Pandas: expanding DataFrame by number of observations in column - python

Stata has the function expand which adds rows to a database corresponding to values in a particular column. For example:
I have:
df = pd.DataFrame({"A":[1, 2, 3],
"B":[3,4,5]})
A B
0 1 3
1 2 4
2 3 5
What I need:
df2 = pd.DataFrame({"A":[1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3],
"B":[3,4,5, 4, 5, 5]})
A B
0 1 3
1 2 4
2 3 5
3 2 4
4 3 5
6 3 5
The value in df.loc[0,'A'] is 1, so no additional row is added to the end of the DataFrame, since B=3 is only supposed to occur once.
The value in df.loc[1,'A'] is 2, so one observation was added to the end of the DataFrame, bringing the total occurrences of B=4 to 2.
The value in df.loc[2,'A'] is 3, so two observations were added to the end of the DataFrame, bringing the total occurrences of B=5 to 3.
I've scoured prior questions for something to get me started, but no luck. Any help is appreciated.


There are a number of possibilities, all built around np.repeat:
def using_reindex(df):
return df.reindex(np.repeat(df.index, df['A'])).reset_index(drop=True)
def using_dictcomp(df):
return pd.DataFrame({col:np.repeat(df[col].values, df['A'], axis=0)
for col in df})
def using_df_values(df):
return pd.DataFrame(np.repeat(df.values, df['A'], axis=0), columns=df.columns)
def using_loc(df):
return df.loc[np.repeat(df.index.values, df['A'])].reset_index(drop=True)
For example,
In [219]: df = pd.DataFrame({"A":[1, 2, 3], "B":[3,4,5]})
In [220]: df.reindex(np.repeat(df.index, df['A'])).reset_index(drop=True)
Out[220]:
A B
0 1 3
1 2 4
2 2 4
3 3 5
4 3 5
5 3 5
Here is a benchmark on a 1000-row
DataFrame; the result being a roughly 500K-row DataFrame:
In [208]: df = make_dataframe(1000)
In [210]: %timeit using_dictcomp(df)
10 loops, best of 3: 23.6 ms per loop
In [218]: %timeit using_reindex(df)
10 loops, best of 3: 35.8 ms per loop
In [211]: %timeit using_df_values(df)
10 loops, best of 3: 31.3 ms per loop
In [212]: %timeit using_loc(df)
1 loop, best of 3: 275 ms per loop
This is the code I used to generate df:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
def make_dataframe(nrows=100):
df = pd.DataFrame(
{'A': np.arange(nrows),
'float': np.random.randn(nrows),
'str': np.random.choice('Lorem ipsum dolor sit'.split(), size=nrows),
'datetime64': pd.date_range('20000101', periods=nrows)},
index=pd.date_range('20000101', periods=nrows))
return df
df = make_dataframe(1000)
If there are only a few columns, using_dictcomp is the fastest. But note that using_dictcomp assumes df has unique column names. The dict comprehension in using_dictcomp won't repeat duplicated column names. The other alternatives will work with repeated column names, however.
Both using_reindex and using_loc assume df has a unique index.
using_reindex came from cᴏʟᴅsᴘᴇᴇᴅ's using_loc, in an (unfortunately) now
deleted post. cᴏʟᴅsᴘᴇᴇᴅ showed it wasn't necessary to manually repeat all the values -- you only need to repeat the index and then let df.loc (or df.reindex) repeat all the rows for you. It also avoids accessing df.values which could generate an intermediate NumPy array of object dtype if df contains columns of multiple dtypes.

Related

Convert the rows into a list with condition [duplicate]

I have a pandas data frame df like:
a b
A 1
A 2
B 5
B 5
B 4
C 6
I want to group by the first column and get second column as lists in rows:
A [1,2]
B [5,5,4]
C [6]
Is it possible to do something like this using pandas groupby?

You can do this using groupby to group on the column of interest and then apply list to every group:
In [1]: df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6]})
df
Out[1]:
a b
0 A 1
1 A 2
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4
5 C 6
In [2]: df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
Out[2]:
a
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
Name: b, dtype: object
In [3]: df1 = df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list).reset_index(name='new')
df1
Out[3]:
a new
0 A [1, 2]
1 B [5, 5, 4]
2 C [6]

A handy way to achieve this would be:
df.groupby('a').agg({'b':lambda x: list(x)})
Look into writing Custom Aggregations: https://www.kaggle.com/akshaysehgal/how-to-group-by-aggregate-using-py

If performance is important go down to numpy level:
import numpy as np
df = pd.DataFrame({'a': np.random.randint(0, 60, 600), 'b': [1, 2, 5, 5, 4, 6]*100})
def f(df):
keys, values = df.sort_values('a').values.T
ukeys, index = np.unique(keys, True)
arrays = np.split(values, index[1:])
df2 = pd.DataFrame({'a':ukeys, 'b':[list(a) for a in arrays]})
return df2
Tests:
In [301]: %timeit f(df)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.64 ms per loop
In [302]: %timeit df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
100 loops, best of 3: 5.26 ms per loop

To solve this for several columns of a dataframe:
In [5]: df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6],'c'
...: :[3,3,3,4,4,4]})
In [6]: df
Out[6]:
a b c
0 A 1 3
1 A 2 3
2 B 5 3
3 B 5 4
4 B 4 4
5 C 6 4
In [7]: df.groupby('a').agg(lambda x: list(x))
Out[7]:
b c
a
A [1, 2] [3, 3]
B [5, 5, 4] [3, 4, 4]
C [6] [4]
This answer was inspired from Anamika Modi's answer. Thank you!

