I've created a 4 level b-tree thing with each leaf being a Pandas Series and each level is a Series with 2 values based on True or False. Each level's Series is named according to the level. The result is a not very useful object, but convenient to create.
The code below shows how to create a similar (but simpler) object, that has the same essential properties.
What I really want is a MultiIndex dataframe, where each level of index inherits its name from the same name of that level Series.
import random
import pandas as pd
def sertree(names):
if len(names) <= 1:
ga = pd.Series([random.randint(0,100) for x in range(5)], name='last')
gb = pd.Series([random.randint(0,100) for x in range(5)], name='last')
return pd.Series([ga,gb], index=[True,False], name=names[0])
else:
xa = sertree(names[1:])
xb = sertree(names[1:])
return pd.Series([xa,xb], index=[True,False], name=names[0])
pp = sertree(['top', 'next', 'end'])
n=4
while True:
print(f"{'':>{n}s}{pp.name}")
n+=4
if len(pp) > 2 : break
pp = pp[True]
top
next
end
last
What I want is something like this...
top=[True,False]
nxt=[True,False]
end=[True,False]
last=range(5)
midx = pd.MultiIndex.from_product([top,nxt,end,last],names=['top','next','end','last']) ;
midf = pd.DataFrame([random.randint(0,100) for x in range(len(midx))], index=midx, columns=['name'])
In [593]: midf.head(12)
Out[593]:
name
top next end last
True True True 0 99
1 74
2 16
3 61
4 3
False 0 44
1 46
2 59
3 14
4 82
False True 0 98
1 93
Any ideas how to transform my 'pp' abomination into a nice DataFrame multi-index in a nice Pandas method that I'm lost to understand. Essential is to maintain the Series name as the Multi-index name at each level.
I have a dataframe like as shown below
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from numpy.random import default_rng
rng = default_rng(100)
cdf = pd.DataFrame({'Id':[1,2,3,4,5],
'grade': rng.choice(list('ACD'),size=(5)),
'dash': rng.choice(list('PQRS'),size=(5)),
'dumeel': rng.choice(list('QWER'),size=(5)),
'dumma': rng.choice((1234),size=(5)),
'target': rng.choice([0,1],size=(5))
})
My objective is to compute the drill down info for each column
Let me explain by an example.
If we filter the dataframe by df[df['grade']=='A'], we get 2 records as result. let's consider the filtered column grade as parent_variable. Out of those 2 records returned as result, how much dumeel column (child_variable) values and dash column (child_variable) values account for target column values (which is 0 and 1). All categorical/object columns other than parent variable are called child variables.
We have to repeat the above exaple procedure for all the categorical/object variables in our dataset
As a first step, I made use of the below from a SO post
funcs = {
'cnt of records': 'count',
'target met': lambda x: sum(x),
'target met %': lambda x: f"{round(100 * sum(x) / len(x), 2):.2f}%"
}
out = df.select_dtypes('object').melt(ignore_index=False).join(df['target']) \
.groupby(['variable', 'value'])['target'].agg(**funcs).reset_index()
out.rename(columns={'variable': 'parent_variable','value': 'parent_value'}, inplace=True)
But the above, gets me only the % and count of target based on all parent variable. I would like to get the breakdown by child variables as well (for each parent variable)
%_contrib is obtained by computing the % of that record to the target value. ex: for dash=P, we have one grade values A (for target = 1). So, it has to be 100%. Hope this helps.
