Lets say I have a dataframe A with attribute called 'score'.
I can modify the 'score' attribute of the second row by doing:
tmp = A.loc[2]
tmp.score = some_new_value
A.loc[2] = tmp
But I cant do it like this:
A.loc[2].score = some_new_value
Why ?
It will be hard to reproduce your case, because Pandas does not guarantee, when using chained indexing, whether the operation will return a view or a copy of the dataframe.
When you access a "cell" of the dataframe by
A.loc[2].score
you are actually performing two steps: first .loc and then .score (which is essentially chained indexing). The Pandas documentation has a nice post about it here.
The simplest way to prevent this is by consistently using .loc or .iloc to access the rows/columns you need and reassigning the value. Therefore, I would recommend always using either
A.loc[2, "score"] = some_new_value
or
A.at[2, "score"] = some_new_value
This kind of indexing + setting will be translated "under the hood" to:
A.loc.__setitem__((2, 'score'), some_new_value) # modifies A directly
instead of an unreliable chain of __getitem__ and __setitem__.
Let's show an example:
import pandas as pd
dict_ = {'score': [1,2,3,4,5,6], 'other':'a'}
A = pd.DataFrame(dict_)
A
Dataframe:
score other
0 1 a
1 2 a
2 3 a
3 4 a
4 5 a
5 6 a
Now you can do the following, and the values are actually saved:
A.loc[2,'score'] = 'Heyyyy'
A
Dataframe:
score other
0 1 a
1 2 a
2 Heyyyy a
3 4 a
4 5 a
5 6 a
I have a very simple for loop problem and I haven't found a solution in any of the similar questions on Stack. I want to use a for loop to create values in a pandas dataframe. I want the values to be strings that contain a numerical index. I can make the correct value print, but I can't make this value get saved in the dataframe. I'm new to python.
# reproducible example
import pandas as pd
df1 = pd.DataFrame({'x':range(5)})
# for loop to add a row with an index
for i in range(5):
print("data_{i}.txt".format(i=i)) # this prints the value that I want
df1['file'] = "data_{i}.txt".format(i=i)
This loop prints the exact value that I want to put into the 'file' column of df1, but when I look at df1, it only uses the last value for the index.
x file
0 0 data_4.txt
1 1 data_4.txt
2 2 data_4.txt
3 3 data_4.txt
4 4 data_4.txt
I have tried using enumerate, but can't find a solution with this. I assume everyone will yell at me for posting a duplicate question, but I have not found anything that works and if someone points me to a solution that solves this problem, I'll happily remove this question.
There are better ways to create a DataFrame, but to answer your question:
Replace the last line in your code:
df1['file'] = "data_{i}.txt".format(i=i)
with:
df1.loc[i, 'file'] = "data_{0}.txt".format(i)
For more information, read about the .loc here: https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/reference/api/pandas.DataFrame.loc.html
On the same page, you can read about accessors like .at and .iloc as well.
You can do list-comprehension:
df1['file'] = ["data_{i}.txt".format(i=i) for i in range(5)]
print(df1)
Prints:
x file
0 0 data_0.txt
1 1 data_1.txt
2 2 data_2.txt
3 3 data_3.txt
4 4 data_4.txt
OR at the creating of DataFrame:
df1 = pd.DataFrame({'x':range(5), 'file': ["data_{i}.txt".format(i=i) for i in range(5)]})
print(df1)
OR:
df1 = pd.DataFrame([{'x':i, 'file': "data_{i}.txt".format(i=i)} for i in range(5)])
print(df1)
I've found success with the .at method
for i in range(5):
print("data_{i}.txt".format(i=i)) # this prints the value that I want
df1.at[i, 'file'] = "data_{i}.txt".format(i=i)
Returns:
x file
0 0 data_0.txt
1 1 data_1.txt
2 2 data_2.txt
3 3 data_3.txt
4 4 data_4.txt
when you assign a variable to a dataframe column the way you do -
using the df['colname'] = 'val', it assigns the val across all rows.