Use any of the following groupby and agg recipes.
# Setup
df = pd.DataFrame({
'a': ['A', 'A', 'B', 'B', 'B', 'C'],
'b': [1, 2, 5, 5, 4, 6],
'c': ['x', 'y', 'z', 'x', 'y', 'z']
})
df
a b c
0 A 1 x
1 A 2 y
2 B 5 z
3 B 5 x
4 B 4 y
5 C 6 z
To aggregate multiple columns as lists, use any of the following:
df.groupby('a').agg(list)
df.groupby('a').agg(pd.Series.tolist)
b c
a
A [1, 2] [x, y]
B [5, 5, 4] [z, x, y]
C [6] [z]
To group-listify a single column only, convert the groupby to a SeriesGroupBy object, then call SeriesGroupBy.agg. Use,
df.groupby('a').agg({'b': list}) # 4.42 ms
df.groupby('a')['b'].agg(list) # 2.76 ms - faster
a
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
Name: b, dtype: object

As you were saying the groupby method of a pd.DataFrame object can do the job.
Example
L = ['A','A','B','B','B','C']
N = [1,2,5,5,4,6]
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame(zip(L,N),columns = list('LN'))
groups = df.groupby(df.L)
groups.groups
{'A': [0, 1], 'B': [2, 3, 4], 'C': [5]}
which gives and index-wise description of the groups.
To get elements of single groups, you can do, for instance
groups.get_group('A')
L N
0 A 1
1 A 2
groups.get_group('B')
L N
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4

It is time to use agg instead of apply .
When
df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6], 'c': [1,2,5,5,4,6]})
If you want multiple columns stack into list , result in pd.DataFrame
df.groupby('a')[['b', 'c']].agg(list)
# or
df.groupby('a').agg(list)
If you want single column in list, result in ps.Series
df.groupby('a')['b'].agg(list)
#or
df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
Note, result in pd.DataFrame is about 10x slower than result in ps.Series when you only aggregate single column, use it in multicolumns case .

Just a suplement. pandas.pivot_table is much more universal and seems more convenient：
"""data"""
df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'],
'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6],
'c':[1,2,1,1,1,6]})
print(df)
a b c
0 A 1 1
1 A 2 2
2 B 5 1
3 B 5 1
4 B 4 1
5 C 6 6
"""pivot_table"""
pt = pd.pivot_table(df,
values=['b', 'c'],
index='a',
aggfunc={'b': list,
'c': set})
print(pt)
b c
a
A [1, 2] {1, 2}
B [5, 5, 4] {1}
C [6] {6}

If looking for a unique list while grouping multiple columns this could probably help:
df.groupby('a').agg(lambda x: list(set(x))).reset_index()

Building upon #B.M answer, here is a more general version and updated to work with newer library version: (numpy version 1.19.2, pandas version 1.2.1)
And this solution can also deal with multi-indices:
However this is not heavily tested, use with caution.
If performance is important go down to numpy level:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame({'a': np.random.randint(0, 10, 90), 'b': [1,2,3]*30, 'c':list('abcefghij')*10, 'd': list('hij')*30})
def f_multi(df,col_names):
if not isinstance(col_names,list):
col_names = [col_names]
values = df.sort_values(col_names).values.T
col_idcs = [df.columns.get_loc(cn) for cn in col_names]
other_col_names = [name for idx, name in enumerate(df.columns) if idx not in col_idcs]
other_col_idcs = [df.columns.get_loc(cn) for cn in other_col_names]
# split df into indexing colums(=keys) and data colums(=vals)
keys = values[col_idcs,:]
vals = values[other_col_idcs,:]
# list of tuple of key pairs
multikeys = list(zip(*keys))
# remember unique key pairs and ther indices
ukeys, index = np.unique(multikeys, return_index=True, axis=0)
# split data columns according to those indices
arrays = np.split(vals, index[1:], axis=1)
# resulting list of subarrays has same number of subarrays as unique key pairs
# each subarray has the following shape:
# rows = number of non-grouped data columns
# cols = number of data points grouped into that unique key pair
# prepare multi index
idx = pd.MultiIndex.from_arrays(ukeys.T, names=col_names)
list_agg_vals = dict()
for tup in zip(*arrays, other_col_names):
col_vals = tup[:-1] # first entries are the subarrays from above
col_name = tup[-1] # last entry is data-column name
list_agg_vals[col_name] = col_vals
df2 = pd.DataFrame(data=list_agg_vals, index=idx)
return df2
Tests:
In [227]: %timeit f_multi(df, ['a','d'])
2.54 ms ± 64.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
In [228]: %timeit df.groupby(['a','d']).agg(list)
4.56 ms ± 61.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
Results:
for the random seed 0 one would get:

The easiest way I have found to achieve the same thing, at least for one column, which is similar to Anamika's answer, just with the tuple syntax for the aggregate function.
df.groupby('a').agg(b=('b','unique'), c=('c','unique'))

Let us using df.groupby with list and Series constructor
pd.Series({x : y.b.tolist() for x , y in df.groupby('a')})
Out[664]:
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
dtype: object

Here I have grouped elements with "|" as a separator
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_csv('input.csv')
df
Out[1]:
Area Keywords
0 A 1
1 A 2
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4
5 C 6
df.dropna(inplace = True)
df['Area']=df['Area'].apply(lambda x:x.lower().strip())
print df.columns
df_op = df.groupby('Area').agg({"Keywords":lambda x : "|".join(x)})
df_op.to_csv('output.csv')
Out[2]:
df_op
Area Keywords
A [1| 2]
B [5| 5| 4]
C [6]

Answer based on #EdChum's comment on his answer. Comment is this -
groupby is notoriously slow and memory hungry, what you could do is sort by column A, then find the idxmin and idxmax (probably store this in a dict) and use this to slice your dataframe would be faster I think
Let's first create a dataframe with 500k categories in first column and total df shape 20 million as mentioned in question.
df = pd.DataFrame(columns=['a', 'b'])
df['a'] = (np.random.randint(low=0, high=500000, size=(20000000,))).astype(str)
df['b'] = list(range(20000000))
print(df.shape)
df.head()
# Sort data by first column
df.sort_values(by=['a'], ascending=True, inplace=True)
df.reset_index(drop=True, inplace=True)
# Create a temp column
df['temp_idx'] = list(range(df.shape[0]))
# Take all values of b in a separate list
all_values_b = list(df.b.values)
print(len(all_values_b))
# For each category in column a, find min and max indexes
gp_df = df.groupby(['a']).agg({'temp_idx': [np.min, np.max]})
gp_df.reset_index(inplace=True)
gp_df.columns = ['a', 'temp_idx_min', 'temp_idx_max']
# Now create final list_b column, using min and max indexes for each category of a and filtering list of b.
gp_df['list_b'] = gp_df[['temp_idx_min', 'temp_idx_max']].apply(lambda x: all_values_b[x[0]:x[1]+1], axis=1)
print(gp_df.shape)
gp_df.head()
This above code takes 2 minutes for 20 million rows and 500k categories in first column.

