Develop Reference

Adding column of weights to pandas DF by a condition on the DFs column

Whats the most pythonic way to add a column (of weights) to an existing Pandas DataFrame "df" by a condition on dfs column?
Small example:
df = pd.DataFrame({'A' : [1, 2, 3], 'B' : [4, 5, 6]})
df
Out[110]:
A B
0 1 4
1 2 5
2 3 6
I'd Like to add a "weight" column where if df['B'] >= 6 then df['weight'] = 20, else, df['weight'] = 1
So my output will be:
A B weight
0 1 4 1
1 2 5 1
2 3 6 20

Approach #1
Here's one with type-conversion and scaling -
df['weight'] = (df['B'] >= 6)*19+1
Approach #2
Another possibly faster one with using the underlying array data -
df['weight'] = (df['B'].values >= 6)*19+1
Approach #3
Leverage multi-cores with numexpr module -
import numexpr as ne
val = df['B'].values
df['weight'] = ne.evaluate('(val >= 6)*19+1')
Timings on 500k rows as commented by OP for a random data in range [0,9) for the vectorized methods posted thus far -
In [149]: np.random.seed(0)
...: df = pd.DataFrame({'B' : np.random.randint(0,9,(500000))})
# #jpp's soln
In [150]: %timeit df['weight1'] = np.where(df['B'] >= 6, 20, 1)
100 loops, best of 3: 3.57 ms per loop
# #jpp's soln with array data
In [151]: %timeit df['weight2'] = np.where(df['B'].values >= 6, 20, 1)
100 loops, best of 3: 3.27 ms per loop
In [154]: %timeit df['weight3'] = (df['B'] >= 6)*19+1
100 loops, best of 3: 2.73 ms per loop
In [155]: %timeit df['weight4'] = (df['B'].values >= 6)*19+1
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.76 ms per loop
In [156]: %%timeit
...: val = df['B'].values
...: df['weight5'] = ne.evaluate('(val >= 6)*19+1')
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.14 ms per loop
One last one ...
With the output being 1 or 20, we could safely use lower precision : uint8 for a turbo speedup over already discussed ones, like so -
In [208]: %timeit df['weight6'] = (df['B'].values >= 6)*np.uint8(19)+1
1000 loops, best of 3: 428 µs per loop

You can use numpy.where for a vectorised solution:
df['weight'] = np.where(df['B'] >= 6, 20, 1)
Result:
A B weight
0 1 4 1
1 2 5 1
2 3 6 20

Here's a method using df.apply
df['weight'] = df.apply(lambda row: 20 if row['B'] >= 6 else 1, axis=1)
Output:
In [6]: df
Out[6]:
A B weight
0 1 4 1
1 2 5 1
2 3 6 20

Removing leading zeros from pandas.core.series.Series

I have a pandas.core.series.Series with data
0 [00115840, 00110005, 001000033, 00116000...
1 [00267285, 00263627, 00267010, 0026513...
2 [00335595, 00350750]
I want to remove leading zeros from the series.I tried
x.astype('int64')
But got error message
ValueError: setting an array element with a sequence.
Can you suggest me how to do this in python 3.x?

s=pd.Series(s.apply(pd.Series).astype(int).values.tolist())
s
Out[282]:
0 [1, 2]
1 [3, 4]
dtype: object
Data input
s=pd.Series([['001','002'],['003','004']])
Update: Thanks for Jez and cold point it out :-)
pd.Series(s.apply(pd.Series).stack().astype(int).groupby(level=0).apply(list))
Out[317]:
0 [115840, 110005, 1000033, 116000]
1 [267285, 263627, 267010, 26513]
2 [335595, 350750]
dtype: object