That is why you are seeing only the last value.
Change your code to:
import pandas as pd
df1 = pd.DataFrame({'x':range(5)})
# for loop to add a row with an index
to_assign = []
for i in range(5):
print("data_{i}.txt".format(i=i)) # this prints the value that I want
to_assign.append(data_{i}.txt".format(i=i))
##outside of the loop - only once - to all dataframe rows
df1['file'] = to_assign.
As a thought, pandas has a great API for performing these type of actions without for loops.
You should start practicing those.
How can I find the row for which the value of a specific column is maximal?
df.max() will give me the maximal value for each column, I don't know how to get the corresponding row.
Use the pandas idxmax function. It's straightforward:
>>> import pandas
>>> import numpy as np
>>> df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
>>> df
A B C
0 1.232853 -1.979459 -0.573626
1 0.140767 0.394940 1.068890
2 0.742023 1.343977 -0.579745
3 2.125299 -0.649328 -0.211692
4 -0.187253 1.908618 -1.862934
>>> df['A'].idxmax()
3
>>> df['B'].idxmax()
4
>>> df['C'].idxmax()
1
Alternatively you could also use numpy.argmax, such as numpy.argmax(df['A']) -- it provides the same thing, and appears at least as fast as idxmax in cursory observations.
idxmax() returns indices labels, not integers.
Example': if you have string values as your index labels, like rows 'a' through 'e', you might want to know that the max occurs in row 4 (not row 'd').
if you want the integer position of that label within the Index you have to get it manually (which can be tricky now that duplicate row labels are allowed).
HISTORICAL NOTES:
idxmax() used to be called argmax() prior to 0.11
argmax was deprecated prior to 1.0.0 and removed entirely in 1.0.0
back as of Pandas 0.16, argmax used to exist and perform the same function (though appeared to run more slowly than idxmax).
argmax function returned the integer position within the index of the row location of the maximum element.
pandas moved to using row labels instead of integer indices. Positional integer indices used to be very common, more common than labels, especially in applications where duplicate row labels are common.
For example, consider this toy DataFrame with a duplicate row label:
In [19]: dfrm
Out[19]:
A B C
a 0.143693 0.653810 0.586007
b 0.623582 0.312903 0.919076
c 0.165438 0.889809 0.000967
d 0.308245 0.787776 0.571195
e 0.870068 0.935626 0.606911
f 0.037602 0.855193 0.728495
g 0.605366 0.338105 0.696460
h 0.000000 0.090814 0.963927
i 0.688343 0.188468 0.352213
i 0.879000 0.105039 0.900260
In [20]: dfrm['A'].idxmax()
Out[20]: 'i'
In [21]: dfrm.iloc[dfrm['A'].idxmax()] # .ix instead of .iloc in older versions of pandas
Out[21]:
A B C
i 0.688343 0.188468 0.352213
i 0.879000 0.105039 0.900260
So here a naive use of idxmax is not sufficient, whereas the old form of argmax would correctly provide the positional location of the max row (in this case, position 9).
This is exactly one of those nasty kinds of bug-prone behaviors in dynamically typed languages that makes this sort of thing so unfortunate, and worth beating a dead horse over. If you are writing systems code and your system suddenly gets used on some data sets that are not cleaned properly before being joined, it's very easy to end up with duplicate row labels, especially string labels like a CUSIP or SEDOL identifier for financial assets. You can't easily use the type system to help you out, and you may not be able to enforce uniqueness on the index without running into unexpectedly missing data.
So you're left with hoping that your unit tests covered everything (they didn't, or more likely no one wrote any tests) -- otherwise (most likely) you're just left waiting to see if you happen to smack into this error at runtime, in which case you probably have to go drop many hours worth of work from the database you were outputting results to, bang your head against the wall in IPython trying to manually reproduce the problem, finally figuring out that it's because idxmax can only report the label of the max row, and then being disappointed that no standard function automatically gets the positions of the max row for you, writing a buggy implementation yourself, editing the code, and praying you don't run into the problem again.