Sorting consumes O(nlog(n)) time which is the most time consuming operation in the solutions suggested above
For a simple solution (containing single column) pd.Series.to_list would work and can be considered more efficient unless considering other frameworks
e.g.
import pandas as pd
from string import ascii_lowercase
import random
def generate_string(case=4):
return ''.join([random.choice(ascii_lowercase) for _ in range(case)])
df = pd.DataFrame({'num_val':[random.randint(0,100) for _ in range(20000000)],'string_val':[generate_string() for _ in range(20000000)]})
%timeit df.groupby('string_val').agg({'num_val':pd.Series.to_list})
For 20 million records it takes about 17.2 seconds. compared to apply(list) which takes about 19.2 and lambda function which takes about 20.6s

Just to add up to previous answers, In my case, I want the list and other functions like min and max. The way to do that is:
df = pd.DataFrame({
'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'],
'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6]
})
df=df.groupby('a').agg({
'b':['min', 'max',lambda x: list(x)]
})
#then flattening and renaming if necessary
df.columns = df.columns.to_flat_index()
df.rename(columns={('b', 'min'): 'b_min', ('b', 'max'): 'b_max', ('b', '<lambda_0>'): 'b_list'},inplace=True)

It's a bit old but I was directed here. Is there anyway to group it by multiple different columns?
"column1", "column2", "column3"
"foo", "val1", 3
"foo", "val2", 0
"foo", "val2", 3
"bar", "other", 99
to this:
"column1", "column2", "column3"
"foo", "val1", [ 3 ]
"foo", "val2", [ 0, 3 ]
"bar", "other", [ 99 ]

Pandas GroupBy Similar Values and Seeing Which Group is It [duplicate]

I have a pandas data frame df like:
a b
A 1
A 2
B 5
B 5
B 4
C 6
I want to group by the first column and get second column as lists in rows:
A [1,2]
B [5,5,4]
C [6]
Is it possible to do something like this using pandas groupby?

You can do this using groupby to group on the column of interest and then apply list to every group:
In [1]: df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6]})
df
Out[1]:
a b
0 A 1
1 A 2
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4
5 C 6
In [2]: df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
Out[2]:
a
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
Name: b, dtype: object
In [3]: df1 = df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list).reset_index(name='new')
df1
Out[3]:
a new
0 A [1, 2]
1 B [5, 5, 4]
2 C [6]

A handy way to achieve this would be:
df.groupby('a').agg({'b':lambda x: list(x)})
Look into writing Custom Aggregations: https://www.kaggle.com/akshaysehgal/how-to-group-by-aggregate-using-py

If performance is important go down to numpy level:
import numpy as np
df = pd.DataFrame({'a': np.random.randint(0, 60, 600), 'b': [1, 2, 5, 5, 4, 6]*100})
def f(df):
keys, values = df.sort_values('a').values.T
ukeys, index = np.unique(keys, True)
arrays = np.split(values, index[1:])
df2 = pd.DataFrame({'a':ukeys, 'b':[list(a) for a in arrays]})
return df2
Tests:
In [301]: %timeit f(df)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.64 ms per loop
In [302]: %timeit df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
100 loops, best of 3: 5.26 ms per loop

To solve this for several columns of a dataframe:
In [5]: df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6],'c'
...: :[3,3,3,4,4,4]})
In [6]: df
Out[6]:
a b c
0 A 1 3
1 A 2 3
2 B 5 3
3 B 5 4
4 B 4 4
5 C 6 4
In [7]: df.groupby('a').agg(lambda x: list(x))
Out[7]:
b c
a
A [1, 2] [3, 3]
B [5, 5, 4] [3, 4, 4]
C [6] [4]
This answer was inspired from Anamika Modi's answer. Thank you!

Use any of the following groupby and agg recipes.
# Setup
df = pd.DataFrame({
'a': ['A', 'A', 'B', 'B', 'B', 'C'],
'b': [1, 2, 5, 5, 4, 6],
'c': ['x', 'y', 'z', 'x', 'y', 'z']
})
df
a b c
0 A 1 x
1 A 2 y
2 B 5 z
3 B 5 x
4 B 4 y
5 C 6 z
To aggregate multiple columns as lists, use any of the following:
df.groupby('a').agg(list)
df.groupby('a').agg(pd.Series.tolist)
b c
a
A [1, 2] [x, y]
B [5, 5, 4] [z, x, y]
C [6] [z]
To group-listify a single column only, convert the groupby to a SeriesGroupBy object, then call SeriesGroupBy.agg. Use,
df.groupby('a').agg({'b': list}) # 4.42 ms
df.groupby('a')['b'].agg(list) # 2.76 ms - faster
a
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
Name: b, dtype: object

As you were saying the groupby method of a pd.DataFrame object can do the job.
Example
L = ['A','A','B','B','B','C']
N = [1,2,5,5,4,6]
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame(zip(L,N),columns = list('LN'))
groups = df.groupby(df.L)
groups.groups
{'A': [0, 1], 'B': [2, 3, 4], 'C': [5]}
which gives and index-wise description of the groups.
To get elements of single groups, you can do, for instance
groups.get_group('A')
L N
0 A 1
1 A 2
groups.get_group('B')
L N
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4

It is time to use agg instead of apply .
When
df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6], 'c': [1,2,5,5,4,6]})
If you want multiple columns stack into list , result in pd.DataFrame
df.groupby('a')[['b', 'c']].agg(list)
# or
df.groupby('a').agg(list)
If you want single column in list, result in ps.Series
df.groupby('a')['b'].agg(list)
#or
df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
Note, result in pd.DataFrame is about 10x slower than result in ps.Series when you only aggregate single column, use it in multicolumns case .

