Develop Reference

How come Python 3 deserializes json files so fast?

Recently, I had to json.load() a file. A 13,045KB file from a network location. Over a slow corporate VPN. I did it in an interactive shell and decided to go grab a coffee in the meantime, because this would surely take ages to load. I didn't even manage do stand up and my code was done reading the json and translating its half milion lines into a beautiful dictionary.
How does it happen that Python is able to do it so efficiently? What optimizations are used? Why does it take a few minutes for Sublime to show this json as a text?
>>> f_path = r"Z:\some\network\location\data.json"
>>> import os
>>> os.stat(f_path).st_size
13357297
>>> with measurement_tools.SimpleBenchmark():
... with open(f_path) as f:
... t_dict = json.load(f)
Took 0.203125 seconds.
Edit: SimpleBenchmark() is just my own context manager measuring tool doing basically t1-t0.
Edit 2: since there were questions about why I consider it fast, I compared it to serializing the same dictionary into a json in the same location which took c.a. 10 times as much time (well over 2 secs).

How to parse data from json to DataFrame faster?

I've got a json files of total size of 3gb. I need to parse some data from it to Pandas Dataframe. I already made it a bit faster with custom library to parse json, but it is still too slow. It works only in one thread, that is a problem, too. How can I make it faster? Main problem is that is starts with 60it/s, but on 50000th iteration speed lowers down to 5it/s, but RAM is still not fully used, so it is not the problem. Here is an example of what am I doing:
import tqdm
with open('data/train.jsonlines') as fin:
for line in tqdm.tqdm_notebook(fin):
record = ujson.loads(line)
for target in record['damage_targets']:
df_train.loc[record['id'], 'target_{}'.format(target)] = record["damage_targets"][target]

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.

Python- find the unique values from a large json file efficienctly

I've a json file data_large of size 150.1MB. The content inside the file is of type [{"score": 68},{"score": 78}]. I need to find the list of unique scores from each item.
This is what I'm doing:-
import ijson # since json file is large, hence making use of ijson
f = open ('data_large')
content = ijson.items(f, 'item') # json loads quickly here as compared to when json.load(f) is used.
print set(i['score'] for i in content) #this line is actually taking a long time to get processed.
Can I make print set(i['score'] for i in content) line more efficient. Currently it's taking 201secs to execute. Can it be made more efficient?

This will give you the set of unique score values (only) as ints. You'll need the 150 MB of free memory. It uses re.finditer() to parse which is about three times faster than the json parser (on my computer).
import re
import time
t = time.time()
obj = re.compile('{.*?: (\d*?)}')
with open('datafile.txt', 'r') as f:
data = f.read()
s = set(m.group(1) for m in obj.finditer(data))
s = set(map(int, s))
print time.time() - t
Using re.findall() also seems to be about three times faster than the json parser, it consumes about 260 MB:
import re
obj = re.compile('{.*?: (\d*?)}')
with open('datafile.txt', 'r') as f:
data = f.read()
s = set(obj.findall(data))

I don't think there is any way to improve things by much. The slow part is probably just the fact that at some point you need to parse the whole JSON file. Whether you do it all up front (with json.load) or little by little (when consuming the generator from ijson.items), the whole file needs to be processed eventually.
The advantage to using ijson is that you only need to have a small amount of data in memory at any given time. This probably doesn't matter too much for a file with a hundred or so megabytes of data, but would be a very big deal if your data file grew to be gigabytes or more. Of course, this may also depend on the hardware you're running on. If your code is going to run on an embedded system with limited RAM, limiting your memory use is much more important. On the other hand, if it is going to be running on a high performance server or workstation with lots and lots of ram available, there's may not be any reason to hold back.
So, if you don't expect your data to get too big (relative to your system's RAM capacity), you might try testing to see if using json.load to read the whole file at the start, then getting the unique values with a set is faster. I don't think there are any other obvious shortcuts.

On my system, the straightforward code below handles 10,000,000 scores (139 megabytes) in 18 seconds. Is that too slow?
#!/usr/local/cpython-2.7/bin/python
from __future__ import print_function
import json # since json file is large, hence making use of ijson
with open('data_large', 'r') as file_:
content = json.load(file_)
print(set(element['score'] for element in content))

Try using a set
set([x['score'] for x in scores])
For example
>>> scores = [{"score" : 78}, {"score": 65} , {"score" : 65}]
>>> set([x['score'] for x in scores])
set([65, 78])