We Keep Coding

Assemble a dataframe from two csv files

I wrote the following code to form a data frame containing the energy consumption and the temperature. The data for each of the variables is collected from a different csv file:
def match_data():
pwr_data = pd.read_csv(r'C:\\Users\X\Energy consumption per hour-data-2022-03-16 17_50_56_Edited.csv')
temp_data = pd.read_csv(r'C:\\Users\X\temp.csv')
new_time = []
new_pwr = []
new_tmp = []
for i in range(1,len(pwr_data)):
for j in range(1,len(temp_data)):
if pwr_data['time'][i] == temp_data['Date'][j]:
time = pwr_data['time'][i]
pwr = pwr_data['watt_hour'][i]
tmp = temp_data['Temp'][j]
new_time.append(time)
new_pwr.append(pwr)
new_tmp.append(tmp)
return pd.DataFrame({'Time' : new_time,'watt_hour' : new_pwr,'Temp':new_tmp})
I was trying to collect data with matching time indices so that I can assemble them in a data frame.
The code works well but it takes time(43 seconds for around 1300 data points). At the moment I don't have much data but I was wondering if there was a more efficient and faster way to do so

Do the pwr_data['time'] and temp_data['Date] columns have the same granularity?
If so, you can pd.merge() the two dataframes after reading them.
# read data
pwr_data = pd.read_csv(r'C:\\Users\X\Energy consumption per hour-data-2022-03-16 17_50_56_Edited.csv')
temp_data = pd.read_csv(r'C:\\Users\X\temp.csv')
# merge data on time and Date columns
# you can set the how to be 'inner' or 'right' depending on your needs
df = pd.merge(pwr_data, temp_data, how='left', left_on='time', right_on='Date')

Just like #greco recommended this did the trick and in no time!
pd.merge(pwr_data,temp_data,how='inner',left_on='time',right_on='Date')
'time' and Date are the columns on which you want to base the merge.

Why does performance decrease with the size of the data frame?

I'm working with a relatively large dataset (approx 5m observations, made up of about 5.5k firms).
I needed to run OLS regressions with a 60 month rolling window for each firm. I noticed that the performance was insanely slow when I ran the following code:
for idx, sub_df in master_df.groupby("firm_id"):
# OLS code
However, when I first split my dataframe into about 5.5k dfs and then iterated over each of the dfs, the performance improved dramatically.
grouped_df = master_df.groupby("firm_id")
df_list = [group for group in grouped_df]
for df in df_list:
my_df = df[1]
# OLS code
I'm talking 1-2 weeks of time (24/7) to complete in the first version compared to 8-9 hours tops.
Can anyone please explain why splitting the master df into N smaller dfs and then iterating over each smaller df performs better than iterating over the same number of groups within the master df?
Thanks ever so much!

