Develop Reference

Optimization of this python function

def split_trajectories(df):
trajectories_list = []
count = 0
for record in range(len(df)):
if record == 0:
continue
if df['time'].iloc[record] - df['time'].iloc[record - 1] > pd.Timedelta('0 days 00:00:30'):
temp_df = reset_index(df[count:record])
if not temp_df.empty:
if len(temp_df) > 50:
trajectories_list.append(temp_df)
count = record
return trajectories_list
This is a python function that receives a pandas dataframe and divides it into a list of dataframes when their time delta is greater than 30 seconds and if the dataframe contains than 50 records. In my case I need to execute this function thousands of times and I wonder if anyone can help me optimize it. Thanks in advance!
I tried to optimize it as far as I can.

You're doing a few things right here, like iterating using a range instead of .iterrows and using .iloc.
Simple things you can do:
Switch .iloc to .iat since you only need 'time' anyway
Don't recalculate Timedelta every time, just save it as a variable
The big thing is that you don't need to actually save each temp_df, or even create it. You can save a tuple (count, record) and retrieve from df afterwards, as needed. (Although, I have to admit I don't quite understand what you're accomplishing with the count:record logic; should one of your .iloc's involve count instead?)
def split_trajectories(df):
trajectories_list = []
td = pd.Timedelta('0 days 00:00:30')
count = 0
for record in range(1, len(df)):
if df['time'].iat[record] - df['time'].iat[record - 1] > td:
if record-count>50:
new_tuple = (count, record)
trajectories_list.append(new_tuple)
return trajectories_list

Maybe you can try this one below, you could use count if you want to keep track of number of df's or else the length of trajectories_list will give you that info.
def split_trajectories(df):
trajectories_list = []
df_difference = df['time'].diff()
if not (df_difference.empty) and (df_difference.shape[0]>50):
trajectories_list.append(df_difference)
return trajectories_list

How to optimize this pandas iterable

I have the following method in which I am eliminating overlapping intervals in a dataframe based on a set of hierarchical rules:
def disambiguate(arg):
arg['length'] = (arg.end - arg.begin).abs()
df = arg[['begin', 'end', 'note_id', 'score', 'length']].copy()
data = []
out = pd.DataFrame()
for row in df.itertuples():
test = df[df['note_id']==row.note_id].copy()
# get overlapping intervals:
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58192068/is-it-possible-to-use-pandas-overlap-in-a-dataframe
iix = pd.IntervalIndex.from_arrays(test.begin.apply(pd.to_numeric), test.end.apply(pd.to_numeric), closed='neither')
span_range = pd.Interval(row.begin, row.end)
fx = test[iix.overlaps(span_range)].copy()
maxLength = fx['length'].max()
minLength = fx['length'].min()
maxScore = abs(float(fx['score'].max()))
minScore = abs(float(fx['score'].min()))
# filter out overlapping rows via hierarchy
if maxScore > minScore:
fx = fx[fx['score'] == maxScore]
elif maxLength > minLength:
fx = fx[fx['length'] == minScore]
data.append(fx)
out = pd.concat(data, axis=0)
# randomly reindex to keep random row when dropping remaining duplicates: https://gist.github.com/cadrev/6b91985a1660f26c2742
out.reset_index(inplace=True)
out = out.reindex(np.random.permutation(out.index))
return out.drop_duplicates(subset=['begin', 'end', 'note_id'])
This works fine, except for the fact that the dataframes I am iterating over have well over 100K rows each, so this is taking forever to complete. I did a timing of various methods using %prun in Jupyter, and the method that seems to eat up processing time was series.py:3719(apply) ... NB: I tried using modin.pandas, but that was causing more problems (I kept getting an error wrt to Interval needing a value where left was less than right, which I couldn't figure out: I may file a GitHub issue there).
Am looking for a way to optimize this, such as using vectorization, but honestly, I don't have the slightest clue how to convert this to a vectotrized form.
Here is a sample of my data:
begin,end,note_id,score
0,9,0365,1
10,14,0365,1
25,37,0365,0.7
28,37,0365,1
38,42,0365,1
53,69,0365,0.7857142857142857
56,60,0365,1
56,69,0365,1
64,69,0365,1
83,86,0365,1
91,98,0365,0.8333333333333334
101,108,0365,1
101,127,0365,1
112,119,0365,1
112,127,0365,0.8571428571428571
120,127,0365,1
163,167,0365,1
196,203,0365,1
208,216,0365,1
208,223,0365,1
208,231,0365,1
208,240,0365,0.6896551724137931
217,223,0365,1
217,231,0365,1
224,231,0365,1
246,274,0365,0.7692307692307693
252,274,0365,1
263,274,0365,0.8888888888888888
296,316,0365,0.7222222222222222
301,307,0365,1
301,316,0365,1
301,330,0365,0.7307692307692307
301,336,0365,0.78125
308,316,0365,1
308,323,0365,1
308,330,0365,1
308,336,0365,1
317,323,0365,1
317,336,0365,1
324,330,0365,1
324,336,0365,1
361,418,0365,0.7368421052631579
370,404,0365,0.7111111111111111
370,418,0365,0.875
383,418,0365,0.8285714285714286
396,404,0365,1
396,418,0365,0.8095238095238095
405,418,0365,0.8333333333333334
432,453,0365,0.7647058823529411
438,453,0365,1
438,458,0365,0.7222222222222222

