode=True)
on my system (MacOSX, i7, 16 GiB RAM, SSD) with Python 3.7 and PyYAML 3.13 the finish time is 61min. During the save the python process occupied around 5 GBytes of memory and final file size is 2 GBytes. This also shows the overhead of the file format: as the size of the data is 50k * 2048 * 2 * 8 (the size of a float is generally 64 bits in python) = 1562 MBytes, means yaml is around 1.3 times worse (and serialisation/deserialisation is also taking time).
To answer your questions:
There is no correct or incorrect way. To have a progress update and
estimation of finishing time is not easy (ex: other tasks might
interfere with the estimation, resources like memory could be used
up, etc.). You can rely on a library that supports that or implement
something yourself (as the other answer suggested)
Not sure "debug" is the correct term, as in practice it might be that the process just slow. Doing a performance analysis is not easy, especially if
using multiple/different libraries. What I would start with is clear
requirements: what do you want from the file saved? Do they need to
be yaml? Saving 50k arrays as yaml does not seem the best solution
if you care about performance. Should you ask yourself first "which is the best format for what I want?" (but you did not give details so can't say...)
Edit: if you want something just fast, use pickle. The code:
import numpy as np
import yaml
import pickle
x = []
for i in range(0,50000):
x.append(np.random.rand(2048,2))
print("Arrays generated")
pickle.dump( x, open( "t.yaml", "wb" ) )
finishes in 9 seconds, and generates a file of 1.5GBytes (no overhead). Of course pickle format should be used in very different circumstances than yaml...

I cant say this is the answer, but it may be it.
When I was working on app that required fast cycles, I found out that something in the code is very slow. It was opening / closing yaml files.
It was solved by using JSON.
Dont use YAML for anything else than as some kind of config you dont open often.
Solution to your array saving:
np.save(path,array) # path = path+name+'.npy'
If you really need to save a list of arrays, I recommend you to save list with array paths(array themselfs you will save on disk with np.save). Saving python objects on disk is not really what you want. What you want is to save numpy arrays with np.save
Complete solution(Saving example):
for array_index in range(len(list_of_arrays)):
np.save(array_index+'.npy',list_of_arrays[array_index])
# path = array_index+'.npy'
Complete solution(Loading example):
list_of_array_paths = ['1.npy','2.npy']
list_of_arrays = []
for array_path in list_of_array_paths:
list_of_arrays.append(np.load(array_path))
Further advice:
Python cant really handle large arrays. Moreover if you have loaded several of them in the list. From the point of speed and memory, always work with one,two arrays at a time. The rest must be waiting on the disk. So instead of object reference, have reference as a path and when needed, load it from disk.
Also, you said you dont want to assemble the list manually.
Possible solution, which I dont advice, but is possibly exactly what you are looking for
>>> a = np.zeros(shape = [10,5,3])
>>> b = np.zeros(shape = [7,7,9])
>>> c = [a,b]
>>> np.save('data.npy',c)
>>> d = np.load('data.npy')
>>> d.shape
(2,)
>>> type(d)
<type 'numpy.ndarray'>
>>> d.shape
(2,)
>>> d[0].shape
(10, 5, 3)
>>>
I believe I dont need to comment above mentioned code. However, after loading back, you will lose list as the list will be transformed into numpy array.

MPI in Python: load data from a file by line concurrently

I'm new to python as well as MPI.
I have a huge data file, 10Gb, and I want to load it into, i.e., a list or whatever more efficient, please suggest.
Here is the way I load the file content into a list
def load(source, size):
data = [[] for _ in range(size)]
ln = 0
with open(source, 'r') as input:
for line in input:
ln += 1
data[ln%size].sanitize(line)
return data
Note:
source: is file name
size: is the number of concurrent process, I divide data into [size] of sublist.
for parallel computing using MPI in python.
Please advise how to load data more efficient and faster. I'm searching for days but I couldn't get any results matches my purpose and if there exists, please comment with a link here.
Regards

If I have understood the question, your bottleneck is not Python data structures. It is the I/O speed that limits the efficiency of your program.
If the file is written in continues blocks in the H.D.D then I don't know a way to read it faster than reading the file starting form the first bytes to the end.
But if the file is fragmented, create multiple threads each reading a part of the file. The must slow down the process of reading but modern HDDs implement a technique named NCQ (Native Command Queueing). It works by giving high priority to the read operation on sectors with addresses near the current position of the HDD head. Hence improving the overall speed of read operation using multiple threads.
To mention an efficient data structure in Python for your program, you need to mention what operations will you perform to the data? (delete, add, insert, search, append and so on) and how often?
By the way, if you use commodity hardware, 10GBs of RAM is expensive. Try reducing the need for this amount of RAM by loading the necessary data for computation then replacing the results with new data for the next operation. You can overlap the computation with the I/O operations to improve performance.