Just a suplement. pandas.pivot_table is much more universal and seems more convenient：
"""data"""
df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'],
'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6],
'c':[1,2,1,1,1,6]})
print(df)
a b c
0 A 1 1
1 A 2 2
2 B 5 1
3 B 5 1
4 B 4 1
5 C 6 6
"""pivot_table"""
pt = pd.pivot_table(df,
values=['b', 'c'],
index='a',
aggfunc={'b': list,
'c': set})
print(pt)
b c
a
A [1, 2] {1, 2}
B [5, 5, 4] {1}
C [6] {6}

If looking for a unique list while grouping multiple columns this could probably help:
df.groupby('a').agg(lambda x: list(set(x))).reset_index()

Building upon #B.M answer, here is a more general version and updated to work with newer library version: (numpy version 1.19.2, pandas version 1.2.1)
And this solution can also deal with multi-indices:
However this is not heavily tested, use with caution.
If performance is important go down to numpy level:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame({'a': np.random.randint(0, 10, 90), 'b': [1,2,3]*30, 'c':list('abcefghij')*10, 'd': list('hij')*30})
def f_multi(df,col_names):
if not isinstance(col_names,list):
col_names = [col_names]
values = df.sort_values(col_names).values.T
col_idcs = [df.columns.get_loc(cn) for cn in col_names]
other_col_names = [name for idx, name in enumerate(df.columns) if idx not in col_idcs]
other_col_idcs = [df.columns.get_loc(cn) for cn in other_col_names]
# split df into indexing colums(=keys) and data colums(=vals)
keys = values[col_idcs,:]
vals = values[other_col_idcs,:]
# list of tuple of key pairs
multikeys = list(zip(*keys))
# remember unique key pairs and ther indices
ukeys, index = np.unique(multikeys, return_index=True, axis=0)
# split data columns according to those indices
arrays = np.split(vals, index[1:], axis=1)
# resulting list of subarrays has same number of subarrays as unique key pairs
# each subarray has the following shape:
# rows = number of non-grouped data columns
# cols = number of data points grouped into that unique key pair
# prepare multi index
idx = pd.MultiIndex.from_arrays(ukeys.T, names=col_names)
list_agg_vals = dict()
for tup in zip(*arrays, other_col_names):
col_vals = tup[:-1] # first entries are the subarrays from above
col_name = tup[-1] # last entry is data-column name
list_agg_vals[col_name] = col_vals
df2 = pd.DataFrame(data=list_agg_vals, index=idx)
return df2
Tests:
In [227]: %timeit f_multi(df, ['a','d'])
2.54 ms ± 64.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
In [228]: %timeit df.groupby(['a','d']).agg(list)
4.56 ms ± 61.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
Results:
for the random seed 0 one would get:

The easiest way I have found to achieve the same thing, at least for one column, which is similar to Anamika's answer, just with the tuple syntax for the aggregate function.
df.groupby('a').agg(b=('b','unique'), c=('c','unique'))

Let us using df.groupby with list and Series constructor
pd.Series({x : y.b.tolist() for x , y in df.groupby('a')})
Out[664]:
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
dtype: object

Here I have grouped elements with "|" as a separator
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_csv('input.csv')
df
Out[1]:
Area Keywords
0 A 1
1 A 2
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4
5 C 6
df.dropna(inplace = True)
df['Area']=df['Area'].apply(lambda x:x.lower().strip())
print df.columns
df_op = df.groupby('Area').agg({"Keywords":lambda x : "|".join(x)})
df_op.to_csv('output.csv')
Out[2]:
df_op
Area Keywords
A [1| 2]
B [5| 5| 4]
C [6]

Answer based on #EdChum's comment on his answer. Comment is this -
groupby is notoriously slow and memory hungry, what you could do is sort by column A, then find the idxmin and idxmax (probably store this in a dict) and use this to slice your dataframe would be faster I think
Let's first create a dataframe with 500k categories in first column and total df shape 20 million as mentioned in question.
df = pd.DataFrame(columns=['a', 'b'])
df['a'] = (np.random.randint(low=0, high=500000, size=(20000000,))).astype(str)
df['b'] = list(range(20000000))
print(df.shape)
df.head()
# Sort data by first column
df.sort_values(by=['a'], ascending=True, inplace=True)
df.reset_index(drop=True, inplace=True)
# Create a temp column
df['temp_idx'] = list(range(df.shape[0]))
# Take all values of b in a separate list
all_values_b = list(df.b.values)
print(len(all_values_b))
# For each category in column a, find min and max indexes
gp_df = df.groupby(['a']).agg({'temp_idx': [np.min, np.max]})
gp_df.reset_index(inplace=True)
gp_df.columns = ['a', 'temp_idx_min', 'temp_idx_max']
# Now create final list_b column, using min and max indexes for each category of a and filtering list of b.
gp_df['list_b'] = gp_df[['temp_idx_min', 'temp_idx_max']].apply(lambda x: all_values_b[x[0]:x[1]+1], axis=1)
print(gp_df.shape)
gp_df.head()
This above code takes 2 minutes for 20 million rows and 500k categories in first column.