I think I know what the issue was: I did my filtering on note_id incorrectly, and thus iterating over the entire dataframe.
It should been:
cases = set(df['note_id'].tolist())
for case in cases:
test = df[df['note_id']==case].copy()
for row in df.itertuples():
# get overlapping intervals:
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58192068/is-it-possible-to-use-pandas-overlap-in-a-dataframe
iix = pd.IntervalIndex.from_arrays(test.begin, test.end, closed='neither')
span_range = pd.Interval(row.begin, row.end)
fx = test[iix.overlaps(span_range)].copy()
maxLength = fx['length'].max()
minLength = fx['length'].min()
maxScore = abs(float(fx['score'].max()))
minScore = abs(float(fx['score'].min()))
if maxScore > minScore:
fx = fx[fx['score'] == maxScore]
elif maxLength > minLength:
fx = fx[fx['length'] == maxLength]
data.append(fx)
out = pd.concat(data, axis=0)
For testing on one note, before I stopped iterating over the entire, non-filtered dataframe, it was taking over 16 minutes. Now, it's at 28 seconds!

Counting the repeated values in one column base on other column

Using Panda, I am dealing with the following CSV data type:
f,f,f,f,f,t,f,f,f,t,f,t,g,f,n,f,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,t,t,nowin
t,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,g,f,b,f,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,n,won
t,f,f,f,t,f,f,f,t,f,t,f,g,f,b,f,f,t,f,f,f,t,f,t,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,n,won
f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,g,f,b,f,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,n,nowin
t,f,f,f,t,f,f,f,t,f,t,f,g,f,b,f,f,t,f,f,f,t,f,t,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,n,won
f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,g,f,b,f,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,t,f,f,f,f,f,f,f,t,f,n,win
For this part of the raw data, I was trying to return something like:
Column1_name -- t -- counts of nowin = 0
Column1_name -- t -- count of wins = 3
Column1_name -- f -- count of nowin = 2
Column1_name -- f -- count of win = 1
Based on this idea get dataframe row count based on conditions I was thinking in doing something like this:
print(df[df.target == 'won'].count())
However, this would return always the same number of "wons" based on the last column without taking into consideration if this column it's a "f" or a "t". In other others, I was hoping to use something from Panda dataframe work that would produce the idea of a "group by" from SQL, grouping based on, for example, the 1st and last column.
Should I keep pursing this idea of should I simply start using for loops?
If you need, the rest of my code:
import pandas as pd
url = "https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/machine-learning-databases/chess/king-rook-vs-king-pawn/kr-vs-kp.data"
df = pd.read_csv(url,names=[
'bkblk','bknwy','bkon8','bkona','bkspr','bkxbq','bkxcr','bkxwp','blxwp','bxqsq','cntxt','dsopp','dwipd',
'hdchk','katri','mulch','qxmsq','r2ar8','reskd','reskr','rimmx','rkxwp','rxmsq','simpl','skach','skewr',
'skrxp','spcop','stlmt','thrsk','wkcti','wkna8','wknck','wkovl','wkpos','wtoeg','target'
])
features = ['bkblk','bknwy','bkon8','bkona','bkspr','bkxbq','bkxcr','bkxwp','blxwp','bxqsq','cntxt','dsopp','dwipd',
'hdchk','katri','mulch','qxmsq','r2ar8','reskd','reskr','rimmx','rkxwp','rxmsq','simpl','skach','skewr',
'skrxp','spcop','stlmt','thrsk','wkcti','wkna8','wknck','wkovl','wkpos','wtoeg','target']
# number of lines
#tot_of_records = np.size(my_data,0)
#tot_of_records = np.unique(my_data[:,1])
#for item in my_data:
# item[:,0]
num_of_won=0
num_of_nowin=0
for item in df.target:
if item == 'won':
num_of_won = num_of_won + 1
else:
num_of_nowin = num_of_nowin + 1
print(num_of_won)
print(num_of_nowin)
print(df[df.target == 'won'].count())
#print(df[:1])
#print(df.bkblk.to_string(index=False))
#print(df.target.unique())
#ini_entropy = (() + ())

