Related
I have a pandas dataframe with two columns. I need to change the values of the first column without affecting the second one and get back the whole dataframe with just first column values changed. How can I do that using apply() in pandas?
Given a sample dataframe df as:
a b
0 1 2
1 2 3
2 3 4
3 4 5
what you want is:
df['a'] = df['a'].apply(lambda x: x + 1)
that returns:
a b
0 2 2
1 3 3
2 4 4
3 5 5
For a single column better to use map(), like this:
df = pd.DataFrame([{'a': 15, 'b': 15, 'c': 5}, {'a': 20, 'b': 10, 'c': 7}, {'a': 25, 'b': 30, 'c': 9}])
a b c
0 15 15 5
1 20 10 7
2 25 30 9
df['a'] = df['a'].map(lambda a: a / 2.)
a b c
0 7.5 15 5
1 10.0 10 7
2 12.5 30 9
Given the following dataframe df and the function complex_function,
import pandas as pd
def complex_function(x, y=0):
if x > 5 and x > y:
return 1
else:
return 2
df = pd.DataFrame(data={'col1': [1, 4, 6, 2, 7], 'col2': [6, 7, 1, 2, 8]})
col1 col2
0 1 6
1 4 7
2 6 1
3 2 2
4 7 8
there are several solutions to use apply() on only one column. In the following I will explain them in detail.
I. Simple solution
The straightforward solution is the one from #Fabio Lamanna:
df['col1'] = df['col1'].apply(complex_function)
Output:
col1 col2
0 2 6
1 2 7
2 1 1
3 2 2
4 1 8
Only the first column is modified, the second column is unchanged. The solution is beautiful. It is just one line of code and it reads almost like english: "Take 'col1' and apply the function complex_function to it."
However, if you need data from another column, e.g. 'col2', it won't work. If you want to pass the values of 'col2' to variable y of the complex_function, you need something else.
II. Solution using the whole dataframe
Alternatively, you could use the whole dataframe as described in this SO post or this one:
df['col1'] = df.apply(lambda x: complex_function(x['col1']), axis=1)
or if you prefer (like me) a solution without a lambda function:
def apply_complex_function(x):
return complex_function(x['col1'])
df['col1'] = df.apply(apply_complex_function, axis=1)
There is a lot going on in this solution that needs to be explained. The apply() function works on pd.Series and pd.DataFrame. But you cannot use df['col1'] = df.apply(complex_function).loc[:, 'col1'], because it would throw a ValueError.
Hence, you need to give the information which column to use. To complicate things, the apply() function does only accept callables. To solve this, you need to define a (lambda) function with the column x['col1'] as argument; i.e. we wrap the column information in another function.
Unfortunately, the default value of the axis parameter is zero (axis=0), which means it will try executing column-wise and not row-wise. This wasn't a problem in the first solution, because we gave apply() a pd.Series. But now the input is a dataframe and we must be explicit (axis=1). (I marvel how often I forget this.)
Whether you prefer the version with the lambda function or without is subjective. In my opinion the line of code is complicated enough to read even without a lambda function thrown in. You only need the (lambda) function as a wrapper. It is just boilerplate code. A reader should not be bothered with it.
Now, you can modify this solution easily to take the second column into account:
def apply_complex_function(x):
return complex_function(x['col1'], x['col2'])
df['col1'] = df.apply(apply_complex_function, axis=1)
Output:
col1 col2
0 2 6
1 2 7
2 1 1
3 2 2
4 2 8
At index 4 the value has changed from 1 to 2, because the first condition 7 > 5 is true but the second condition 7 > 8 is false.
Note that you only needed to change the first line of code (i.e. the function) and not the second line.
Side note
Never put the column information into your function.
def bad_idea(x):
return x['col1'] ** 2
By doing this, you make a general function dependent on a column name! This is a bad idea, because the next time you want to use this function, you cannot. Worse: Maybe you rename a column in a different dataframe just to make it work with your existing function. (Been there, done that. It is a slippery slope!)
III. Alternative solutions without using apply()
Although the OP specifically asked for a solution with apply(), alternative solutions were suggested. For example, the answer of #George Petrov suggested to use map(); the answer of #Thibaut Dubernet proposed assign().