I'm unable to reproduce your observation. Here's some code that generates data and then times the direct and indirect methods separately. The time taken is very similar in either case.
Is it possible that you accidentally sorted the dataframe by the group key between the runs? Sorting by group key results in a noticeable difference in run time.
Otherwise, I'm beginning to think that there might be some other differences in your code. It would be great if you could post the full code.
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from datetime import datetime
def generate_data():
''' returns a Pandas DF with columns 'firm_id' and 'score' '''
# configuration
np.random.seed(22)
num_groups = 50000 # number of distinct groups in the DF
mean_group_length = 200 # how many records per group?
cov_group_length = 0.10 # throw in some variability in the num records per group
# simulate group lengths
stdv_group_length = mean_group_length * cov_group_length
group_lengths = np.random.normal(
loc=mean_group_length,
scale=stdv_group_length,
size=(num_groups,)).astype(int)
group_lengths[group_lengths <= 0] = mean_group_length
# final length of DF
total_length = sum(group_lengths)
# compute entries for group key column
firm_id_list = []
for i, l in enumerate(group_lengths):
firm_id_list.extend([(i + 1)] * l)
# construct the DF; data column is 'score' populated with Numpy's U[0, 1)
result_df = pd.DataFrame(data={
'firm_id': firm_id_list,
'score': np.random.rand(total_length)
})
# Optionally, shuffle or sort the DF by group keys
# ALTERNATIVE 1: (badly) unsorted df
result_df = result_df.sample(frac=1, random_state=13).reset_index(drop=True)
# ALTERNATIVE 2: sort by group key
# result_df.sort_values(by='firm_id', inplace=True)
return result_df
def time_method(df, method):
''' time 'method' with 'df' as its argument '''
t_start = datetime.now()
method(df)
t_final = datetime.now()
delta_t = t_final - t_start
print(f"Method '{method.__name__}' took {delta_t}.")
return
def process_direct(df):
''' direct for-loop over groupby object '''
for group, df in df.groupby('firm_id'):
m = df.score.mean()
s = df.score.std()
return
def process_indirect(df):
''' indirect method: generate groups first as list and then loop over list '''
grouped_df = df.groupby('firm_id')
group_list = [pair for pair in grouped_df]
for pair in group_list:
m = pair[1].score.mean()
s = pair[1].score.std()
df = generate_data()
time_method(df, process_direct)
time_method(df, process_indirect)

Time complexity between appending to a Dict vs a Dataframe

My program currently creates a bunch of Dataframes with a specific structure. The total number of DataFrames is, for now, 88 (with up to 10k rows) ; however, this is just the testing phase with a small amount of data.
This number might increase to several hundreds of Dfs, with up to few 100k rows.
I'm concerned about scalability. I have implemented two methods to retrieve the output which is the concatenation of all these Dfs. For now, they give approximately the same result ; however, as I said, which of these will perform better ?
Append to a DataFrame :
Create an empty DataFrame df1 (with the correct structure),
Loop
Create the DataFrame of results,
Append it to df1,
Export to csv
Append to a Dictionary:
Create an empty Dict,
Loop
Create the DataFrame of results,
Append to Dict
Concat all values of the dict in a df
Export to csv
. which of these will perform better as the amount of data grows ?
. does appending to a Dict gives better result than to a DataFrame although there are more steps, or the other way around, or does it give the same result ?

Approach2 is absolutely faster. Pandas is quite a heavy lib I think. Maybe you should consider using MySQL to insert data into the database rather than pandas if the data is large and consumes much memory. In MySQL, you could save the data in the database rather than save them in memory.
import pandas as pd
from time import time
df = pd.DataFrame(columns=range(100))
#start to test approach1
approach1_start = time()
for i in range(1000):
data_entry = ['test' for i in range(100)]
new = pd.DataFrame([data_entry])
df = pd.concat([df,new])
approach1_end = time()
approach1_time = approach1_end - approach1_start
print(approach1_time)
9.54729175567627
#start to test approach2
approach2_start = time()
data_entry_list = []
for i in range(1000):
data_entry = ['test' for i in range(100)]
data_entry_list.append(data_entry)
df = pd.DataFrame(data_entry_list)
approach2_end = time()
approach2_time = approach2_end - approach2_start
print(approach2_time)
0.021973371505737305

I have done some testing in order to have an idea. Here are the testing code:
import timeit
import time
import pandas as pd
def timing2(f):
def wrap(*args):
time1 = time.time()
ret = f(*args)
time2 = time.time()
print('{:s} : {:.3f} ms'.format(f.__name__, (time2-time1)*1000.0))
return ret
return wrap
#timing2
def withList():
lst = []
for i in range(100):
df = pd.DataFrame({'A': [1,2,3], 'B':[4,5,6], 'C':[90,53,64]})
lst.append(df)
df_new = pd.concat(lst)
return df_new
#timing2
def withDataFrame():
lst = []
col_lst = ['A','B','C']
df = pd.DataFrame(columns = col_lst)
for i in range(100):
df_r = pd.DataFrame({'A': [1,2,3], 'B':[4,5,6], 'C':[90,53,64]})
df.append(df_r)
return df
#timing2
def withDict():
dic = {}
col_lst = ['A','B','C']
df = pd.DataFrame(columns = col_lst)
for i in range(100):
df_r = pd.DataFrame({'A': [1,2,3], 'B':[4,5,6], 'C':[90,53,64]})
dic[i] = df_r
lst_result = [values for values in dic.values()]
df = df.append(lst_result)
return df
withList()
withDataFrame()
withDict()
Here are the results :
withList : 76.801 ms ;
withDataFrame : 101.746 ms ;
withDict : 57.819 ms.