If want list of strings convert to list of integerss use list comprehension:
s = pd.Series([[int(y) for y in x] for x in s], index=s.index)
s = s.apply(lambda x: [int(y) for y in x])
Sample:
a = [['00115840', '00110005', '001000033', '00116000'],
['00267285', '00263627', '00267010', '0026513'],
['00335595', '00350750']]
s = pd.Series(a)
print (s)
0 [00115840, 00110005, 001000033, 00116000]
1 [00267285, 00263627, 00267010, 0026513]
2 [00335595, 00350750]
dtype: object
s = s.apply(lambda x: [int(y) for y in x])
print (s)
0 [115840, 110005, 1000033, 116000]
1 [267285, 263627, 267010, 26513]
2 [335595, 350750]
dtype: object
EDIT:
If want integers only you can flatten values and cast to ints:
s = pd.Series([item for sublist in s for item in sublist]).astype(int)
Alternative solution:
import itertools
s = pd.Series(list(itertools.chain(*s))).astype(int)
print (s)
0 115840
1 110005
2 1000033
3 116000
4 267285
5 263627
6 267010
7 26513
8 335595
9 350750
dtype: int32
Timings:
a = [['00115840', '00110005', '001000033', '00116000'],
['00267285', '00263627', '00267010', '0026513'],
['00335595', '00350750']]
s = pd.Series(a)
s = pd.concat([s]*1000).reset_index(drop=True)
In [203]: %timeit pd.Series([[int(y) for y in x] for x in s], index=s.index)
100 loops, best of 3: 4.66 ms per loop
In [204]: %timeit s.apply(lambda x: [int(y) for y in x])
100 loops, best of 3: 5.13 ms per loop
#cᴏʟᴅsᴘᴇᴇᴅ sol
In [205]: %%timeit
...: v = pd.Series(np.concatenate(s.values.tolist()))
...: v.astype(int).groupby(s.index.repeat(s.str.len())).agg(pd.Series.tolist)
...:
1 loop, best of 3: 226 ms per loop
#Wen solution
In [211]: %timeit pd.Series(s.apply(pd.Series).stack().astype(int).groupby(level=0).apply(list))
1 loop, best of 3: 1.12 s per loop
Solutions with flatenning (idea of #cᴏʟᴅsᴘᴇᴇᴅ):
In [208]: %timeit pd.Series([item for sublist in s for item in sublist]).astype(int)
100 loops, best of 3: 2.55 ms per loop
In [209]: %timeit pd.Series(list(itertools.chain(*s))).astype(int)
100 loops, best of 3: 2.2 ms per loop
#cᴏʟᴅsᴘᴇᴇᴅ sol
In [210]: %timeit pd.Series(np.concatenate(s.values.tolist()))
100 loops, best of 3: 7.71 ms per loop

Flatten your data with np.concatenate -
s
0 [00115840, 36869, 262171, 39936]
1 [00267285, 92055, 93704, 11595]
2 [00335595, 119272]
Name: 1, dtype: object
v = pd.Series(np.concatenate(s.tolist()))
Or (thanks to jezrael for the suggestion), using .values.tolist which is faster -
v = pd.Series(np.concatenate(s.values.tolist()))
v
0 00115840
1 36869
2 262171
3 39936
4 00267285
5 92055
6 93704
7 11595
8 00335595
9 119272
dtype: object
Now, what you're doing with astype should work -
v.astype(int)
0 115840
1 36869
2 262171
3 39936
4 267285
5 92055
6 93704
7 11595
8 335595
9 119272
dtype: int64
If you have data as floats, use astype(float) instead.
If you want to, you could reshape the result back to its original format using groupby + agg -
v.astype(int).groupby(s.index.repeat(s.str.len())).agg(pd.Series.tolist)
0 [115840, 36869, 262171, 39936]
1 [267285, 92055, 93704, 11595]
2 [335595, 119272]
dtype: object

If you want a more crisp solution, you could try following:
Assuming a is the original series.
b = a.explode().astype(int)
a = b.groupby(b.index).agg(list)
Albeit, this is slower than solutions posted by #cs95 and #jezrael

#where x is a series
x = x.str.lstrip('0')

Below lines should work if you have mixed dtype
df['col'] = df['col'].apply(lambda x:x.lstrip('0') if type(x) == str else x)

pandas rolling max with groupby

I have a problem getting the rolling function of Pandas to do what I wish. I want for each frow to calculate the maximum so far within the group. Here is an example:
df = pd.DataFrame([[1,3], [1,6], [1,3], [2,2], [2,1]], columns=['id', 'value'])
looks like
id value
0 1 3
1 1 6
2 1 3
3 2 2
4 2 1
Now I wish to obtain the following DataFrame:
id value
0 1 3
1 1 6
2 1 6
3 2 2
4 2 2
The problem is that when I do
df.groupby('id')['value'].rolling(1).max()
I get the same DataFrame back. And when I do
df.groupby('id')['value'].rolling(3).max()
I get a DataFrame with Nans. Can someone explain how to properly use rolling or some other Pandas function to obtain the DataFrame I want?