Sorting consumes O(nlog(n)) time which is the most time consuming operation in the solutions suggested above
For a simple solution (containing single column) pd.Series.to_list would work and can be considered more efficient unless considering other frameworks
e.g.
import pandas as pd
from string import ascii_lowercase
import random
def generate_string(case=4):
return ''.join([random.choice(ascii_lowercase) for _ in range(case)])
df = pd.DataFrame({'num_val':[random.randint(0,100) for _ in range(20000000)],'string_val':[generate_string() for _ in range(20000000)]})
%timeit df.groupby('string_val').agg({'num_val':pd.Series.to_list})
For 20 million records it takes about 17.2 seconds. compared to apply(list) which takes about 19.2 and lambda function which takes about 20.6s

Just to add up to previous answers, In my case, I want the list and other functions like min and max. The way to do that is:
df = pd.DataFrame({
'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'],
'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6]
})
df=df.groupby('a').agg({
'b':['min', 'max',lambda x: list(x)]
})
#then flattening and renaming if necessary
df.columns = df.columns.to_flat_index()
df.rename(columns={('b', 'min'): 'b_min', ('b', 'max'): 'b_max', ('b', '<lambda_0>'): 'b_list'},inplace=True)

It's a bit old but I was directed here. Is there anyway to group it by multiple different columns?
"column1", "column2", "column3"
"foo", "val1", 3
"foo", "val2", 0
"foo", "val2", 3
"bar", "other", 99
to this:
"column1", "column2", "column3"
"foo", "val1", [ 3 ]
"foo", "val2", [ 0, 3 ]
"bar", "other", [ 99 ]

How to Change Multiple Rows into Single Rows in Python Pandas [duplicate]

I have a pandas data frame df like:
a b
A 1
A 2
B 5
B 5
B 4
C 6
I want to group by the first column and get second column as lists in rows:
A [1,2]
B [5,5,4]
C [6]
Is it possible to do something like this using pandas groupby?

You can do this using groupby to group on the column of interest and then apply list to every group:
In [1]: df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6]})
df
Out[1]:
a b
0 A 1
1 A 2
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4
5 C 6
In [2]: df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
Out[2]:
a
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
Name: b, dtype: object
In [3]: df1 = df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list).reset_index(name='new')
df1
Out[3]:
a new
0 A [1, 2]
1 B [5, 5, 4]
2 C [6]

A handy way to achieve this would be:
df.groupby('a').agg({'b':lambda x: list(x)})
Look into writing Custom Aggregations: https://www.kaggle.com/akshaysehgal/how-to-group-by-aggregate-using-py

If performance is important go down to numpy level:
import numpy as np
df = pd.DataFrame({'a': np.random.randint(0, 60, 600), 'b': [1, 2, 5, 5, 4, 6]*100})
def f(df):
keys, values = df.sort_values('a').values.T
ukeys, index = np.unique(keys, True)
arrays = np.split(values, index[1:])
df2 = pd.DataFrame({'a':ukeys, 'b':[list(a) for a in arrays]})
return df2
Tests:
In [301]: %timeit f(df)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.64 ms per loop
In [302]: %timeit df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
100 loops, best of 3: 5.26 ms per loop

To solve this for several columns of a dataframe:
In [5]: df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6],'c'
...: :[3,3,3,4,4,4]})
In [6]: df
Out[6]:
a b c
0 A 1 3
1 A 2 3
2 B 5 3
3 B 5 4
4 B 4 4
5 C 6 4
In [7]: df.groupby('a').agg(lambda x: list(x))
Out[7]:
b c
a
A [1, 2] [3, 3]
B [5, 5, 4] [3, 4, 4]
C [6] [4]
This answer was inspired from Anamika Modi's answer. Thank you!

Use any of the following groupby and agg recipes.
# Setup
df = pd.DataFrame({
'a': ['A', 'A', 'B', 'B', 'B', 'C'],
'b': [1, 2, 5, 5, 4, 6],
'c': ['x', 'y', 'z', 'x', 'y', 'z']
})
df
a b c
0 A 1 x
1 A 2 y
2 B 5 z
3 B 5 x
4 B 4 y
5 C 6 z
To aggregate multiple columns as lists, use any of the following:
df.groupby('a').agg(list)
df.groupby('a').agg(pd.Series.tolist)
b c
a
A [1, 2] [x, y]
B [5, 5, 4] [z, x, y]
C [6] [z]
To group-listify a single column only, convert the groupby to a SeriesGroupBy object, then call SeriesGroupBy.agg. Use,
df.groupby('a').agg({'b': list}) # 4.42 ms
df.groupby('a')['b'].agg(list) # 2.76 ms - faster
a
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
Name: b, dtype: object

As you were saying the groupby method of a pd.DataFrame object can do the job.
Example
L = ['A','A','B','B','B','C']
N = [1,2,5,5,4,6]
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame(zip(L,N),columns = list('LN'))
groups = df.groupby(df.L)
groups.groups
{'A': [0, 1], 'B': [2, 3, 4], 'C': [5]}
which gives and index-wise description of the groups.
To get elements of single groups, you can do, for instance
groups.get_group('A')
L N
0 A 1
1 A 2
groups.get_group('B')
L N
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4

It is time to use agg instead of apply .
When
df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'], 'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6], 'c': [1,2,5,5,4,6]})
If you want multiple columns stack into list , result in pd.DataFrame
df.groupby('a')[['b', 'c']].agg(list)
# or
df.groupby('a').agg(list)
If you want single column in list, result in ps.Series
df.groupby('a')['b'].agg(list)
#or
df.groupby('a')['b'].apply(list)
Note, result in pd.DataFrame is about 10x slower than result in ps.Series when you only aggregate single column, use it in multicolumns case .

