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.
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'm trying to apply machine learning (Python with scikit-learn) to a large data stored in a CSV file which is about 2.2 gigabytes.
As this is a partially empirical process I need to run the script numerous times which results in the pandas.read_csv() function being called over and over again and it takes a lot of time.
Obviously, this is very time consuming so I guess there is must be a way to make the process of reading the data faster - like storing it in a different format or caching it in some way.
Code example in the solution would be great!
I would store already parsed DFs in one of the following formats:
HDF5 (fast, supports conditional reading / querying, supports various compression methods, supported by different tools/languages)
Feather (extremely fast - makes sense to use on SSD drives)
Pickle (fast)
All of them are very fast
PS it's important to know what kind of data (what dtypes) you are going to store, because it might affect the speed dramatically
I have a speed/efficiency related question about python:
I need to write a large number of very large R dataframe-ish files, about 0.5-2 GB sizes. This is basically a large tab-separated table, where each line can contain floats, integers and strings.
Normally, I would just put all my data in numpy dataframe and use np.savetxt to save it, but since there are different data types it can't really be put into one array.
Therefore I have resorted to simply assembling the lines as strings manually, but this is a tad slow. So far I'm doing:
1) Assemble each line as a string
2) Concatenate all lines as single huge string
3) Write string to file
I have several problems with this:
1) The large number of string-concatenations ends up taking a lot of time
2) I run of of RAM to keep strings in memory
3) ...which in turn leads to more separate file.write commands, which are very slow as well.
So my question is: What is a good routine for this kind of problem? One that balances out speed vs memory-consumption for most efficient string-concatenation and writing to disk.
... or maybe this strategy is simply just bad and I should do something completely different?
Thanks in advance!
Seems like Pandas might be a good tool for this problem. It's pretty easy to get started with pandas, and it deals well with most ways you might need to get data into python. Pandas deals well with mixed data (floats, ints, strings), and usually can detect the types on its own.
Once you have an (R-like) data frame in pandas, it's pretty straightforward to output the frame to csv.
DataFrame.to_csv(path_or_buf, sep='\t')
There's a bunch of other configuration things you can do to make your tab separated file just right.
http://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/generated/pandas.DataFrame.to_csv.html
Unless you are running into a performance issue, you can probably write to the file line by line. Python internally uses buffering and will likely give you a nice compromise between performance and memory efficiency.
Python buffering is different from OS buffering and you can specify how you want things buffered by setting the buffering argument to open.
I think what you might want to do is create a memory mapped file. Take a look at the following documentation to see how you can do this with numpy:
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.memmap.html
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 have a large directory of text files--approximately 7 GB. I need to load them quickly into Python unicode strings in iPython. I have 15 GB of memory total. (I'm using EC2, so I can buy more memory if absolutely necessary.)
Simply reading the files will be too slow for my purposes. I have tried copying the files to a ramdisk and then loading them from there into iPython. That speeds things up but iPython crashes (not enough memory left over?) Here is the ramdisk setup:
mount -t tmpfs none /var/ramdisk -o size=7g
Anyone have any ideas? Basically, I'm looking for persistent in-memory Python objects. The iPython requirement precludes using IncPy: http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/incpy.html .
Thanks!
There is much that is confusing here, which makes it more difficult to answer this question:
The ipython requirement. Why do you need to process such large data files from within ipython instead of a stand-alone script?
The tmpfs RAM disk. I read your question as implying that you read all of your input data into memory at once in Python. If that is the case, then python allocates its own buffers to hold all the data anyway, and the tmpfs filesystem only buys you a performance gain if you reload the data from the RAM disk many, many times.
Mentioning IncPy. If your performance issues are something you could solve with memoization, why can't you just manually implement memoization for the functions where it would help most?
So. If you actually need all the data in memory at once -- if your algorithm reprocesses the entire dataset multiple times, for example -- I would suggest looking at the mmap module. That will provide the data in raw bytes instead of unicode objects, which might entail a little more work in your algorithm (operating on the encoded data, for example), but will use a reasonable amount of memory. Reading the data into Python unicode objects all at once will require either 2x or 4x as much RAM as it occupies on disk (assuming the data is UTF-8).
If your algorithm simply does a single linear pass over the data (as does the Aho-Corasick algorithm you mention), then you'd be far better off just reading in a reasonably sized chunk at a time:
with codecs.open(inpath, encoding='utf-8') as f:
data = f.read(8192)
while data:
process(data)
data = f.read(8192)
I hope this at least gets you closer.
I saw the mention of IncPy and IPython in your question, so let me plug a project of mine that goes a bit in the direction of IncPy, but works with IPython and is well-suited to large data: http://packages.python.org/joblib/
If you are storing your data in numpy arrays (strings can be stored in numpy arrays), joblib can use memmap for intermediate results and be efficient for IO.