I fully agree that apply() is seldom the best solution, because apply() is not vectorized. It is an element-wise operation with expensive function calling and overhead from pd.Series.
One reason to use apply() is that you want to use an existing function and performance is not an issue. Or your function is so complex that no vectorized version exists.
Another reason to use apply() is in combination with groupby(). Please note that DataFrame.apply() and GroupBy.apply() are different functions.
So it does make sense to consider some alternatives:
map() only works on pd.Series, but accepts dict and pd.Series as input. Using map() with a function is almost interchangeable with using apply(). It can be faster than apply(). See this SO post for more details.
df['col1'] = df['col1'].map(complex_function)
applymap() is almost identical for dataframes. It does not support pd.Series and it will always return a dataframe. However, it can be faster. The documentation states: "In the current implementation applymap calls func twice on the first column/row to decide whether it can take a fast or slow code path.". But if performance really counts you should seek an alternative route.
df['col1'] = df.applymap(complex_function).loc[:, 'col1']
assign() is not a feasible replacement for apply(). It has a similar behaviour in only the most basic use cases. It does not work with the complex_function. You still need apply() as you can see in the example below. The main use case for assign() is method chaining, because it gives back the dataframe without changing the original dataframe.
df['col1'] = df.assign(col1=df.col1.apply(complex_function))
Annex: How to speed up apply()?
I only mention it here because it was suggested by other answers, e.g. #durjoy. The list is not exhaustive:
Do not use apply(). This is no joke. For most numeric operations, a vectorized method exists in pandas. If/else blocks can often be refactored with a combination of boolean indexing and .loc. My example complex_function could be refactored in this way.
Refactor to Cython. If you have a complex equation and the parameters of the equation are in your dataframe, this might be a good idea. Check out the official pandas user guide for more information.
Use raw=True parameter. Theoretically, this should improve the performance of apply() if you are just applying a NumPy reduction function, because the overhead of pd.Series is removed. Of course, your function has to accept an ndarray. You have to refactor your function to NumPy. By doing this, you will have a huge performance boost.
Use 3rd party packages. The first thing you should try is Numba. I do not know swifter mentioned by #durjoy; and probably many other packages are worth mentioning here.
Try/Fail/Repeat. As mentioned above, map() and applymap() can be faster - depending on the use case. Just time the different versions and choose the fastest. This approach is the most tedious one with the least performance increase.
You don't need a function at all. You can work on a whole column directly.
Example data:
>>> df = pd.DataFrame({'a': [100, 1000], 'b': [200, 2000], 'c': [300, 3000]})
>>> df
a b c
0 100 200 300
1 1000 2000 3000
Half all the values in column a:
>>> df.a = df.a / 2
>>> df
a b c
0 50 200 300
1 500 2000 3000
Although the given responses are correct, they modify the initial data frame, which is not always desirable (and, given the OP asked for examples "using apply", it might be they wanted a version that returns a new data frame, as apply does).
This is possible using assign: it is valid to assign to existing columns, as the documentation states (emphasis is mine):
Assign new columns to a DataFrame.
Returns a new object with all original columns in addition to new ones. Existing columns that are re-assigned will be overwritten.
In short:
In [1]: import pandas as pd
In [2]: df = pd.DataFrame([{'a': 15, 'b': 15, 'c': 5}, {'a': 20, 'b': 10, 'c': 7}, {'a': 25, 'b': 30, 'c': 9}])
In [3]: df.assign(a=lambda df: df.a / 2)
Out[3]:
a b c
0 7.5 15 5
1 10.0 10 7
2 12.5 30 9
In [4]: df
Out[4]:
a b c
0 15 15 5
1 20 10 7
2 25 30 9
Note that the function will be passed the whole dataframe, not only the column you want to modify, so you will need to make sure you select the right column in your lambda.