I expect my output to be like as shown below. I have shown sample only for couple of columns under parent_variable. But in my real data, there will be more than 20 categorical variables. So, any efficient approach is welcome and useful
As you are using a random function to generate the DataFrame it is hard for me to reproduce your example, but I think you are looking for value_counts -
This is the DataFrame I generated with your code -
grade dash dumeel dumma target
0 D P W 50 1
1 D S R 595 0
2 C P E 495 1
3 A Q Q 690 0
4 B P W 653 1
5 D R E 554 0
6 C P Q 392 1
7 D Q Q 186 0
8 B Q E 1228 1
9 C P E 14 0
When I do a value_counts() on the two columns -
df[(df['dash']=='P') & (df['target'] == 1)]['dumeel'].value_counts(normalize=True)
W 0.50
Q 0.25
E 0.25
Name: dumeel, dtype: float64
df[(df['dash']=='P') & (df['target'] == 1)]['grade'].value_counts(normalize=True)
C 0.50
D 0.25
B 0.25
Name: grade, dtype: float64
If you want to loop over all the child_columns - you can do
excl_cols = ['dash', 'target']
child_cols = [col for col in df.columns if col not in excl_cols]
for col in child_cols:
print(df[(df['dash']=='P') & (df['target'] == 1)][col].value_counts(normalize=True))
If you want to loop over all the columns - then you can use:
loop_columns = set(df.columns) - {'target'}
for parent_col in loop_columns:
print(f'Parent column is {parent_col}\n')
parent_vals = df[parent_col].unique()
child_cols = loop_columns - {parent_col}
for parent_val in parent_vals:
for child_col in child_cols:
print(df[(df[parent_col]==parent_val) & (df['target'] == 1)][child_col].value_counts(normalize=True))
def fuzzy_clean(i, dfr, merge_list, key):
for col in range(0,len(merge_list)):
if col == 0:
scaled_down = dfr[dfr[merge_list[col]]==i[merge_list[col]]]
else:
scaled_down = scaled_down[scaled_down[merge_list[col]]==i[merge_list[col]]]
if len(scaled_down)>0:
if i[key] in scaled_down[key].values.tolist():
return i[key]
else:
return pd.to_datetime(scaled_down[key][min(abs([scaled_down[key]-i[key]])).index].values[0])
else:
return i[key]
df[key]=df.apply(lambda i: fuzzy_clean(i,dfr,merge_list,key), axis=1)
I'm trying to eventually merge together two dataframes, dfr and df. The issue I have is that I need to merge on about 9 columns, one of which being a timestamp that doesn't quite match up between the two dataframes where sometimes it is slightly lagging, sometimes leading. I wrote a function that works when using the following; however, in practice it is just too slow running through hundreds of thousands of rows.
merge_list is a list of columns that each dataframe share that match up 100%
key is a string of a column, 'timestamp', that each share, which is what doesn't match up too well
Any suggestions in speeding this up would be greatly appreciated!
The data looks like the following:
df:
timestamp A B C
0 100 x y z
1 101 y i u
2 102 r a e
3 103 q w e
dfr:
timestamp A B C
0 100.01 x y z
1 100.99 y i u
2 101.05 y i u
3 102 r a e
4 103.01 q w e
5 103.20 q w e
I want df to look like the following:
timestamp A B C
0 100.01 x y z
1 100.99 y i u
2 102 r a e
3 103.01 q w e
Adding the final merge for reference:
def fuzzy_merge(df_left, df_right, on, key, how='outer'):
df_right[key]=df_right.apply(lambda i: fuzzy_clean(i,df_left,on,key), axis=1)
return pd.merge(df_left, df_right, on=on+[key], how=how, indicator=True).sort_values(key)
I've found a solution that I believe works. Pandas has a merge_asof that follows, still verifying possible double counting but seemed to do a decent job.
pd.merge_asof(left_df, right_df, on='timestamp', by=merge_list, direction='nearest')
I have a dataframe, something like:
foo bar qux
0 a 1 3.14
1 b 3 2.72
2 c 2 1.62
3 d 9 1.41
4 e 3 0.58
and I would like to add a 'total' row to the end of dataframe:
foo bar qux
0 a 1 3.14
1 b 3 2.72
2 c 2 1.62
3 d 9 1.41
4 e 3 0.58
5 total 18 9.47
I've tried to use the sum command but I end up with a Series, which although I can convert back to a Dataframe, doesn't maintain the data types:
tot_row = pd.DataFrame(df.sum()).T
tot_row['foo'] = 'tot'
tot_row.dtypes:
foo object
bar object
qux object
I would like to maintain the data types from the original data frame as I need to apply other operations to the total row, something like:
baz = 2*tot_row['qux'] + 3*tot_row['bar']
Update June 2022
pd.append is now deprecated. You could use pd.concat instead but it's probably easier to use df.loc['Total'] = df.sum(numeric_only=True), as Kevin Zhu commented. Or, better still, don't modify the data frame in place and keep your data separate from your summary statistics!
Append a totals row with
df.append(df.sum(numeric_only=True), ignore_index=True)
The conversion is necessary only if you have a column of strings or objects.
