I wanted to know how does python hashlib library treat sparse files. If the file has a lot of zero blocks then instead of wasting CPU and memory on reading zero blocks does it do any optimization like scanning the inode block map and reading only allocated blocks to compute the hash?
If it does not do it already, what would be the best way to do it myself.
PS: Not sure it would be appropriate to post this question in StackOverflow Meta.
Thanks.
The hashlib module doesn't even work with files. You have to read the data in and pass blocks to the hashing object, so I have no idea why you think it would handle sparse files at all.
The I/O layer doesn't do anything special for sparse files, but that's the OS's job; if it knows the file is sparse, the "read" operation doesn't need to do I/O, it just fills in your buffer with zeroes with no I/O.
Related
I'm trying to write a program that parses data from a (very) large file that contains even rows of 8 sets of 16 bit hex values. For instance, one row would look like this:
edfc b600 edfc 2102 81fb 0000 d1fe 0eff
The data files are expected to be anywhere between 1-4 TB, so I wasn't sure what the best approach would be. If I load this file using Python's open() function, could this turn out badly? I'm worried about how much of an impact this will have on my memory if I'm loading such a large file just to index through. Alternatively, if there's a method I can use to load just the section of data I want from the file, that would be ideal, but as far as I know, I don't think that's even possible. Is this correct?
Anyway, Some sort of idea as to how to approach this very general problem would be much appreciated!
Found an answer from Github. In numpy, there's a function called memmap that works for what I'm doing.
samples = np.memmap("hexdump_samples", mode="r", dtype=np.int16)[100:159]
This didn't seem to cause any issues with the smaller data set I was using, but I can't imagine this causing any issues with memory with the larger files. As far as I understand, this wouldn't cause any issues.
It depends on your computer hardware, how much RAM you have. Python is an interpreted language with a bunch of safeguards, but I wouldn't risk trying to open that file with Python. I would recommend using C or C++, they are good with large amounts of data and memory management. You can then parse the data in bite sized chunks, maybe 16MB per chunk. Python is a extremely slow and memory inefficient compared to C.
I have a large csv file (5 GB) and I can read it with pandas.read_csv(). This operation takes a lot of time 10-20 minutes.
How can I speed it up?
Would it be useful to transform the data in a sqllite format? In case what should I do?
EDIT: More information:
The data contains 1852 columns and 350000 rows. Most of the columns are float65 and contain numbers. Some other contains string or dates (that I suppose are considered as string)
I am using a laptop with 16 GB of RAM and SSD hard drive. The data should fit fine in memory (but I know that python tends to increase the data size)
EDIT 2 :
During the loading I receive this message
/usr/local/lib/python3.4/dist-packages/pandas/io/parsers.py:1164: DtypeWarning: Columns (1841,1842,1844) have mixed types. Specify dtype option on import or set low_memory=False.
data = self._reader.read(nrows)
EDIT: SOLUTION
Read one time the csv file and save it as
data.to_hdf('data.h5', 'table')
This format is incredibly efficient
This actually depends on which part of reading it is taking 10 minutes.
If it's actually reading from disk, then obviously any more compact form of the data will be better.
If it's processing the CSV format (you can tell this because your CPU is at near 100% on one core while reading; it'll be very low for the other two), then you want a form that's already preprocessed.
If it's swapping memory, e.g., because you only have 2GB of physical RAM, then nothing is going to help except splitting the data.
It's important to know which one you have. For example, stream-compressing the data (e.g., with gzip) will make the first problem a lot better, but the second one even worse.
It sounds like you probably have the second problem, which is good to know. (However, there are things you can do that will probably be better no matter what the problem.)
Your idea of storing it in a sqlite database is nice because it can at least potentially solve all three at once; you only read the data in from disk as-needed, and it's stored in a reasonably compact and easy-to-process form. But it's not the best possible solution for the first two, just a "pretty good" one.
In particular, if you actually do need to do array-wide work across all 350000 rows, and can't translate that work into SQL queries, you're not going to get much benefit out of sqlite. Ultimately, you're going to be doing a giant SELECT to pull in all the data and then process it all into one big frame.
Writing out the shape and structure information, then writing the underlying arrays in NumPy binary form. Then, for reading, you have to reverse that. NumPy's binary form just stores the raw data as compactly as possible, and it's a format that can be written blindingly quickly (it's basically just dumping the raw in-memory storage to disk). That will improve both the first and second problems.
Similarly, storing the data in HDF5 (either using Pandas IO or an external library like PyTables or h5py) will improve both the first and second problems. HDF5 is designed to be a reasonably compact and simple format for storing the same kind of data you usually store in Pandas. (And it includes optional compression as a built-in feature, so if you know which of the two you have, you can tune it.) It won't solve the second problem quite as well as the last option, but probably well enough, and it's much simpler (once you get past setting up your HDF5 libraries).
Finally, pickling the data may sometimes be faster. pickle is Python's native serialization format, and it's hookable by third-party modules—and NumPy and Pandas have both hooked it to do a reasonably good job of pickling their data.
(Although this doesn't apply to the question, it may help someone searching later: If you're using Python 2.x, make sure to explicitly use pickle format 2; IIRC, NumPy is very bad at the default pickle format 0. In Python 3.0+, this isn't relevant, because the default format is at least 3.)