If you are really concerned about the execution speed of your apply function and you have a huge dataset to work on, you could use swifter to make faster execution, here is an example for swifter on pandas dataframe:
import pandas as pd
import swifter
def fnc(m):
return m*3+4
df = pd.DataFrame({"m": [1,2,3,4,5,6], "c": [1,1,1,1,1,1], "x":[5,3,6,2,6,1]})
# apply a self created function to a single column in pandas
df["y"] = df.m.swifter.apply(fnc)
This will enable your all CPU cores to compute the result hence it will be much faster than normal apply functions. Try and let me know if it become useful for you.
Let me try a complex computation using datetime and considering nulls or empty spaces. I am reducing 30 years on a datetime column and using apply method as well as lambda and converting datetime format. Line if x != '' else x will take care of all empty spaces or nulls accordingly.
df['Date'] = df['Date'].fillna('')
df['Date'] = df['Date'].apply(lambda x : ((datetime.datetime.strptime(str(x), '%m/%d/%Y') - datetime.timedelta(days=30*365)).strftime('%Y%m%d')) if x != '' else x)
Make a copy of your dataframe first if you need to modify a column
Many answers here suggest modifying some column and assign the new values to the old column. It is common to get the SettingWithCopyWarning: A value is trying to be set on a copy of a slice from a DataFrame. warning. This happens when your dataframe was created from another dataframe but is not a proper copy.
To silence this warning, make a copy and assign back.
df = df.copy()
df['a'] = df['a'].apply('add', other=1)
apply() only needs the name of the function
You can invoke a function by simply passing its name to apply() (no need for lambda). If your function needs additional arguments, you can pass them either as keyword arguments or pass the positional arguments as args=. For example, suppose you have file paths in your dataframe and you need to read files in these paths.
def read_data(path, sep=',', usecols=[0]):
return pd.read_csv(path, sep=sep, usecols=usecols)
df = pd.DataFrame({'paths': ['../x/yz.txt', '../u/vw.txt']})
df['paths'].apply(read_data) # you don't need lambda
df['paths'].apply(read_data, args=(',', [0, 1])) # pass the positional arguments to `args=`
df['paths'].apply(read_data, sep=',', usecols=[0, 1]) # pass as keyword arguments
Don't apply a function, call the appropriate method directly
It's almost never ideal to apply a custom function on a column via apply(). Because apply() is a syntactic sugar for a Python loop with a pandas overhead, it's often slower than calling the same function in a list comprehension, never mind, calling optimized pandas methods. Almost all numeric operators can be directly applied on the column and there are corresponding methods for all of them.
# add 1 to every element in column `a`
df['a'] += 1
# for every row, subtract column `a` value from column `b` value
df['c'] = df['b'] - df['a']
If you want to apply a function that has if-else blocks, then you should probably be using numpy.where() or numpy.select() instead. It is much, much faster. If you have anything larger than 10k rows of data, you'll notice the difference right away.
For example, if you have a custom function similar to func() below, then instead of applying it on the column, you could operate directly on the columns and return values using numpy.select().
def func(row):
if row == 'a':
return 1
elif row == 'b':
return 2
else:
return -999
# instead of applying a `func` to each row of a column, use `numpy.select` as below
import numpy as np
conditions = [df['col'] == 'a', df['col'] == 'b']
choices = [1, 2]
df['new'] = np.select(conditions, choices, default=-999)
As you can see, numpy.select() has very minimal syntax difference from an if-else ladder; only need to separate conditions and choices into separate lists. For other options, check out this answer.
How can I find the row for which the value of a specific column is maximal?
df.max() will give me the maximal value for each column, I don't know how to get the corresponding row.
Use the pandas idxmax function. It's straightforward:
>>> import pandas
>>> import numpy as np
>>> df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
>>> df
A B C
0 1.232853 -1.979459 -0.573626
1 0.140767 0.394940 1.068890
2 0.742023 1.343977 -0.579745
3 2.125299 -0.649328 -0.211692
4 -0.187253 1.908618 -1.862934
>>> df['A'].idxmax()
3
>>> df['B'].idxmax()
4
>>> df['C'].idxmax()
1
Alternatively you could also use numpy.argmax, such as numpy.argmax(df['A']) -- it provides the same thing, and appears at least as fast as idxmax in cursory observations.
idxmax() returns indices labels, not integers.