It's a bit of a fragile solution so I'd recommend sticking to operations on the dataframe, though. eg.
baz = 2*df['qux'].sum() + 3*df['bar'].sum()
df.loc["Total"] = df.sum()
works for me and I find it easier to remember. Am I missing something?
Probably wasn't possible in earlier versions.
I'd actually like to add the total row only temporarily though.
Adding it permanently is good for display but makes it a hassle in further calculations.
Just found
df.append(df.sum().rename('Total'))
This prints what I want in a Jupyter notebook and appears to leave the df itself untouched.
New Method
To get both row and column total:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame({'a': [10,20],'b':[100,200],'c': ['a','b']})
df.loc['Column_Total']= df.sum(numeric_only=True, axis=0)
df.loc[:,'Row_Total'] = df.sum(numeric_only=True, axis=1)
print(df)
a b c Row_Total
0 10.0 100.0 a 110.0
1 20.0 200.0 b 220.0
Column_Total 30.0 300.0 NaN 330.0
Use DataFrame.pivot_table with margins=True:
import pandas as pd
data = [('a',1,3.14),('b',3,2.72),('c',2,1.62),('d',9,1.41),('e',3,.58)]
df = pd.DataFrame(data, columns=('foo', 'bar', 'qux'))
Original df:
foo bar qux
0 a 1 3.14
1 b 3 2.72
2 c 2 1.62
3 d 9 1.41
4 e 3 0.58
Since pivot_table requires some sort of grouping (without the index argument, it'll raise a ValueError: No group keys passed!), and your original index is vacuous, we'll use the foo column:
df.pivot_table(index='foo',
margins=True,
margins_name='total', # defaults to 'All'
aggfunc=sum)
Voilà!
bar qux
foo
a 1 3.14
b 3 2.72
c 2 1.62
d 9 1.41
e 3 0.58
total 18 9.47
Alternative way (verified on Pandas 0.18.1):
import numpy as np
total = df.apply(np.sum)
total['foo'] = 'tot'
df.append(pd.DataFrame(total.values, index=total.keys()).T, ignore_index=True)
Result:
foo bar qux
0 a 1 3.14
1 b 3 2.72
2 c 2 1.62
3 d 9 1.41
4 e 3 0.58
5 tot 18 9.47
Building on JMZ answer
df.append(df.sum(numeric_only=True), ignore_index=True)
if you want to continue using your current index you can name the sum series using .rename() as follows:
df.append(df.sum().rename('Total'))
This will add a row at the bottom of the table.
This is the way that I do it, by transposing and using the assign method in combination with a lambda function. It makes it simple for me.
df.T.assign(GrandTotal = lambda x: x.sum(axis=1)).T
Building on answer from Matthias Kauer.
To add row total:
df.loc["Row_Total"] = df.sum()
To add column total,
df.loc[:,"Column_Total"] = df.sum(axis=1)
New method [September 2022]
TL;DR:
Just use
df.style.concat(df.agg(['sum']).style)
for a solution that won't change you dataframe, works even if you have an "sum" in your index, and can be styled!
Explanation
In pandas 1.5.0, a new method named .style.concat() gives you the ability to display several dataframes together. This is a good way to show the total (or any other statistics), because it is not changing the original dataframe, and works even if you have an index named "sum" in your original dataframe.
For example:
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame([[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]], columns=['A', 'B', 'C'])
df.style.concat(df.agg(['sum']).style)
and it will return a formatted table that is visible in jupyter as this:
Styling
with a little longer code, you can even make the last row look different:
df.style.concat(
df.agg(['sum']).style
.set_properties(**{'background-color': 'yellow'})
)
to get:
see other ways to style (such as bold font, or table lines) in the docs
Following helped for me to add a column total and row total to a dataframe.
Assume dft1 is your original dataframe... now add a column total and row total with the following steps.
from io import StringIO
import pandas as pd
#create dataframe string
dfstr = StringIO(u"""
a;b;c
1;1;1
2;2;2
3;3;3
4;4;4
5;5;5
""")
#create dataframe dft1 from string
dft1 = pd.read_csv(dfstr, sep=";")
## add a column total to dft1
dft1['Total'] = dft1.sum(axis=1)
## add a row total to dft1 with the following steps
sum_row = dft1.sum(axis=0) #get sum_row first
dft1_sum=pd.DataFrame(data=sum_row).T #change it to a dataframe
dft1_sum=dft1_sum.reindex(columns=dft1.columns) #line up the col index to dft1
dft1_sum.index = ['row_total'] #change row index to row_total
dft1.append(dft1_sum) # append the row to dft1
Actually all proposed solutions render the original DataFrame unusable for any further analysis and can invalidate following computations, which will be easy to overlook and could lead to false results.