You might also try idxmax:
In [5]: df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(10,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
In [6]: df
Out[6]:
A B C
0 2.001289 0.482561 1.579985
1 -0.991646 -0.387835 1.320236
2 0.143826 -1.096889 1.486508
3 -0.193056 -0.499020 1.536540
4 -2.083647 -3.074591 0.175772
5 -0.186138 -1.949731 0.287432
6 -0.480790 -1.771560 -0.930234
7 0.227383 -0.278253 2.102004
8 -0.002592 1.434192 -1.624915
9 0.404911 -2.167599 -0.452900
In [7]: df.idxmax()
Out[7]:
A 0
B 8
C 7
e.g.
In [8]: df.loc[df['A'].idxmax()]
Out[8]:
A 2.001289
B 0.482561
C 1.579985
Both above answers would only return one index if there are multiple rows that take the maximum value. If you want all the rows, there does not seem to have a function.
But it is not hard to do. Below is an example for Series; the same can be done for DataFrame:
In [1]: from pandas import Series, DataFrame
In [2]: s=Series([2,4,4,3],index=['a','b','c','d'])
In [3]: s.idxmax()
Out[3]: 'b'
In [4]: s[s==s.max()]
Out[4]:
b 4
c 4
dtype: int64
df.iloc[df['columnX'].argmax()]
argmax() would provide the index corresponding to the max value for the columnX. iloc can be used to get the row of the DataFrame df for this index.
A more compact and readable solution using query() is like this:
import pandas as pd
df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
print(df)
# find row with maximum A
df.query('A == A.max()')
It also returns a DataFrame instead of Series, which would be handy for some use cases.
Very simple: we have df as below and we want to print a row with max value in C:
A B C
x 1 4
y 2 10
z 5 9
In:
df.loc[df['C'] == df['C'].max()] # condition check
Out:
A B C
y 2 10
If you want the entire row instead of just the id, you can use df.nlargest and pass in how many 'top' rows you want and you can also pass in for which column/columns you want it for.
df.nlargest(2,['A'])
will give you the rows corresponding to the top 2 values of A.
use df.nsmallest for min values.
The direct ".argmax()" solution does not work for me.
The previous example provided by #ely
>>> import pandas
>>> import numpy as np
>>> df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
>>> df
A B C
0 1.232853 -1.979459 -0.573626
1 0.140767 0.394940 1.068890
2 0.742023 1.343977 -0.579745
3 2.125299 -0.649328 -0.211692
4 -0.187253 1.908618 -1.862934
>>> df['A'].argmax()
3
>>> df['B'].argmax()
4
>>> df['C'].argmax()
1
returns the following message :
FutureWarning: 'argmax' is deprecated, use 'idxmax' instead. The behavior of 'argmax'
will be corrected to return the positional maximum in the future.
Use 'series.values.argmax' to get the position of the maximum now.
So that my solution is :
df['A'].values.argmax()
mx.iloc[0].idxmax()
This one line of code will give you how to find the maximum value from a row in dataframe, here mx is the dataframe and iloc[0] indicates the 0th index.
Considering this dataframe
[In]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randn(4,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
[Out]:
A B C
0 -0.253233 0.226313 1.223688
1 0.472606 1.017674 1.520032
2 1.454875 1.066637 0.381890
3 -0.054181 0.234305 -0.557915
Assuming one want to know the rows where column "C" is max, the following will do the work
[In]: df[df['C']==df['C'].max()])
[Out]:
A B C
1 0.472606 1.017674 1.520032
The idmax of the DataFrame returns the label index of the row with the maximum value and the behavior of argmax depends on version of pandas (right now it returns a warning). If you want to use the positional index, you can do the following:
max_row = df['A'].values.argmax()
or
import numpy as np
max_row = np.argmax(df['A'].values)
Note that if you use np.argmax(df['A']) behaves the same as df['A'].argmax().