Just a suplement. pandas.pivot_table is much more universal and seems more convenient：
"""data"""
df = pd.DataFrame( {'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'],
'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6],
'c':[1,2,1,1,1,6]})
print(df)
a b c
0 A 1 1
1 A 2 2
2 B 5 1
3 B 5 1
4 B 4 1
5 C 6 6
"""pivot_table"""
pt = pd.pivot_table(df,
values=['b', 'c'],
index='a',
aggfunc={'b': list,
'c': set})
print(pt)
b c
a
A [1, 2] {1, 2}
B [5, 5, 4] {1}
C [6] {6}

If looking for a unique list while grouping multiple columns this could probably help:
df.groupby('a').agg(lambda x: list(set(x))).reset_index()

Building upon #B.M answer, here is a more general version and updated to work with newer library version: (numpy version 1.19.2, pandas version 1.2.1)
And this solution can also deal with multi-indices:
However this is not heavily tested, use with caution.
If performance is important go down to numpy level:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame({'a': np.random.randint(0, 10, 90), 'b': [1,2,3]*30, 'c':list('abcefghij')*10, 'd': list('hij')*30})
def f_multi(df,col_names):
if not isinstance(col_names,list):
col_names = [col_names]
values = df.sort_values(col_names).values.T
col_idcs = [df.columns.get_loc(cn) for cn in col_names]
other_col_names = [name for idx, name in enumerate(df.columns) if idx not in col_idcs]
other_col_idcs = [df.columns.get_loc(cn) for cn in other_col_names]
# split df into indexing colums(=keys) and data colums(=vals)
keys = values[col_idcs,:]
vals = values[other_col_idcs,:]
# list of tuple of key pairs
multikeys = list(zip(*keys))
# remember unique key pairs and ther indices
ukeys, index = np.unique(multikeys, return_index=True, axis=0)
# split data columns according to those indices
arrays = np.split(vals, index[1:], axis=1)
# resulting list of subarrays has same number of subarrays as unique key pairs
# each subarray has the following shape:
# rows = number of non-grouped data columns
# cols = number of data points grouped into that unique key pair
# prepare multi index
idx = pd.MultiIndex.from_arrays(ukeys.T, names=col_names)
list_agg_vals = dict()
for tup in zip(*arrays, other_col_names):
col_vals = tup[:-1] # first entries are the subarrays from above
col_name = tup[-1] # last entry is data-column name
list_agg_vals[col_name] = col_vals
df2 = pd.DataFrame(data=list_agg_vals, index=idx)
return df2
Tests:
In [227]: %timeit f_multi(df, ['a','d'])
2.54 ms ± 64.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
In [228]: %timeit df.groupby(['a','d']).agg(list)
4.56 ms ± 61.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
Results:
for the random seed 0 one would get:

The easiest way I have found to achieve the same thing, at least for one column, which is similar to Anamika's answer, just with the tuple syntax for the aggregate function.
df.groupby('a').agg(b=('b','unique'), c=('c','unique'))

Let us using df.groupby with list and Series constructor
pd.Series({x : y.b.tolist() for x , y in df.groupby('a')})
Out[664]:
A [1, 2]
B [5, 5, 4]
C [6]
dtype: object

Here I have grouped elements with "|" as a separator
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_csv('input.csv')
df
Out[1]:
Area Keywords
0 A 1
1 A 2
2 B 5
3 B 5
4 B 4
5 C 6
df.dropna(inplace = True)
df['Area']=df['Area'].apply(lambda x:x.lower().strip())
print df.columns
df_op = df.groupby('Area').agg({"Keywords":lambda x : "|".join(x)})
df_op.to_csv('output.csv')
Out[2]:
df_op
Area Keywords
A [1| 2]
B [5| 5| 4]
C [6]

Answer based on #EdChum's comment on his answer. Comment is this -
groupby is notoriously slow and memory hungry, what you could do is sort by column A, then find the idxmin and idxmax (probably store this in a dict) and use this to slice your dataframe would be faster I think
Let's first create a dataframe with 500k categories in first column and total df shape 20 million as mentioned in question.
df = pd.DataFrame(columns=['a', 'b'])
df['a'] = (np.random.randint(low=0, high=500000, size=(20000000,))).astype(str)
df['b'] = list(range(20000000))
print(df.shape)
df.head()
# Sort data by first column
df.sort_values(by=['a'], ascending=True, inplace=True)
df.reset_index(drop=True, inplace=True)
# Create a temp column
df['temp_idx'] = list(range(df.shape[0]))
# Take all values of b in a separate list
all_values_b = list(df.b.values)
print(len(all_values_b))
# For each category in column a, find min and max indexes
gp_df = df.groupby(['a']).agg({'temp_idx': [np.min, np.max]})
gp_df.reset_index(inplace=True)
gp_df.columns = ['a', 'temp_idx_min', 'temp_idx_max']
# Now create final list_b column, using min and max indexes for each category of a and filtering list of b.
gp_df['list_b'] = gp_df[['temp_idx_min', 'temp_idx_max']].apply(lambda x: all_values_b[x[0]:x[1]+1], axis=1)
print(gp_df.shape)
gp_df.head()
This above code takes 2 minutes for 20 million rows and 500k categories in first column.

Sorting consumes O(nlog(n)) time which is the most time consuming operation in the solutions suggested above
For a simple solution (containing single column) pd.Series.to_list would work and can be considered more efficient unless considering other frameworks
e.g.
import pandas as pd
from string import ascii_lowercase
import random
def generate_string(case=4):
return ''.join([random.choice(ascii_lowercase) for _ in range(case)])
df = pd.DataFrame({'num_val':[random.randint(0,100) for _ in range(20000000)],'string_val':[generate_string() for _ in range(20000000)]})
%timeit df.groupby('string_val').agg({'num_val':pd.Series.to_list})
For 20 million records it takes about 17.2 seconds. compared to apply(list) which takes about 19.2 and lambda function which takes about 20.6s

Just to add up to previous answers, In my case, I want the list and other functions like min and max. The way to do that is:
df = pd.DataFrame({
'a':['A','A','B','B','B','C'],
'b':[1,2,5,5,4,6]
})
df=df.groupby('a').agg({
'b':['min', 'max',lambda x: list(x)]
})
#then flattening and renaming if necessary
df.columns = df.columns.to_flat_index()
df.rename(columns={('b', 'min'): 'b_min', ('b', 'max'): 'b_max', ('b', '<lambda_0>'): 'b_list'},inplace=True)