It looks like you need cummax() instead of .rolling(N).max()
In [29]: df['new'] = df.groupby('id').value.cummax()
In [30]: df
Out[30]:
id value new
0 1 3 3
1 1 6 6
2 1 3 6
3 2 2 2
4 2 1 2
Timing (using brand new Pandas version 0.20.1):
In [3]: df = pd.concat([df] * 10**4, ignore_index=True)
In [4]: df.shape
Out[4]: (50000, 2)
In [5]: %timeit df.groupby('id').value.apply(lambda x: x.cummax())
100 loops, best of 3: 15.8 ms per loop
In [6]: %timeit df.groupby('id').value.cummax()
100 loops, best of 3: 4.09 ms per loop
NOTE: from Pandas 0.20.0 what's new
Improved performance of groupby().cummin() and groupby().cummax() (GH15048, GH15109, GH15561, GH15635)

Using apply will be a tiny bit faster:
# Using apply
df['output'] = df.groupby('id').value.apply(lambda x: x.cummax())
%timeit df['output'] = df.groupby('id').value.apply(lambda x: x.cummax())
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.57 ms per loop
Other method:
df['output'] = df.groupby('id').value.cummax()
%timeit df['output'] = df.groupby('id').value.cummax()
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.66 ms per loop

Pandas replace with default value

I have a pandas dataframe I want to replace a certain column conditionally.
eg:
col
0 Mr
1 Miss
2 Mr
3 Mrs
4 Col.
I want to map them as
{'Mr': 0, 'Mrs': 1, 'Miss': 2}
If there are other titles now available in the dict then I want them to have a default value of 3
The above example becomes
col
0 0
1 2
2 0
3 1
4 3
Can I do this with pandas.replace() without using regex ?

You can use map rather as replace, because faster, then fillna by 3 and cast to int by astype:
df['col'] = df.col.map({'Mr': 0, 'Mrs': 1, 'Miss': 2}).fillna(3).astype(int)
print (df)
col
0 0
1 2
2 0
3 1
4 3
Another solution with numpy.where and condition with isin:
d = {'Mr': 0, 'Mrs': 1, 'Miss': 2}
df['col'] = np.where(df.col.isin(d.keys()), df.col.map(d), 3).astype(int)
print (df)
col
0 0
1 2
2 0
3 1
4 3
Solution with replace:
d = {'Mr': 0, 'Mrs': 1, 'Miss': 2}
df['col'] = np.where(df.col.isin(d.keys()), df.col.replace(d), 3)
print (df)
col
0 0
1 2
2 0
3 1
4 3
Timings:
df = pd.concat([df]*10000).reset_index(drop=True)
d = {'Mr': 0, 'Mrs': 1, 'Miss': 2}
df['col0'] = df.col.map(d).fillna(3).astype(int)
df['col1'] = np.where(df.col.isin(d.keys()), df.col.replace(d), 3)
df['col2'] = np.where(df.col.isin(d.keys()), df.col.map(d), 3).astype(int)
print (df)
In [447]: %timeit df['col0'] = df.col.map(d).fillna(3).astype(int)
100 loops, best of 3: 4.93 ms per loop
In [448]: %timeit df['col1'] = np.where(df.col.isin(d.keys()), df.col.replace(d), 3)
100 loops, best of 3: 14.3 ms per loop
In [449]: %timeit df['col2'] = np.where(df.col.isin(d.keys()), df.col.map(d), 3).astype(int)
100 loops, best of 3: 7.68 ms per loop
In [450]: %timeit df['col3'] = df.col.map(lambda L: d.get(L, 3))
10 loops, best of 3: 36.2 ms per loop

To add on the answer by #jezrael: The most straight forward solution is to use a defaultdict instead of dict. This is especially useful when you want missing values not to be replaced with your default value.
from collections import defaultdict
df['col'] = df.col.map(defaultdict(lambda: 3,Mr= 0, Mrs= 1, Miss= 2),na_action='ignore')
The first argument of defaultdict is a function that return the default value.