(original) Solution using pickling
The strategy for your task can go this way:
split the large file to smaller ones, make sure they are divided on line boundaries
have Python code, which can convert smaller files into resulting list of records and save them as
pickled file
run the python code for all the smaller files in parallel (using Python or other means)
run integrating code, taking pickled files one by one, loading the list from it and appending it
to final result.
To gain anything, you have to be careful as overhead can overcome all possible gains from parallel
runs:
as Python uses Global Interpreter Lock (GIL), do not use threads for parallel processing, use
processes. As processes cannot simply pass data around, you have to pickle them and let the other
(final integrating) part to read the result from it.
try to minimize number of loops. For this reason it is better to:
do not split the large file to too many smaller parts. To use power of your cores, best fit
the number of parts to number of cores (or possibly twice as much, but getting higher will
spend too much time on swithing between processes).
pickling allows saving particular items, but better create list of items (records) and pickle
the list as one item. Pickling one list of 1000 items will be faster than 1000 times pickling
small items one by one.
some tasks (spliting the file, calling the conversion task in parallel) can be often done faster
by existing tools in the system. If you have this option, use that.
In my small test, I have created a file with 100 thousands lines with content "98-BBBBBBBBBBBBBB",
"99-BBBBBBBBBBB" etc. and tested converting it to list of numbers [...., 98, 99, ...].
For spliting I used Linux command split, asking to create 4 parts preserving line borders:
$ split -n l/4 long.txt
This created smaller files xaa, xab, xac, xad.
To convert each smaller file I used following script, converting the content into file with
extension .pickle and containing pickled list.
# chunk2pickle.py
import pickle
import sys
def process_line(line):
return int(line.split("-", 1)[0])
def main(fname, pick_fname):
with open(pick_fname, "wb") as fo:
with open(fname) as f:
pickle.dump([process_line(line) for line in f], fo)
if __name__ == "__main__":
fname = sys.argv[1]
pick_fname = fname + ".pickled"
main(fname, pick_fname)
To convert one chunk of lines into pickled list of records:
$ python chunk2pickle xaa
and it creates the file xaa.pickled.
But as we need to do this in parallel, I used parallel tool (which has to be installed into
system):
$ parallel -j 4 python chunk2pickle.py {} ::: xaa xab xac xad
and I found new files with extension .pickled on the disk.
-j 4 asks to run 4 processes in parallel, adjust it to your system or leave it out and it will
default to number of cores you have.
parallel can also get list of parameters (input file names in our case) by other means like ls
command:
$ ls x?? |parallel -j 4 python chunk2pickle.py {}
To integrate the results, use script integrate.py:
# integrate.py
import pickle
def main(file_names):
res = []
for fname in file_names:
with open(fname, "rb") as f:
res.extend(pickle.load(f))
return res
if __name__ == "__main__":
file_names = ["xaa.pickled", "xab.pickled", "xac.pickled", "xad.pickled"]
# here you have the list of records you asked for
records = main(file_names)
print records
In my answer I have used couple of external tools (split and parallel). You may do similar task
with Python too. My answer is focusing only on providing you an option to keep Python code for
converting lines to required data structures. Complete pure Python answer is not covered here (it
would get much longer and probably slower.
Solution using process Pool (no explicit pickling needed)
Following solution uses multiprocessing from Python. In this case there is no need to pickle results
explicitly (I am not sure, if it is done by the library automatically, or it is not necessary and
data are passed using other means).
# direct_integrate.py
from multiprocessing import Pool
def process_line(line):
return int(line.split("-", 1)[0])
def process_chunkfile(fname):
with open(fname) as f:
return [process_line(line) for line in f]
def main(file_names, cores=4):
p = Pool(cores)
return p.map(process_chunkfile, file_names)
if __name__ == "__main__":
file_names = ["xaa", "xab", "xac", "xad"]
# here you have the list of records you asked for
# warning: records are in groups.
record_groups = main(file_names)
for rec_group in record_groups:
print(rec_group)
This updated solution still assumes, the large file is available in form of four smaller files.

Performance issue with reading integers from a binary file at specific locations

I have a file with integers stored as binary and I'm trying to extract values at specific locations. It's one big serialized integer array for which I need values at specific indexes. I've created the following code but its terribly slow compared to the F# version I created before.
import os, struct
def read_values(filename, indices):
# indices are sorted and unique
values = []
with open(filename, 'rb') as f:
for index in indices:
f.seek(index*4L, os.SEEK_SET)
b = f.read(4)
v = struct.unpack("#i", b)[0]
values.append(v)
return values
For comparison here is the F# version:
open System
open System.IO
let readValue (reader:BinaryReader) cellIndex =
// set stream to correct location
reader.BaseStream.Position <- cellIndex*4L
match reader.ReadInt32() with
| Int32.MinValue -> None
| v -> Some(v)
let readValues fileName indices =
use reader = new BinaryReader(File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.Read))
// Use list or array to force creation of values (otherwise reader gets disposed before the values are read)
let values = List.map (readValue reader) (List.ofSeq indices)
values
Any tips on how to improve the performance of the python version, e.g. by usage of numpy ?
Update
Hdf5 works very good (from 5 seconds to 0.8 seconds on my test file):
import tables
def read_values_hdf5(filename, indices):
values = []
with tables.open_file(filename) as f:
dset = f.root.raster
return dset[indices]
Update 2
I went with the np.memmap because the performance is similar to hdf5 and I already have numpy in production.