This could work -
outdf = df.apply(lambda x: pd.crosstab(index=df.target,columns=x).to_dict())
Basically we are going in on each feature column and making a crosstab with target column
Hope this helps! :)

Time efficiency by eliminating three for loops

I have the a script similar to this:
import random
import pandas as pd
FA = []
FB = []
Value = []
df = pd.DataFrame()
df_save = pd.DataFrame(index=['min','max'])
days = ['Monday','Tuesday','Wednesday','Thursday','Friday','Saturday','Sunday']
numbers = list(range(24)) # FA.unique()
mix = '(pairwise combination of days and numbers, i.e. 0Monday,0Tuesday,...1Monday,1Tuesday,....)' 'I dont know how to do this combination btw'
def Calculus():
global min,max
min = df['Value'][boolean].min()
max = df['Value'][boolean].max()
for i in range(1000):
FA.append(random.randrange(0,23,1))
FB.append(random.choice(days))
Value.append(random.random())
df['FA'] = FA
df['FB'] = FB
df['FAB'] = df['FA'].astype(str) + df['FB'].astype(str)
df['Value'] = Value
mix_factor = df['FA'].astype(str) + df['FB'].astype(str)
for i in numbers:
boolean = df['FA'] == i
Calculus()
df_save[str(i)] = [min,max]
for i in days:
boolean = df['FB'] == i
Calculus()
df_save[str(i)] = [min,max]
for i in mix_factor.unique():
boolean = df['FAB'] == i
Calculus() #
df_save[str(i)] = [min,max]
My question is: there is another way to do the same but more time efficiently? My real data (df in this case) is a csv with millions of rows and this three loops are taking forever.
Maybe using 'apply' but I never have worked with it before.
Any insight will be very appreciate, thanks.

You could put all three loops into one, depending on what your exact code is. Is there a parameter for calculus? If not, putting them into one would allow you to have to run Calculus() less