Python looping and Pandas rank/index quirk

This question pertains to one posted here:
Sort dataframe rows independently by values in another dataframe
In the linked question, I utilize a Pandas Dataframe to sort each row independently using values in another Pandas Dataframe. The function presented there works perfectly every single time it is directly called. For example:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import os
##Generate example dataset
d1 = {}
d2 = {}
d3 = {}
d4 = {}
## generate data:
np.random.seed(5)
for col in list("ABCDEF"):
d1[col] = np.random.randn(12)
d2[col+'2'] = np.random.random_integers(0,100, 12)
d3[col+'3'] = np.random.random_integers(0,100, 12)
d4[col+'4'] = np.random.random_integers(0,100, 12)
t_index = pd.date_range(start = '2015-01-31', periods = 12, freq = "M")
#place data into dataframes
dat1 = pd.DataFrame(d1, index = t_index)
dat2 = pd.DataFrame(d2, index = t_index)
dat3 = pd.DataFrame(d3, index = t_index)
dat4 = pd.DataFrame(d4, index = t_index)
## Functions
def sortByAnthr(X,Y,Xindex, Reverse=False):
#order the subset of X.index by Y
ordrX = [x for (x,y) in sorted(zip(Xindex,Y), key=lambda pair: pair[1],reverse=Reverse)]
return(ordrX)
def OrderRow(row,df):
ordrd_row = df.ix[row.dropna().name,row.dropna().values].tolist()
return(ordrd_row)
def r_selectr(dat2,dat1, n, Reverse=False):
ordr_cols = dat1.apply(lambda x: sortByAnthr(x,dat2.loc[x.name,:],x.index,Reverse),axis=1).iloc[:,-n:]
ordr_cols.columns = list(range(0,n)) #assign interpretable column names
ordr_r = ordr_cols.apply(lambda x: OrderRow(x,dat1),axis=1)
return([ordr_cols, ordr_r])
## Call functions
ordr_cols2,ordr_r = r_selectr(dat2,dat1,5)
##print output:
print("Ordering set:\n",dat2.iloc[-2:,:])
print("Original set:\n", dat1.iloc[-2:,:])
print("Column ordr:\n",ordr_cols2.iloc[-2:,:])
As can be checked, the columns of dat1 are correctly ordered according to the values in dat2.
However, when called from a loop over dataframes, it does not rank/index correctly and produces completely dubious results. Although I am not quite able to recreate the problem using the reduced version presented here, the idea should be the same.
## Loop test:
out_dict = {}
data_dicts = {'dat2':dat2, 'dat3': dat3, 'dat4':dat4}
for i in range(3):
#this outer for loop supplies different parameter values to a wrapper
#function that calls r_selectr.
for key in data_dicts.keys():
ordr_cols,_ = r_selectr(data_dicts[key], dat1,5)
out_list.append(ordr_cols)
#do stuff here
#print output:
print("Ordering set:\n",dat3.iloc[-2:,:])
print("Column ordr:\n",ordr_cols2.iloc[-2:,:])
In my code (almost completely analogous to the example given here), the ordr_cols are no longer ordered correctly for any of the sorting data frames.
I currently solve the issue by separating the ordering and indexing operations with r_selectr into two separate functions. That, for some reason, resolves the issue though I have no idea why.