It's a bit old but I was directed here. Is there anyway to group it by multiple different columns?
"column1", "column2", "column3"
"foo", "val1", 3
"foo", "val2", 0
"foo", "val2", 3
"bar", "other", 99
to this:
"column1", "column2", "column3"
"foo", "val1", [ 3 ]
"foo", "val2", [ 0, 3 ]
"bar", "other", [ 99 ]

Pandas MultiIndex groupby retaining index levels

After research I have found no similar questions on this or any other forum.
I'm grouping a MultiIndex dataframe by its inner level. The thing is, after grouping by I still want to know which were the "chosen values" on this inner index.
So I have something of the sort
df = pd.DataFrame([['A', 1, 3],
['A', 2, 4],
['A', 3, 6],
['B', 1, 9],
['B', 2, 10],
['B', 4, 6]],
columns=pd.Index(['Name', 'Date', 'Value'], name='ColumnName')
).set_index(['Name', 'Date'])
ColumnName Value
Name Date
A 1 3
2 4
3 6
B 1 9
2 10
4 6
What I wanted is
ColumnName Value
Name Date
A 3 6
B 4 6
What I was capable of doing was using this command:
df.groupby(level=('Name')).last()
was retrieving this:
ColumnName Value
Name
A 6
B 6
Or, by using this command:
df.groupby(level=('Name','Date')).last()
retrieving an error.
Keep in mind that this is a performance sensitive application.
Thoughts ?
EDIT: Meanwhile I did submit a feature request at GitHub

By using tail(1) instead of last() on the groupby object, you get the desired behaviour:
In [22]: df.groupby(level='Name').tail(1)
Out[22]:
ColumnName Value
Name Date
A 3 6
B 4 6
This is because tail acts like a 'filter' method, keeping the original index intact (but only returning certain rows, in this case the last row of each group). last does not do this, because this method will give you the last non-NaN value for each column in each group, not necessarily returning original rows.
OLD ANSWER (using last): You can rather simply achieve this using groupby by making the index level you want to retain in the groupby as a column:
In [44]: df.reset_index(level='Date').groupby(level=0).last()
Out[44]:
ColumnName Date Value
Name
A 3 6
B 4 6
And afterwards you can set it back as the index to obtain the desired result:
In [46]: df.reset_index(level='Date').groupby(level=0).last().set_index('Date', append=True)
Out[46]:
ColumnName Value
Name Date
A 3 6
B 4 6
Since there was asked about performance, it is true that the groupby solution is slower on the example dataframe:
In [96]: %timeit get_slice(df)
1000 loops, best of 3: 879 µs per loop
In [97]: %timeit df.reset_index(level='Date').groupby(level='Name').last().set_index('Date', append=True)
100 loops, best of 3: 3.75 ms per loop
In [220]: %timeit df.groupby(level='Name').tail(1)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.04 ms per loop
But if you look at a bigger example dataframe, the difference is already much smaller (and the last method is even faster):
In [83]: df1 = pd.DataFrame(
{'Value':np.random.randint(100, size=len(string.letters)*100)},
index=pd.MultiIndex.from_product([list(string.letters), range(100)],
names=['Name', 'Date']))
In [84]: df1
Out[84]:
Value
Name Date
a 0 13
1 9
2 11
3 16
... ...
Z 96 15
97 20
98 40
99 91
[5200 rows x 1 columns]
In [85]: %timeit get_slice(df1)
100 loops, best of 3: 3.24 ms per loop
In [86]: %timeit df1.reset_index(level='Date').groupby(level='Name').last().set_index('Date', append=True)
100 loops, best of 3: 4.69 ms per loop
In [218]: %timeit df1.groupby(level='Name').tail(1)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.66 ms per loop
It will depend on the exact application of course, but in many cases such difference in performance won't be significant.

This will get it done:
def get_slice(df):
l0, l1 = df.index.levels
b0, b1 = df.index.labels
n = len(l0)
myslice = range(n)
for i in myslice:
myslice[i] = (l0[i], l1[b1[b0 == i][-1]])
return df.loc[myslice]
Timed
%%timeit
get_slice(df)
1000 loops, best of 3: 458 µs per loop

Try This:: reset_index()
df = pd.DataFrame([['A', 1, 3],
['A', 2, 4],
['A', 3, 6],
['B', 1, 9],
['B', 2, 10],
['B', 4, 6]],
columns=pd.Index(['Name', 'Date', 'Value'], name='ColumnName')
).set_index(['Name', 'Date'])
df = df.reset_index()
df2 = df.groupby(["Name"])["Name","Date","Value" ].last()
df2.set_index(['Name', 'Date'], inplace=True)
# Value
# Name Date
# A 3 6
# B 4 6

Pandas: Appending a row to a dataframe and specify its index label

Is there any way to specify the index that I want for a new row, when appending the row to a dataframe?
The original documentation provides the following example:
In [1301]: df = DataFrame(np.random.randn(8, 4), columns=['A','B','C','D'])
In [1302]: df
Out[1302]:
A B C D
0 -1.137707 -0.891060 -0.693921 1.613616
1 0.464000 0.227371 -0.496922 0.306389
2 -2.290613 -1.134623 -1.561819 -0.260838
3 0.281957 1.523962 -0.902937 0.068159
4 -0.057873 -0.368204 -1.144073 0.861209
5 0.800193 0.782098 -1.069094 -1.099248
6 0.255269 0.009750 0.661084 0.379319
7 -0.008434 1.952541 -1.056652 0.533946
In [1303]: s = df.xs(3)
In [1304]: df.append(s, ignore_index=True)
Out[1304]:
A B C D
0 -1.137707 -0.891060 -0.693921 1.613616
1 0.464000 0.227371 -0.496922 0.306389
2 -2.290613 -1.134623 -1.561819 -0.260838
3 0.281957 1.523962 -0.902937 0.068159
4 -0.057873 -0.368204 -1.144073 0.861209
5 0.800193 0.782098 -1.069094 -1.099248
6 0.255269 0.009750 0.661084 0.379319
7 -0.008434 1.952541 -1.056652 0.533946
8 0.281957 1.523962 -0.902937 0.068159
where the new row gets the index label automatically. Is there any way to control the new label?