Heavily depending on your index file size you might want to read it completely into a numpy array. If the file is not large, complete sequential read may be faster than a large number of seeks.
One problem with the seek operations is that python operates on buffered input. If the program was written in some lower level language, the use on unbuffered IO would be a good idea, as you only need a few values.
import numpy as np
# read the complete index into memory
index_array = np.fromfile("my_index", dtype=np.uint32)
# look up the indices you need (indices being a list of indices)
return index_array[indices]
If you would anyway read almost all pages (i.e. your indices are random and at a frequency of 1/1000 or more), this is probably faster. On the other hand, if you have a large index file, and you only want to pick a few indices, this is not so fast.
Then one more possibility - which might be the fastest - is to use the python mmap module. Then the file is memory-mapped, and only the pages really required are accessed.
It should be something like this:
import mmap
with open("my_index", "rb") as f:
memory_map = mmap.mmap(mmap.mmap(f.fileno(), 0)
for i in indices:
# the index at position i:
idx_value = struct.unpack('I', memory_map[4*i:4*i+4])
(Note, I did not actually test that one, so there may be typing errors. Also, I did not care about endianess, so please check it is correct.)
Happily, these can be combined by using numpy.memmap. It should keep your array on disk but give you numpyish indexing. It should be as easy as:
import numpy as np
index_arr = np.memmap(filename, dtype='uint32', mode='rb')
return index_arr[indices]
I think this should be the easiest and fastest alternative. However, if "fast" is important, please test and profile.
EDIT: As the mmap solution seems to gain some popularity, I'll add a few words about memory mapped files.
What is mmap?
Memory mapped files are not something uniquely pythonic, because memory mapping is something defined in the POSIX standard. Memory mapping is a way to use devices or files as if they were just areas in memory.
File memory mapping is a very efficient way to randomly access fixed-length data files. It uses the same technology as is used with virtual memory. The reads and writes are ordinary memory operations. If they point to a memory location which is not in the physical RAM memory ("page fault" occurs), the required file block (page) is read into memory.
The delay in random file access is mostly due to the physical rotation of the disks (SSD is another story). In average, the block you need is half a rotation away; for a typical HDD this delay is approximately 5 ms plus any data handling delay. The overhead introduced by using python instead of a compiled language is negligible compared to this delay.
If the file is read sequentially, the operating system usually uses a read-ahead cache to buffer the file before you even know you need it. For a randomly accessed big file this does not help at all. Memory mapping provides a very efficient way, because all blocks are loaded exactly when you need and remain in the cache for further use. (This could in principle happen with fseek, as well, because it might use the same technology behind the scenes. However, there is no guarantee, and there is anyway some overhead as the call wanders through the operating system.)
mmap can also be used to write files. It is very flexible in the sense that a single memory mapped file can be shared by several processes. This may be very useful and efficient in some situations, and mmap can also be used in inter-process communication. In that case usually no file is specified for mmap, instead the memory map is created with no file behind it.
mmap is not very well-known despite its usefulness and relative ease of use. It has, however, one important 'gotcha'. The file size has to remain constant. If it changes during mmap, odd things may happen.

Is the indices list sorted? i think you could get better performance if the list would be sorted, as you would make a lot less disk seeks

Python append to tarfile in parallel

import tarfile
from cStringIO import StringIO
from io import BytesIO as BIO
unique_keys = ['1:bigstringhere...:5'] * 5000
file_out = BytesIO()
tar = tarfile.open(mode='w:bz2', fileobj=file_out)
for k in unique_keys:
id, mydata, s_index= k.split(':')
inner_fname = '%s_%s.data' % (id, s_index)
info = tarfile.TarInfo(inner_fname)
info.size = len(mydata)
tar.addfile(info, StringIO(mydata))
tar.close()
I would like to do the above loop to add to the tarfile (tar) in parallel for faster execution.
Any ideas?

You cannot write multiple files to the same tarfile, at the same time. If you try to do so, the blocks will get intermingled, and it will be impossible to extract them.
You could do it by starting multiple threads, then each thread can open a tarfile, write to it, and close it.
I believe you can probably join tarfiles end-to-end. Normally, this would involve reading the tarfiles back at at the end, but since this is all in memory (and presumably, the size is small enough to allow that), this won't be so much of an issue.
If you take this approach, you don't want 5000 individual threads - 5000 threads will make the box stop responding (at least for a while), and the compression will be awful. Limit yourself to 1 thread per processor, and divide the work by the threads.
Also, your code, as written, will create a tar with 5000 files, all called 1_5.data, and with the contents "bigstringhere...". I'm assuming this is just an example. If not, create a tarfile with a single file, close it (to flush it), then duplicate the result 5000 times (e.g. if you then want to write it to disk, just write the entire BytesIO 5000 times).
I believe the most expensive part of this is the compression - you could use the external program 'pigz', which does gzip compression in parallel.