Spatial temporal query in python with many records

I have a dataframe of 600 000 x/y points with date-time information, along another field 'status', with extra descriptive information
My objective is, for each record:
sum column 'status' by records that are within a certain spatial temporal buffer
the specific buffer is within t - 8 hours and < 100 meters
Currently I have the data in a pandas data frame.
I could, loop through the rows, and for each record, subset the dates of interest, then calculate a distances and restrict the selection further. However that would still be quite slow with so many records.
THIS TAKES 4.4 hours to run.
I can see that I could create a 3 dimensional kdtree with x, y, date as epoch time. However, I am not certain how to restrict the distances properly when incorporating dates and geographic distances.
Here is some reproducible code for you guys to test on:
Import
import numpy.random as npr
import numpy
import pandas as pd
from pandas import DataFrame, date_range
from datetime import datetime, timedelta
Create data
np.random.seed(111)
Function to generate test data
def CreateDataSet(Number=1):
Output = []
for i in range(Number):
# Create a date range with hour frequency
date = date_range(start='10/1/2012', end='10/31/2012', freq='H')
# Create long lat data
laty = npr.normal(4815862, 5000,size=len(date))
longx = npr.normal(687993, 5000,size=len(date))
# status of interest
status = [0,1]
# Make a random list of statuses
random_status = [status[npr.randint(low=0,high=len(status))] for i in range(len(date))]
# user pool
user = ['sally','derik','james','bob','ryan','chris']
# Make a random list of users
random_user = [user[npr.randint(low=0,high=len(user))] for i in range(len(date))]
Output.extend(zip(random_user, random_status, date, longx, laty))
return pd.DataFrame(Output, columns = ['user', 'status', 'date', 'long', 'lat'])
#Create data
data = CreateDataSet(3)
len(data)
#some time deltas
before = timedelta(hours = 8)
after = timedelta(minutes = 1)
Function to speed up
def work(df):
output = []
#loop through data index's
for i in range(0, len(df)):
l = []
#first we will filter out the data by date to have a smaller list to compute distances for
#create a mask to query all dates between range for date i
date_mask = (df['date'] >= df['date'].iloc[i]-before) & (df['date'] <= df['date'].iloc[i]+after)
#create a mask to query all users who are not user i (themselves)
user_mask = df['user']!=df['user'].iloc[i]
#apply masks
dists_to_check = df[date_mask & user_mask]
#for point i, create coordinate to calculate distances from
a = np.array((df['long'].iloc[i], df['lat'].iloc[i]))
#create array of distances to check on the masked data
b = np.array((dists_to_check['long'].values, dists_to_check['lat'].values))
#for j in the date queried data
for j in range(1, len(dists_to_check)):
#compute the ueclidean distance between point a and each point of b (the date masked data)
x = np.linalg.norm(a-np.array((b[0][j], b[1][j])))
#if the distance is within our range of interest append the index to a list
if x <=100:
l.append(j)
else:
pass
try:
#use the list of desired index's 'l' to query a final subset of the data
data = dists_to_check.iloc[l]
#summarize the column of interest then append to output list
output.append(data['status'].sum())
except IndexError, e:
output.append(0)
#print "There were no data to add"
return pd.DataFrame(output)
Run code and time it
start = datetime.now()
out = work(data)
print datetime.now() - start
Is there a way to do this query in a vectorized way? Or should I be chasing another technique.
<3

Here is what at least somewhat solves my problem. Since the loop can operate on different parts of the data independently, parallelization makes sense here.
using Ipython...
from IPython.parallel import Client
cli = Client()
cli.ids
cli = Client()
dview=cli[:]
with dview.sync_imports():
import numpy as np
import os
from datetime import timedelta
import pandas as pd
#We also need to add the time deltas and output list into the function as
#local variables as well as add the Ipython.parallel decorator
#dview.parallel(block=True)
def work(df):
before = timedelta(hours = 8)
after = timedelta(minutes = 1)
output = []
final time 1:17:54.910206, about 1/4 original time
I would still be very interested for anyone to suggest small speed improvements within the body of the function.