The name of the Series becomes the index of the row in the DataFrame:
In [99]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randn(8, 4), columns=['A','B','C','D'])
In [100]: s = df.xs(3)
In [101]: s.name = 10
In [102]: df.append(s)
Out[102]:
A B C D
0 -2.083321 -0.153749 0.174436 1.081056
1 -1.026692 1.495850 -0.025245 -0.171046
2 0.072272 1.218376 1.433281 0.747815
3 -0.940552 0.853073 -0.134842 -0.277135
4 0.478302 -0.599752 -0.080577 0.468618
5 2.609004 -1.679299 -1.593016 1.172298
6 -0.201605 0.406925 1.983177 0.012030
7 1.158530 -2.240124 0.851323 -0.240378
10 -0.940552 0.853073 -0.134842 -0.277135

df.loc will do the job :
>>> df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randn(3, 2), columns=['A','B'])
>>> df
A B
0 -0.269036 0.534991
1 0.069915 -1.173594
2 -1.177792 0.018381
>>> df.loc[13] = df.loc[1]
>>> df
A B
0 -0.269036 0.534991
1 0.069915 -1.173594
2 -1.177792 0.018381
13 0.069915 -1.173594

I shall refer to the same sample of data as posted in the question:
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randn(8, 4), columns=['A','B','C','D'])
print('The original data frame is: \n{}'.format(df))
Running this code will give you
The original data frame is:
A B C D
0 0.494824 -0.328480 0.818117 0.100290
1 0.239037 0.954912 -0.186825 -0.651935
2 -1.818285 -0.158856 0.359811 -0.345560
3 -0.070814 -0.394711 0.081697 -1.178845
4 -1.638063 1.498027 -0.609325 0.882594
5 -0.510217 0.500475 1.039466 0.187076
6 1.116529 0.912380 0.869323 0.119459
7 -1.046507 0.507299 -0.373432 -1.024795
Now you wish to append a new row to this data frame, which doesn't need to be copy of any other row in the data frame. #Alon suggested an interesting approach to use df.loc to append a new row with different index. The issue, however, with this approach is if there is already a row present at that index, it will be overwritten by new values. This is typically the case for datasets when row index is not unique, like store ID in transaction datasets. So a more general solution to your question is to create the row, transform the new row data into a pandas series, name it to the index you want to have and then append it to the data frame. Don't forget to overwrite the original data frame with the one with appended row. The reason is df.append returns a view of the dataframe and does not modify its contents. Following is the code:
row = pd.Series({'A':10,'B':20,'C':30,'D':40},name=3)
df = df.append(row)
print('The new data frame is: \n{}'.format(df))
Following would be the new output:
The new data frame is:
A B C D
0 0.494824 -0.328480 0.818117 0.100290
1 0.239037 0.954912 -0.186825 -0.651935
2 -1.818285 -0.158856 0.359811 -0.345560
3 -0.070814 -0.394711 0.081697 -1.178845
4 -1.638063 1.498027 -0.609325 0.882594
5 -0.510217 0.500475 1.039466 0.187076
6 1.116529 0.912380 0.869323 0.119459
7 -1.046507 0.507299 -0.373432 -1.024795
3 10.000000 20.000000 30.000000 40.000000

There is another solution. The next code is bad (although I think pandas needs this feature):
import pandas as pd
# empty dataframe
a = pd.DataFrame()
a.loc[0] = {'first': 111, 'second': 222}
But the next code runs fine:
import pandas as pd
# empty dataframe
a = pd.DataFrame()
a = a.append(pd.Series({'first': 111, 'second': 222}, name=0))

Maybe my case is a different scenario but looks similar. I would define my own question as: 'How to insert a row with new index at some (given) position?'
Let's create test dataframe:
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame([[1, 2], [3, 4]], columns=['A', 'B'], index=['x', 'y'])
Result:
A B
x 1 2
y 3 4
Then, let's say, we want to place a new row with index z at position 1 (second row).
pos = 1
index_name = 'z'
# create new indexes where index is at the specified position
new_indexes = df.index.insert(pos, index_name)
# create new dataframe with new row
# specify new index in name argument
new_line = pd.Series({'A': 5, 'B': 6}, name=index_name)
df_new_row = pd.DataFrame([new_line], columns=df.columns)
# append new line to dataframe
df = pd.concat([df, df_new_row])
Now it is in the end:
A B
x 1 2
y 3 4
z 5 6
Now let's sort it specifying new index' position:
df = df.reindex(new_indexes)
Result:
A B
x 1 2
z 5 6
y 3 4

You should consider using df.loc[row_name] = row_value.
df.append(pd.Series({row_name: row_value}, name=column will lead to
FutureWarning: The frame.append method is deprecated and will be removed from pandas in a future version. Use pandas.concat instead.
df.loc[row_name] = row_value is faster than pd.concat
Here is an example:
p = pd.DataFrame(data=np.random.rand(100), columns=['price'], index=np.arange(100))
def func1(p):
for i in range(100):
p.loc[i] = 0
def func2(p):
for i in range(100):
p.append(pd.Series({'BTC': 0}, name=i))
def func3(p):
for i in range(100):
p = pd.concat([p, pd.Series({i: 0}, name='price')])
%timeit func1(p)
1.87 ms ± 23.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1,000 loops each)
%timeit func2(p)
1.56 s ± 43.4 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
%timeit func3(p)
24.8 ms ± 748 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

Categories