Pandas DataFrame: How to quickly get first non-NaN value in each row? [duplicate]

If I've got a DataFrame in pandas which looks something like:
A B C
0 1 NaN 2
1 NaN 3 NaN
2 NaN 4 5
3 NaN NaN NaN
How can I get the first non-null value from each row? E.g. for the above, I'd like to get: [1, 3, 4, None] (or equivalent Series).

Fill the nans from the left with fillna, then get the leftmost column:
df.fillna(method='bfill', axis=1).iloc[:, 0]

This is a really messy way to do this, first use first_valid_index to get the valid columns, convert the returned series to a dataframe so we can call apply row-wise and use this to index back to original df:
In [160]:
def func(x):
if x.values[0] is None:
return None
else:
return df.loc[x.name, x.values[0]]
pd.DataFrame(df.apply(lambda x: x.first_valid_index(), axis=1)).apply(func,axis=1)
​
Out[160]:
0 1
1 3
2 4
3 NaN
dtype: float64
EDIT
A slightly cleaner way:
In [12]:
def func(x):
if x.first_valid_index() is None:
return None
else:
return x[x.first_valid_index()]
df.apply(func, axis=1)
Out[12]:
0 1
1 3
2 4
3 NaN
dtype: float64

I'm going to weigh in here as I think this is a good deal faster than any of the proposed methods. argmin gives the index of the first False value in each row of the result of np.isnan in a vectorized way, which is the hard part. It still relies on a Python loop to extract the values but the look up is very quick:
def get_first_non_null(df):
a = df.values
col_index = np.isnan(a).argmin(axis=1)
return [a[row, col] for row, col in enumerate(col_index)]
EDIT:
Here's a fully vectorized solution which is can be a good deal faster again depending on the shape of the input. Updated benchmarking below.
def get_first_non_null_vec(df):
a = df.values
n_rows, n_cols = a.shape
col_index = np.isnan(a).argmin(axis=1)
flat_index = n_cols * np.arange(n_rows) + col_index
return a.ravel()[flat_index]
If a row is completely null then the corresponding value will be null also.
Here's some benchmarking against unutbu's solution:
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.choice([1, np.nan], (10000, 1500), p=(0.01, 0.99)))
#%timeit df.stack().groupby(level=0).first().reindex(df.index)
%timeit get_first_non_null(df)
%timeit get_first_non_null_vec(df)
1 loops, best of 3: 220 ms per loop
100 loops, best of 3: 16.2 ms per loop
100 loops, best of 3: 12.6 ms per loop
In [109]:
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.choice([1, np.nan], (100000, 150), p=(0.01, 0.99)))
#%timeit df.stack().groupby(level=0).first().reindex(df.index)
%timeit get_first_non_null(df)
%timeit get_first_non_null_vec(df)
1 loops, best of 3: 246 ms per loop
10 loops, best of 3: 48.2 ms per loop
100 loops, best of 3: 15.7 ms per loop
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.choice([1, np.nan], (1000000, 15), p=(0.01, 0.99)))
%timeit df.stack().groupby(level=0).first().reindex(df.index)
%timeit get_first_non_null(df)
%timeit get_first_non_null_vec(df)
1 loops, best of 3: 326 ms per loop
1 loops, best of 3: 326 ms per loop
10 loops, best of 3: 35.7 ms per loop