Python Pandas Merge Causing Memory Overflow

I'm new to Pandas and am trying to merge a few subsets of data. I'm giving a specific case where this happens, but the question is general: How/why is it happening and how can I work around it?
The data I load is around 85 Megs or so but I often watch my python session run up close to 10 gigs of memory usage then give a memory error.
I have no idea why this happens, but it's killing me as I can't even get started looking at the data the way I want to.
Here's what I've done:
Importing the Main data
import requests, zipfile, StringIO
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
STAR2013url="http://www3.cde.ca.gov/starresearchfiles/2013/p3/ca2013_all_csv_v3.zip"
STAR2013fileName = 'ca2013_all_csv_v3.txt'
r = requests.get(STAR2013url)
z = zipfile.ZipFile(StringIO.StringIO(r.content))
STAR2013=pd.read_csv(z.open(STAR2013fileName))
Importing some Cross Cross Referencing Tables
STARentityList2013url = "http://www3.cde.ca.gov/starresearchfiles/2013/p3/ca2013entities_csv.zip"
STARentityList2013fileName = "ca2013entities_csv.txt"
r = requests.get(STARentityList2013url)
z = zipfile.ZipFile(StringIO.StringIO(r.content))
STARentityList2013=pd.read_csv(z.open(STARentityList2013fileName))
STARlookUpTestID2013url = "http://www3.cde.ca.gov/starresearchfiles/2013/p3/tests.zip"
STARlookUpTestID2013fileName = "Tests.txt"
r = requests.get(STARlookUpTestID2013url)
z = zipfile.ZipFile(StringIO.StringIO(r.content))
STARlookUpTestID2013=pd.read_csv(z.open(STARlookUpTestID2013fileName))
STARlookUpSubgroupID2013url = "http://www3.cde.ca.gov/starresearchfiles/2013/p3/subgroups.zip"
STARlookUpSubgroupID2013fileName = "Subgroups.txt"
r = requests.get(STARlookUpSubgroupID2013url)
z = zipfile.ZipFile(StringIO.StringIO(r.content))
STARlookUpSubgroupID2013=pd.read_csv(z.open(STARlookUpSubgroupID2013fileName))
Renaming a Column ID to Allow for Merge
STARlookUpSubgroupID2013 = STARlookUpSubgroupID2013.rename(columns={'001':'Subgroup ID'})
STARlookUpSubgroupID2013
Successful Merge
merged = pd.merge(STAR2013,STARlookUpSubgroupID2013, on='Subgroup ID')
Try a second merge. This is where the Memory Overflow Happens
merged=pd.merge(merged, STARentityList2013, on='School Code')
I did all of this in ipython notebook, but don't think that changes anything.

Although this is an old question, I recently came across the same problem.
In my instance, duplicate keys are required in both dataframes, and I needed a method which could tell if a merge will fit into memory ahead of computation, and if not, change the computation method.
The method I came up with is as follows:
Calculate merge size:
def merge_size(left_frame, right_frame, group_by, how='inner'):
left_groups = left_frame.groupby(group_by).size()
right_groups = right_frame.groupby(group_by).size()
left_keys = set(left_groups.index)
right_keys = set(right_groups.index)
intersection = right_keys & left_keys
left_diff = left_keys - intersection
right_diff = right_keys - intersection
left_nan = len(left_frame[left_frame[group_by] != left_frame[group_by]])
right_nan = len(right_frame[right_frame[group_by] != right_frame[group_by]])
left_nan = 1 if left_nan == 0 and right_nan != 0 else left_nan
right_nan = 1 if right_nan == 0 and left_nan != 0 else right_nan
sizes = [(left_groups[group_name] * right_groups[group_name]) for group_name in intersection]
sizes += [left_nan * right_nan]
left_size = [left_groups[group_name] for group_name in left_diff]
right_size = [right_groups[group_name] for group_name in right_diff]
if how == 'inner':
return sum(sizes)
elif how == 'left':
return sum(sizes + left_size)
elif how == 'right':
return sum(sizes + right_size)
return sum(sizes + left_size + right_size)
Note:
At present with this method, the key can only be a label, not a list. Using a list for group_by currently returns a sum of merge sizes for each label in the list. This will result in a merge size far larger than the actual merge size.
If you are using a list of labels for the group_by, the final row size is:
min([merge_size(df1, df2, label, how) for label in group_by])
Check if this fits in memory
The merge_size function defined here returns the number of rows which will be created by merging two dataframes together.
By multiplying this with the count of columns from both dataframes, then multiplying by the size of np.float[32/64], you can get a rough idea of how large the resulting dataframe will be in memory. This can then be compared against psutil.virtual_memory().available to see if your system can calculate the full merge.
def mem_fit(df1, df2, key, how='inner'):
rows = merge_size(df1, df2, key, how)
cols = len(df1.columns) + (len(df2.columns) - 1)
required_memory = (rows * cols) * np.dtype(np.float64).itemsize
return required_memory <= psutil.virtual_memory().available
The merge_size method has been proposed as an extension of pandas in this issue. https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/15068.