Python has two built-in libraries called pickle and cPickle that can store any Python data structure.
cPickle is identical to pickle except that cPickle has trouble with Unicode stuff and is 1000x faster.
Both are really convenient for saving stuff that's going to be re-loaded into Python in some form, since you don't have to worry about some kind of error popping up in your file I/O.
Having worked with a number of XML files, I've found some performance gains from loading pickles instead of raw XML. I'm not entirely sure how the performance compares with CSVs, but it's worth a shot, especially if you don't have to worry about Unicode stuff and can use cPickle. It's also simple, so if it's not a good enough boost, you can move on to other methods with minimal time lost.
A simple example of usage:
>>> import pickle
>>> stuff = ["Here's", "a", "list", "of", "tokens"]
>>> fstream = open("test.pkl", "wb")
>>> pickle.dump(stuff,fstream)
>>> fstream.close()
>>>
>>> fstream2 = open("test.pkl", "rb")
>>> old_stuff = pickle.load(fstream2)
>>> fstream2.close()
>>> old_stuff
["Here's", 'a', 'list', 'of', 'tokens']
>>>
Notice the "b" in the file stream openers. This is important--it preserves cross-platform compatibility of the pickles. I've failed to do this before and had it come back to haunt me.
For your stuff, I recommend writing a first script that parses the CSV and saves it as a pickle; when you do your analysis, the script associated with that loads the pickle like in the second block of code up there.
I've tried this with XML; I'm curious how much of a boost you will get with CSVs.
If the problem is in the processing overhead, then you can divide the file into smaller files and handle them in different CPU cores or threads. Also for some algorithms the python time will increase non-linearly and the dividing method will help in these cases.
I intent to use multiprocessing to read a set of small files with multiprocesing capabilities of Python. However this is awkward in some sense to me because if the disk is rotational then the bottle neck is the rotation time and even-though I use multiple processes, total read time should be similar with single process read. Am I wrong ? What are your comments?
I addition, do you think using multiprocessing might cause intertwined reading of the files so the contents of these files are skewed in some way?
Your reasoning is sound, but the only way to find out for sure is by benchmarking (that said, it is unlikely that reading many small files in parallel will increase performance over reading them sequentially).
I am not entirely sure what you mean by "intertwined reading", but -- unless there are bugs in your code or the files are being changed while you're reading them -- you will get exactly the same contents irrespective of how you read it.
You are indeed right, the bottleneck will be disk-IO.
However, the only way to really know, is to measure both approaches.
If you have influence on the files, you could go for one larger file as opposed to many smaller files.
I've currently got a project running on PiCloud that involves multiple iterations of an ODE Solver. Each iteration produces a NumPy array of about 30 rows and 1500 columns, with each iterations being appended to the bottom of the array of the previous results.
Normally, I'd just let these fairly big arrays be returned by the function, hold them in memory and deal with them all at one. Except PiCloud has a fairly restrictive cap on the size of the data that can be out and out returned by a function, to keep down on transmission costs. Which is fine, except that means I'd have to launch thousands of jobs, each running on iteration, with considerable overhead.
It appears the best solution to this is to write the output to a file, and then collect the file using another function they have that doesn't have a transfer limit.
Is my best bet to do this just dumping it into a CSV file? Should I add to the CSV file each iteration, or hold it all in an array until the end and then just write once? Is there something terribly clever I'm missing?
Unless there is a reason for the intermediate files to be human-readable, do not use CSV, as this will inevitably involve a loss of precision.
The most efficient is probably tofile (doc) which is intended for quick dumps of file to disk when you know all of the attributes of the data ahead of time.
For platform-independent, but numpy-specific, saves, you can use save (doc).
Numpy and scipy also have support for various scientific data formats like HDF5 if you need portability.
I would recommend looking at the pickle module. The pickle module allows you to serialize python objects as streams of bytes (e.g., strings). This allows you to write them to a file or send them over a network, and then reinstantiate the objects later.
Try Joblib - Fast compressed persistence
One of the key components of joblib is it’s ability to persist arbitrary Python objects, and read them back very quickly. It is particularly efficient for containers that do their heavy lifting with numpy arrays. The trick to achieving great speed has been to save in separate files the numpy arrays, and load them via memmapping.
Edit:
Newer (2016) blog entry on data persistence in Joblib
I read that mmap is advantageous than fileinput, because it will read a page into kernel pagecache and shares the page in user address space. Whereas, fileinput actually brings a page into kernel and copies a line to user address space. So, there is this extra space overhead with fileinput.
So, I am planning to move to mmap, but I want to know from advanced python hackers whether it improves performance?
If so, is there a similar implementation of fileinput that uses mmap?
Please point me to any opensource code, if you are aware of.
thank you
mmap takes a file and sticks it in RAM so that you can index it like an array of bytes or as a big data structure.
Its a lot faster if you are accessing your file in a "random-access" manner -- that is doing a lot of fseek(), fread(), fwrite() combinations.
But if you are just reading the file in and processing each line once (say), then it is unlikely to be significantly faster. In fact, for any reasonable file size (remember with mmap it all must fit in RAM -- or paging occurs which begins to reduce the efficiency of mmap) it probably is indistinguishable.