This is because you add a row to the data, which Pandas cannot differentiate from an additional row of data.
Example:
import pandas as pd
data = [1, 5, 6, 8, 9]
df = pd.DataFrame(data)
df
df.describe()
yields
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
3
8
4
9
0
count
5
mean
5.8
std
3.11448
min
1
25%
5
50%
6
75%
8
max
9
After
df.loc['Totals']= df.sum(numeric_only=True, axis=0)
the dataframe looks like this
0
0
1
1
5
2
6
3
8
4
9
Totals
29
This looks nice, but the new row is treated as if it was an additional data item, so df.describe will produce false results:
0
count
6
mean
9.66667
std
9.87252
min
1
25%
5.25
50%
7
75%
8.75
max
29
So: Watch out! and apply this only after doing all other analyses of the data or work on a copy of the DataFrame!
When the "totals" need to be added to an index column:
totals = pd.DataFrame(df.sum(numeric_only=True)).transpose().set_index(pd.Index({"totals"}))
df.append(totals)
e.g.
(Pdb) df
count min bytes max bytes mean bytes std bytes sum bytes
row_0 837200 67412.0 368733992.0 2.518989e+07 5.122836e+07 2.108898e+13
row_1 299000 85380.0 692782132.0 2.845055e+08 2.026823e+08 8.506713e+13
row_2 837200 67412.0 379484173.0 8.706825e+07 1.071484e+08 7.289354e+13
row_3 239200 85392.0 328063972.0 9.870446e+07 1.016989e+08 2.361011e+13
row_4 59800 67292.0 383487021.0 1.841879e+08 1.567605e+08 1.101444e+13
row_5 717600 112309.0 379483824.0 9.687554e+07 1.103574e+08 6.951789e+13
row_6 119600 664144.0 358486985.0 1.611637e+08 1.171889e+08 1.927518e+13
row_7 478400 67300.0 593141462.0 2.824301e+08 1.446283e+08 1.351146e+14
row_8 358800 215002028.0 327493141.0 2.861329e+08 1.545693e+07 1.026645e+14
row_9 358800 202248016.0 321657935.0 2.684668e+08 1.865470e+07 9.632590e+13
(Pdb) totals = pd.DataFrame(df.sum(numeric_only=True)).transpose()
(Pdb) totals
count min bytes max bytes mean bytes std bytes sum bytes
0 4305600.0 418466685.0 4.132815e+09 1.774725e+09 1.025805e+09 6.365722e+14
(Pdb) totals = pd.DataFrame(df.sum(numeric_only=True)).transpose().set_index(pd.Index({"totals"}))
(Pdb) totals
count min bytes max bytes mean bytes std bytes sum bytes
totals 4305600.0 418466685.0 4.132815e+09 1.774725e+09 1.025805e+09 6.365722e+14
(Pdb) df.append(totals)
count min bytes max bytes mean bytes std bytes sum bytes
row_0 837200.0 67412.0 3.687340e+08 2.518989e+07 5.122836e+07 2.108898e+13
row_1 299000.0 85380.0 6.927821e+08 2.845055e+08 2.026823e+08 8.506713e+13
row_2 837200.0 67412.0 3.794842e+08 8.706825e+07 1.071484e+08 7.289354e+13
row_3 239200.0 85392.0 3.280640e+08 9.870446e+07 1.016989e+08 2.361011e+13
row_4 59800.0 67292.0 3.834870e+08 1.841879e+08 1.567605e+08 1.101444e+13
row_5 717600.0 112309.0 3.794838e+08 9.687554e+07 1.103574e+08 6.951789e+13
row_6 119600.0 664144.0 3.584870e+08 1.611637e+08 1.171889e+08 1.927518e+13
row_7 478400.0 67300.0 5.931415e+08 2.824301e+08 1.446283e+08 1.351146e+14
row_8 358800.0 215002028.0 3.274931e+08 2.861329e+08 1.545693e+07 1.026645e+14
row_9 358800.0 202248016.0 3.216579e+08 2.684668e+08 1.865470e+07 9.632590e+13
totals 4305600.0 418466685.0 4.132815e+09 1.774725e+09 1.025805e+09 6.365722e+14
Since i generally want to do this at the very end as to avoid breaking the integrity of the dataframe (right before printing). I created a summary_rows_cols method which returns a printable dataframe:
def summary_rows_cols(df: pd.DataFrame,
column_sum: bool = False,
column_avg: bool = False,
column_median: bool = False,
row_sum: bool = False,
row_avg: bool = False,
row_median: bool = False
) -> pd.DataFrame:
ret = df.copy()
if column_sum: ret.loc['Sum'] = df.sum(numeric_only=True, axis=0)
if column_avg: ret.loc['Avg'] = df.mean(numeric_only=True, axis=0)
if column_median: ret.loc['Median'] = df.median(numeric_only=True, axis=0)
if row_sum: ret.loc[:, 'Sum'] = df.sum(numeric_only=True, axis=1)
if row_median: ret.loc[:, 'Avg'] = df.mean(numeric_only=True, axis=1)
if row_avg: ret.loc[:, 'Median'] = df.median(numeric_only=True, axis=1)
ret.fillna('-', inplace=True)
return ret
This allows me to enter a generic (numeric) df and get a summarized output such as:
a b c Sum Median
0 1 4 7 12 4
1 2 5 8 15 5
2 3 6 9 18 6
Sum 6 15 24 - -
from:
data = {
'a': [1, 2, 3],
'b': [4, 5, 6],
'c': [7, 8, 9]
}
df = pd.DataFrame(data)
printable = summary_rows_cols(df, row_sum=True, column_sum=True, row_median=True)
df = pd.DataFrame({'A':[11,11,22,22],'mask':[0,0,0,1],'values':np.arange(10,30,5)})
df
A mask values
0 11 0 10
1 11 0 15
2 22 0 20
3 22 1 25
Now how can I group by A, and keep the column names in tact, and yet put a custom function into Z:
def calculate_df_stats(dfs):
mask_ = list(dfs['B'])
mean = np.ma.array(list(dfs['values']), mask=mask_).mean()
return mean
df['Z'] = df.groupby('A').agg(calculate_df_stats) # does not work
and generate:
A mask values Z
0 11 0 10 12.5
1 22 0 20 25
Whatever I do it only replaces values column with the masked mean.
and can your solution be applied for a function on two columns and return in a new column?
Thanks!
Edit:
To clarify more: let's say I have such a table in Mysql:
SELECT * FROM `Reader_datapoint` WHERE `wavelength` = '560'
LIMIT 200;
which gives me such result:
http://pastebin.com/qXiaWcJq
If I run now this:
SELECT *, avg(action_value) FROM `Reader_datapoint` WHERE `wavelength` = '560'
group by `reader_plate_ID`;
I get:
datapoint_ID plate_ID coordinate_x coordinate_y res_value wavelength ignore avg(action_value)
193 1 0 0 2.1783 560 NULL 2.090027083333334
481 2 0 0 1.7544 560 NULL 1.4695583333333333
769 3 0 0 2.0161 560 NULL 1.6637885416666673
How can I replicate this behaviour in Pandas? note that all the column names stay the same, the first value is taken, and the new column is added.
If you want the original columns in your result, you can first calculate the grouped and aggregated dataframe (but you will have to aggregate in some way your original columns. I took the first occuring as an example):
>>> df = pd.DataFrame({'A':[11,11,22,22],'mask':[0,0,0,1],'values':np.arange(10,30,5)})
>>>
>>> grouped = df.groupby("A")
>>>
>>> result = grouped.agg('first')
>>> result
mask values
A
11 0 10
22 0 20
and then add a column 'Z' to that result by applying your function on the groupby result 'grouped':
>>> def calculate_df_stats(dfs):
... mask_ = list(dfs['mask'])
... mean = np.ma.array(list(dfs['values']), mask=mask_).mean()
... return mean
...
>>> result['Z'] = grouped.apply(calculate_df_stats)
>>>
>>> result
mask values Z
A
11 0 10 12.5
22 0 20 20.0
In your function definition you can always use more columns (just by their name) to return the result.