Develop Reference

Comparing/Computing path info stored in several large text files in python

I have a bunch of flat files that basically store millions of paths and their corresponding info (name, atime, size, owner, etc)
I would like to compile a full list of all the paths stored collectively on the files. For duplicate paths only the largest path needs to be kept.
There are roughly 500 files and approximately a million paths in the text file. The files are also gzipped. So far I've been able to do this in python but the solution is not optimized as for each file it basically takes an hour to load and compare against the current list.
Should I go for a database solution? sqlite3? Is there a data structure or better algorithm to go about this in python? Thanks for any help!

So far I've been able to do this in python but the solution is not optimized as for each file it basically takes an hour to load and compare against the current list.
If "the current list" implies that you're keeping track of all of the paths seen so far in a list, and then doing if newpath in listopaths: for each line, then each one of those searches takes linear time. If you have 500M total paths, of which 100M are unique, you're doing O(500M*100M) comparisons.
Just changing that list to a set, and changing nothing else in your code (well, you need to replace .append with .add, and you can probably remove the in check entirely… but without seeing your code it's hard to be specific) makes each one of those checks take constant time. So you're doing O(500M) comparisons—100M times faster.
Another potential problem is that you may not have enough memory. On a 64-bit machine, you've got enough virtual memory to hold almost anything you want… but if there's not enough physical memory available to back that up, eventually you'll spend more time swapping data back and forth to disk than doing actual work, and your program will slow to a crawl.
There are actually two potential sub-problems here.
First, you might be reading each entire file in at once (or, worse, all of the files at once) when you don't need to (e.g., by decompressing the whole file instead of using gzip.open, or by using f = gzip.open(…) but then doing f.readlines() or f.read(), or whatever). If so… don't do that. Just iterate over the lines in each GzipFile, for line in f:.
Second, maybe even a simple set of however many unique lines you have is too much to fit in memory on your computer. In that case, you probably want to look at a database. But you don't need anything as complicated as sqlite. A dbm acts like a dict (except that its keys and values have to be byte strings), but it's stored on-dict, caching things in memory where appropriate, instead of stored in memory, paging to disk randomly, which means it will go a lot faster in this case. (And it'll be persistent, too.) Of course you want something that acts like a set, not a dict… but that's easy. You can model a set as a dict whose keys are always ''. So instead of paths.add(newpath), it's just paths[newpath] = ''. Yeah, that wastes a few bytes of disk space over building your own custom on-disk key-only hash table, but it's unlikely to make any significant difference.

Data structure options for efficiently storing sets of integer pairs on disk?

I have a bunch of code that deals with document clustering. One step involves calculating the similarity (for some unimportant definition of "similar") of every document to every other document in a given corpus, and storing the similarities for later use. The similarities are bucketed, and I don't care what the specific similarity is for purposes of my analysis, just what bucket it's in. For example, if documents 15378 and 3278 are 52% similar, the ordered pair (3278, 15378) gets stored in the [0.5,0.6) bucket. Documents sometimes get either added or removed from the corpus after initial analysis, so corresponding pairs get added to or removed from the buckets as needed.
I'm looking at strategies for storing these lists of ID pairs. We found a SQL database (where most of our other data for this project lives) to be too slow and too large disk-space-wise for our purposes, so at the moment we store each bucket as a compressed list of integers on disk (originally zlib-compressed, but now using lz4 instead for speed). Things I like about this:
Reading and writing are both quite fast
After-the-fact additions to the corpus are fairly straightforward to add (a bit less so for lz4 than for zlib because lz4 doesn't have a framing mechanism built in, but doable)
At both write and read time, data can be streamed so it doesn't need to be held in memory all at once, which would be prohibitive given the size of our corpora
Things that kind of suck:
Deletes are a huge pain, and basically involve streaming through all the buckets and writing out new ones that omit any pairs that contain the ID of a document that's been deleted
I suspect I could still do better both in terms of speed and compactness with a more special-purpose data structure and/or compression strategy
So: what kinds of data structures should I be looking at? I suspect that the right answer is some kind of exotic succinct data structure, but this isn't a space I know very well. Also, if it matters: all of the document IDs are unsigned 32-bit ints, and the current code that handles this data is written in C, as Python extensions, so that's probably the general technology family we'll stick with if possible.

How about using one hash table or B-tree per bucket?
On-disk hashtables are standard. Maybe the BerkeleyDB libraries (availabe in stock python) will work for you; but be advised that they since they come with transactions they can be slow, and may require some tuning. There are a number of choices: gdbm, tdb that you should all give a try. Just make sure you check out the API and initialize them with appropriate size. Some will not resize automatically, and if you feed them too much data their performance just drops a lot.
Anyway, you may want to use something even more low-level, without transactions, if you have a lot of changes.
A pair of ints is a long - and most databases should accept a long as a key; in fact many will accept arbitrary byte sequences as keys.