Example': if you have string values as your index labels, like rows 'a' through 'e', you might want to know that the max occurs in row 4 (not row 'd').
if you want the integer position of that label within the Index you have to get it manually (which can be tricky now that duplicate row labels are allowed).
HISTORICAL NOTES:
idxmax() used to be called argmax() prior to 0.11
argmax was deprecated prior to 1.0.0 and removed entirely in 1.0.0
back as of Pandas 0.16, argmax used to exist and perform the same function (though appeared to run more slowly than idxmax).
argmax function returned the integer position within the index of the row location of the maximum element.
pandas moved to using row labels instead of integer indices. Positional integer indices used to be very common, more common than labels, especially in applications where duplicate row labels are common.
For example, consider this toy DataFrame with a duplicate row label:
In [19]: dfrm
Out[19]:
A B C
a 0.143693 0.653810 0.586007
b 0.623582 0.312903 0.919076
c 0.165438 0.889809 0.000967
d 0.308245 0.787776 0.571195
e 0.870068 0.935626 0.606911
f 0.037602 0.855193 0.728495
g 0.605366 0.338105 0.696460
h 0.000000 0.090814 0.963927
i 0.688343 0.188468 0.352213
i 0.879000 0.105039 0.900260
In [20]: dfrm['A'].idxmax()
Out[20]: 'i'
In [21]: dfrm.iloc[dfrm['A'].idxmax()] # .ix instead of .iloc in older versions of pandas
Out[21]:
A B C
i 0.688343 0.188468 0.352213
i 0.879000 0.105039 0.900260
So here a naive use of idxmax is not sufficient, whereas the old form of argmax would correctly provide the positional location of the max row (in this case, position 9).
This is exactly one of those nasty kinds of bug-prone behaviors in dynamically typed languages that makes this sort of thing so unfortunate, and worth beating a dead horse over. If you are writing systems code and your system suddenly gets used on some data sets that are not cleaned properly before being joined, it's very easy to end up with duplicate row labels, especially string labels like a CUSIP or SEDOL identifier for financial assets. You can't easily use the type system to help you out, and you may not be able to enforce uniqueness on the index without running into unexpectedly missing data.
So you're left with hoping that your unit tests covered everything (they didn't, or more likely no one wrote any tests) -- otherwise (most likely) you're just left waiting to see if you happen to smack into this error at runtime, in which case you probably have to go drop many hours worth of work from the database you were outputting results to, bang your head against the wall in IPython trying to manually reproduce the problem, finally figuring out that it's because idxmax can only report the label of the max row, and then being disappointed that no standard function automatically gets the positions of the max row for you, writing a buggy implementation yourself, editing the code, and praying you don't run into the problem again.
You might also try idxmax:
In [5]: df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(10,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
In [6]: df
Out[6]:
A B C
0 2.001289 0.482561 1.579985
1 -0.991646 -0.387835 1.320236
2 0.143826 -1.096889 1.486508
3 -0.193056 -0.499020 1.536540
4 -2.083647 -3.074591 0.175772
5 -0.186138 -1.949731 0.287432
6 -0.480790 -1.771560 -0.930234
7 0.227383 -0.278253 2.102004
8 -0.002592 1.434192 -1.624915
9 0.404911 -2.167599 -0.452900
In [7]: df.idxmax()
Out[7]:
A 0
B 8
C 7
e.g.
In [8]: df.loc[df['A'].idxmax()]
Out[8]:
A 2.001289
B 0.482561
C 1.579985
Both above answers would only return one index if there are multiple rows that take the maximum value. If you want all the rows, there does not seem to have a function.
But it is not hard to do. Below is an example for Series; the same can be done for DataFrame:
In [1]: from pandas import Series, DataFrame
In [2]: s=Series([2,4,4,3],index=['a','b','c','d'])
In [3]: s.idxmax()
Out[3]: 'b'
In [4]: s[s==s.max()]
Out[4]:
b 4
c 4
dtype: int64
df.iloc[df['columnX'].argmax()]
argmax() would provide the index corresponding to the max value for the columnX. iloc can be used to get the row of the DataFrame df for this index.