Use:
data.iloc[data['A'].idxmax()]
data['A'].idxmax() -finds max value location in terms of row
data.iloc() - returns the row
If there are ties in the maximum values, then idxmax returns the index of only the first max value. For example, in the following DataFrame:
A B C
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
2 0 0 0
3 0 1 1
4 1 0 0
idxmax returns
A 0
B 3
C 0
dtype: int64
Now, if we want all indices corresponding to max values, then we could use max + eq to create a boolean DataFrame, then use it on df.index to filter out indexes:
out = df.eq(df.max()).apply(lambda x: df.index[x].tolist())
Output:
A [0, 4]
B [3]
C [0, 1, 3]
dtype: object
what worked for me is:
df[df['colX'] == df['colX'].max()
You then get the row in your df with the maximum value of colX.
Then if you just want the index you can add .index at the end of the query.
When I use apply to a user defined function in Pandas, it looks like python is creating an additional array. How could I get rid of it? Here is my code:
def fnc(group):
x = group.C.values
out = x[np.where(x < 0)]
return pd.DataFrame(out)
data = pd.DataFrame({'A':np.random.randint(1, 3, 10),
'B':3,
'C':np.random.normal(0, 1, 10)})
data.groupby(by=['A', 'B']).apply(fnc).reset_index()
There is this weird Level_2 index created. Is there a way to avoid creating it when running my function?
A B level_2 0
0 1 3 0 -1.054134802
1 1 3 1 -0.691996447
2 2 3 0 -1.068693768
3 2 3 1 -0.080342046
4 2 3 2 -0.181869799
As such, you will have no way to avoid level_2 appearing. This is because the result of your grouping is a dataframe with several items in it: pandas is cool enough to understand your wish is to broadcast these items across the grouped keys, yet it is taking the index of the dataframe as an additional level to guarantee coherent output data. So dropping level=-1 at the end of your processing explicitly is expected.
If you want to avoid to reset that extra index, but still have some post processing, another way would be to call transform instead of apply, and get the returned data from fnc being the entire group vector where you put np.nan for results to exclude. Then, your dataframe will not have an extra level, but you'll need to call dropna() afterwards.
I want to add a column to a Dataframe that will contain a number derived from the number of NaN values in the row, specifically: one less than the number of non-NaN values in the row.
I tried:
for index, row in df.iterrows():
count = row.value_counts()
val = sum(count) - 1
df['Num Hits'] = val
Which returns an error:
-c:4: SettingWithCopyWarning: A value is trying to be set on a copy of a slice from a DataFrame.
Try using .loc[row_index,col_indexer] = value instead
and puts the first val value into every cell of the new column. I've tried reading about .loc and indexing in the Pandas documentation and failed to make sense of it. I gather that .loc wants a row_index and a column_index but I don't know if these are pre-defined in every dataframe and I just have to specify them somehow or if I need to "set" an index on the dataframe somehow before telling the loop where to place the new value, val.
You can totally do it in a vectorized way without using a loop, which is likely to be faster than the loop version:
In [89]:
print df
0 1 2 3
0 0.835396 0.330275 0.786579 0.493567
1 0.751678 0.299354 0.050638 0.483490
2 0.559348 0.106477 0.807911 0.883195
3 0.250296 0.281871 0.439523 0.117846
4 0.480055 0.269579 0.282295 0.170642
In [90]:
#number of valid numbers - 1
df.apply(lambda x: np.isfinite(x).sum()-1, axis=1)
Out[90]:
0 3
1 3
2 3
3 3
4 3
dtype: int64
#DSM brought up an good point that the above solution is still not fully vectorized. A vectorized form can be simply (~df.isnull()).sum(axis=1)-1.
You can use the index variable that you define as part of the for loop as the row_index that .loc is looking for:
for index, row in df.iterrows():
count = row.value_counts()
val = sum(count) - 1
df.loc[index, 'Num Hits'] = val