Why not just store a table containing stuff that was deleted since the last re-write?
This table could be the same structure as your main bucket, maybe with a Bloom filter for quick membership checks.
You can re-write the main bucket data without the deleted items either when you were going to re-write it anyway for some other modification, or when the ratio of deleted items:bucket size exceeds some threshold.
This scheme could work either by storing each deleted pair alongside each bucket, or by storing a single table for all deleted documents: I'm not sure which is a better fit for your requirements.
Keeping a single table, it's hard to know when you can remove an item unless you know how many buckets it affects, without just re-writing all buckets whenever the deletion table gets too large. This could work, but it's a bit stop-the-world.
You also have to do two checks for each pair you stream in (ie, for (3278, 15378), you'd check whether either 3278 or 15378 has been deleted, instead of just checking whether pair (3278, 15378) has been deleted.
Conversely, the per-bucket table of each deleted pair would take longer to build, but be slightly faster to check, and easier to collapse when re-writing the bucket.

You are trying to reinvent what already exists in new age NoSQL data stores.
There are 2 very good candidates for your requirements.
Redis.
MongoDb
Both support data structures like dictionaries,lists,queues. The operations like append, modify or delete are also available in both , and very fast.
The performance of both of them is driven by amount of data that can reside in the RAM.
Since most of your data is integer based, that should not be a problem.
My personal suggestion is to go with Redis, with a good persistence configuration (i.e. the data should periodically be saved from RAM to disk ).
Here is a brief of redis data structures :
http://redis.io/topics/data-types-intro
The redis database is a lightweight installation, and client is available in Python.

Efficient way to check existence in a large set of strings

I have a set of 100+ million strings, each up to 63 characters long. I have lots of disk space and very little memory (512 MB). I need to query for existence alone, and store no additional metadata.
My de facto solution is a BDB btree. Are there any preferable alternatives? I'm aware of leveldb and Kyoto Cabinet, but not familiar enough to identify advantages.

If false positives are acceptable, then one possible solution would be to use a bloom filter. Bloom filters are similar to hash tables, but instead of using one hash value to index a table of buckets, it uses multiple hashes to index a bit array. The bits corresponding to those indices are set. Then, to test if a string is in the filter, the string is hashed again, and if the corresponding indices are set, then the string is "in" the filter.
It doesn't store any information about the strings, so it uses very little memory -- but if there's a collision between two strings, no collision resolution is possible. This means there may be false positives (because a string not in the filter may hash to the same indices as a string that is in the filter). However, there can be no false negatives; any string that really is in the set will be found in the bloom filter.
There are a few Python implementations. It's also not hard to roll your own; I recall coding up a quick-and-dirty bloom filter myself once using bitarrays that performed pretty well.

You said you have lots of disk, huh? One option would be to store the strings as filenames in nested subdirectories. You could either use the strings directly:
Store "drew sears" in d/r/e/w/ sears
or by taking a hash of the string and following a similar process:
MD5('drew sears') = 'f010fe6e20d12ed895c10b93b2f81c6e'
Create an empty file named f0/10/fe/6e/20d12ed895c10b93b2f81c6e.
Think of it as an OS-optimized, hash-table based indexed NoSQL database.
Side benefits:
You could change your mind at a later time and store data in the file.
You can replicate your database to another system using rsync.

Python synchronised reading of sorted files

I have two groups of files that contain data in CSV format with a common key (Timestamp) - I need to walk through all the records chronologically.
Group A: 'Environmental Data'
Filenames are in format A_0001.csv, A_0002.csv, etc.
Pre-sorted ascending
Key is Timestamp, i.e.YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS
Contains environmental data in CSV/column format
Very large, several GBs worth of data
Group B: 'Event Data'
Filenames are in format B_0001.csv, B_0002.csv
Pre-sorted ascending
Key is Timestamp, i.e.YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS
Contains event based data in CSV/column format
Relatively small compared to Group A files, < 100 MB
What is best approach?
Pre-merge: Use one of the various recipes out there to merge the files into a single sorted output and then read it for processing
Real-time merge: Implement code to 'merge' the files in real-time
I will be running lots of iterations of the post-processing side of things. Any thoughts or suggestions? I am using Python.

im thinking importing it into a db (mysql, sqlite, etc) will give better performance than merging it in script. the db typically has optimized routines for loading csv and the join will be probably be as fast or much faster than merging 2 dicts (one being very large) in python.

"YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS" can be sorted with a simple ascii compare.
How about reusing external merge logic? If the first field is the key then:
for entry in os.popen("sort -m -t, -k1,1 file1 file2"):
process(entry)

This is a similar to a relational join. Since your timestamps don't have to match, it's called a non-equijoin.
Sort-Merge is one of several popular algorithms. For non-equijoins, it works well. I think this would be what you're called "pre-merge". I don't know what you mean by "merge in real time", but I suspect it's still a simple sort-merge, which is a fine technique, heavily used by real databases.
Nested Loops can also work. In this case, you read the smaller table in the outer loop. In the inner loop you find all of the "matching" rows from the larger table. This is effectively a sort-merge, but with an assumption that there will be multiple rows from the big table that will match the small table.
This, BTW, will allow you to more properly assign meaning to the relationship between Event Data and Environmental Data. Rather than reading the result of a massive sort merge and trying to determine which kind of record you've got, the nested loops handle that well.
Also, you can do "lookups" into the smaller table while reading the larger table.
This is hard when you're doing non-equal comparisons because you don't have a proper key to do a simple retrieval from a simple dict. However, you can easily extend dict (override __contains__ and __getitem__) to do range comparisons on a key instead of simple equality tests.

I would suggest pre-merge.
Reading a file takes a lot of processor time. Reading two files, twice as much. Since your program will be dealing with a large input (lots of files, esp in Group A), I think it would be better to get it over with in one file read, and have all your relevant data in that one file. It would also reduce the number of variables and read statements you will need.
This will improve the runtime of your algorithm, and I think that's a good enough reason in this scenario to decide to use this approach
Hope this helps

You could read from the files in chunks of, say, 10000 records (or whatever number further profiling tells you to be optimal) and merge on the fly. Possibly using a custom class to encapsulate the IO; the actual records could then be accessed through the generator protocol (__iter__ + next).
This would be memory friendly, probably very good in terms of total time to complete the operation and would enable you to produce output incrementally.
A sketch:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, env_filenames=[], event_filenames=[]):
# open the files etc.
def next(self):
if self._cache = []:
# take care of reading more records
else:
# return the first record and pop it from the cache
# ... other stuff you need ...

merging dictionaries in python

Sorry for the very general title but I'll try to be as specific as possible.
I am working on a text mining application. I have a large number of key value pairs of the form ((word, corpus) -> occurence_count) (everything is an integer) which I am storing in multiple python dictionaries (tuple->int). These values are spread across multiple files on the disk (I pickled them). To make any sense of the data, I need to aggregate these dictionaries Basically, I need to figure out a way to find all the occurrences of a particular key in all the dictionaries, and add them up to get a total count.
If I load more than one dictionary at a time, I run out of memory, which is the reason I had to split them in the first place. When I tried , I ran into performance issues. I am currently trying to store the values in a DB (mysql), processing multiple dictionaries at a time, since mysql provides row level locking, which is both good (since it means I can parallelize this operation) and bad (since it slows down the insert queries)
What are my options here? Is it a good idea to write a partially disk based dictionary so I can process the dicts one at a time? With an LRU replacement strategy? Is there something that I am completely oblivious to?
Thanks!

A disk-based dictionary-like exists -- see the shelve module. Keys into a shelf must be strings, but you could simply use str on your tuples to obtain equivalent string keys; plus, I read your Q as meaning that you want only word as the key, so that's even easier (either str -- or, for vocabularies < 4GB, a struct.pack -- will be fine).
A good relational engine (especially PostgreSQL) would serve you well, but processing one dictionary at a time to aggregate each word occurrences over all corpora into a shelf object should also be OK (not quite as fast, but simpler to code, since a shelf is so similar to a dict except for the type constraint on keys [[and a caveat for mutable values, but as your values are ints that need not concern you).

Something like this, if I understand your question correctly
from collections import defaultdict
import pickle
result = defaultdict(int)
for fn in filenames:
data_dict = pickle.load(open(fn))
for k,count in data_dict.items():
word,corpus = k
result[k]+=count

If I understood your question correctly and you have integer ids for the words and corpora, then you can gain some performance by switching from a dict to a list, or even better, a numpy array. This may be annoying!
Basically, you need to replace the tuple with a single integer, which we can call the newid. You want all the newids to correspond to a word,corpus pair, so I would count the words in each corpus, and then have, for each corpus, a starting newid. The newid of (word,corpus) will then be word + start_newid[corpus].
If I misunderstood you and you don't have such ids, then I think this advice might still be useful, but you will have to manipulate your data to get it into the tuple of ints format.
Another thing you could try is rechunking the data.
Let's say that you can only hold 1.1 of these monsters in memory. Then, you can load one, and create a smaller dict or array that only corresponds to the first 10% of (word,corpus) pairs. You can scan through the loaded dict, and deal with any of the ones that are in the first 10%. When you are done, you can write the result back to disk, and do another pass for the second 10%. This will require 10 passes, but that might be OK for you.
If you chose your previous chunking based on what would fit in memory, then you will have to arbitrarily break your old dicts in half so that you can hold one in memory while also holding the result dict/array.