Here is another way to do it:
In [183]: df.stack().groupby(level=0).first().reindex(df.index)
Out[183]:
0 1
1 3
2 4
3 NaN
dtype: float64
The idea here is to use stack to move the columns into a row index level:
In [184]: df.stack()
Out[184]:
0 A 1
C 2
1 B 3
2 B 4
C 5
dtype: float64
Now, if you group by the first row level -- i.e. the original index -- and take the first value from each group, you essentially get the desired result:
In [185]: df.stack().groupby(level=0).first()
Out[185]:
0 1
1 3
2 4
dtype: float64
All we need to do is reindex the result (using the original index) so as to
include rows that are completely NaN:
df.stack().groupby(level=0).first().reindex(df.index)

This is nothing new, but it's a combination of the best bits of #yangie's approach with a list comprehension, and #EdChum's df.apply approach that I think is easiest to understand.
First, which columns to we want to pick our values from?
In [95]: pick_cols = df.apply(pd.Series.first_valid_index, axis=1)
In [96]: pick_cols
Out[96]:
0 A
1 B
2 B
3 None
dtype: object
Now how do we pick the values?
In [100]: [df.loc[k, v] if v is not None else None
....: for k, v in pick_cols.iteritems()]
Out[100]: [1.0, 3.0, 4.0, None]
This is ok, but we really want the index to match that of the original DataFrame:
In [98]: pd.Series({k:df.loc[k, v] if v is not None else None
....: for k, v in pick_cols.iteritems()})
Out[98]:
0 1
1 3
2 4
3 NaN
dtype: float64

groupby in axis=1
If we pass a callable that returns the same value, we group all columns together. This allows us to use groupby.agg which gives us the first method that makes this easy
df.groupby(lambda x: 'Z', 1).first()
Z
0 1.0
1 3.0
2 4.0
3 NaN
This returns a dataframe with the column name of the thing I was returning in my callable
lookup, notna, and idxmax
df.lookup(df.index, df.notna().idxmax(1))
array([ 1., 3., 4., nan])
argmin and slicing
v = df.values
v[np.arange(len(df)), np.isnan(v).argmin(1)]
array([ 1., 3., 4., nan])

Here is a one line solution:
[row[row.first_valid_index()] if row.first_valid_index() else None for _, row in df.iterrows()]
Edit:
This solution iterates over rows of df. row.first_valid_index() returns label for first non-NA/null value, which will be used as index to get the first non-null item in each row.
If there is no non-null value in the row, row.first_valid_index() would be None, thus cannot be used as index, so I need a if-else statement.
I packed everything into a list comprehension for brevity.

JoeCondron's answer (EDIT: before his last edit!) is cool but there is margin for significant improvement by avoiding the non-vectorized enumeration:
def get_first_non_null_vect(df):
a = df.values
col_index = np.isnan(a).argmin(axis=1)
return a[np.arange(a.shape[0]), col_index]
The improvement is small if the DataFrame is relatively flat:
In [4]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.choice([1, np.nan], (10000, 1500), p=(0.01, 0.99)))
In [5]: %timeit get_first_non_null(df)
10 loops, best of 3: 34.9 ms per loop
In [6]: %timeit get_first_non_null_vect(df)
10 loops, best of 3: 31.6 ms per loop
... but can be relevant on slim DataFrames:
In [7]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.choice([1, np.nan], (10000, 15), p=(0.1, 0.9)))
In [8]: %timeit get_first_non_null(df)
100 loops, best of 3: 3.75 ms per loop
In [9]: %timeit get_first_non_null_vect(df)
1000 loops, best of 3: 718 µs per loop
Compared to JoeCondron's vectorized version, the runtime is very similar (this is still slightly quicker for slim DataFrames, and slightly slower for large ones).

df=pandas.DataFrame({'A':[1, numpy.nan, numpy.nan, numpy.nan], 'B':[numpy.nan, 3, 4, numpy.nan], 'C':[2, numpy.nan, 5, numpy.nan]})
df
A B C
0 1.0 NaN 2.0
1 NaN 3.0 NaN
2 NaN 4.0 5.0
3 NaN NaN NaN
df.apply(lambda x: numpy.nan if all(x.isnull()) else x[x.first_valid_index()], axis=1).tolist()
[1.0, 3.0, 4.0, nan]