A more compact and readable solution using query() is like this:
import pandas as pd
df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
print(df)
# find row with maximum A
df.query('A == A.max()')
It also returns a DataFrame instead of Series, which would be handy for some use cases.
Very simple: we have df as below and we want to print a row with max value in C:
A B C
x 1 4
y 2 10
z 5 9
In:
df.loc[df['C'] == df['C'].max()] # condition check
Out:
A B C
y 2 10
If you want the entire row instead of just the id, you can use df.nlargest and pass in how many 'top' rows you want and you can also pass in for which column/columns you want it for.
df.nlargest(2,['A'])
will give you the rows corresponding to the top 2 values of A.
use df.nsmallest for min values.
The direct ".argmax()" solution does not work for me.
The previous example provided by #ely
>>> import pandas
>>> import numpy as np
>>> df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
>>> df
A B C
0 1.232853 -1.979459 -0.573626
1 0.140767 0.394940 1.068890
2 0.742023 1.343977 -0.579745
3 2.125299 -0.649328 -0.211692
4 -0.187253 1.908618 -1.862934
>>> df['A'].argmax()
3
>>> df['B'].argmax()
4
>>> df['C'].argmax()
1
returns the following message :
FutureWarning: 'argmax' is deprecated, use 'idxmax' instead. The behavior of 'argmax'
will be corrected to return the positional maximum in the future.
Use 'series.values.argmax' to get the position of the maximum now.
So that my solution is :
df['A'].values.argmax()
mx.iloc[0].idxmax()
This one line of code will give you how to find the maximum value from a row in dataframe, here mx is the dataframe and iloc[0] indicates the 0th index.
Considering this dataframe
[In]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randn(4,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
[Out]:
A B C
0 -0.253233 0.226313 1.223688
1 0.472606 1.017674 1.520032
2 1.454875 1.066637 0.381890
3 -0.054181 0.234305 -0.557915
Assuming one want to know the rows where column "C" is max, the following will do the work
[In]: df[df['C']==df['C'].max()])
[Out]:
A B C
1 0.472606 1.017674 1.520032
The idmax of the DataFrame returns the label index of the row with the maximum value and the behavior of argmax depends on version of pandas (right now it returns a warning). If you want to use the positional index, you can do the following:
max_row = df['A'].values.argmax()
or
import numpy as np
max_row = np.argmax(df['A'].values)
Note that if you use np.argmax(df['A']) behaves the same as df['A'].argmax().
Use:
data.iloc[data['A'].idxmax()]
data['A'].idxmax() -finds max value location in terms of row
data.iloc() - returns the row
If there are ties in the maximum values, then idxmax returns the index of only the first max value. For example, in the following DataFrame:
A B C
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
2 0 0 0
3 0 1 1
4 1 0 0
idxmax returns
A 0
B 3
C 0
dtype: int64
Now, if we want all indices corresponding to max values, then we could use max + eq to create a boolean DataFrame, then use it on df.index to filter out indexes:
out = df.eq(df.max()).apply(lambda x: df.index[x].tolist())
Output:
A [0, 4]
B [3]
C [0, 1, 3]
dtype: object
what worked for me is:
df[df['colX'] == df['colX'].max()
You then get the row in your df with the maximum value of colX.
Then if you just want the index you can add .index at the end of the query.
I have a pandas dataFrame of mixed types, some are strings and some are numbers. I would like to replace the NAN values in string columns by '.', and the NAN values in float columns by 0.
Consider this small fictitious example:
df = pd.DataFrame({'Name':['Jack','Sue',pd.np.nan,'Bob','Alice','John'],
'A': [1, 2.1, pd.np.nan, 4.7, 5.6, 6.8],
'B': [.25, pd.np.nan, pd.np.nan, 4, 12.2, 14.4],
'City':['Seattle','SF','LA','OC',pd.np.nan,pd.np.nan]})
Now, I can do it in 3 lines:
df['Name'].fillna('.',inplace=True)
df['City'].fillna('.',inplace=True)
df.fillna(0,inplace=True)
Since this is a small dataframe, 3 lines is probably ok. In my real example (which I cannot share here due to data confidentiality reasons), I have many more string columns and numeric columns. SO I end up writing many lines just for fillna. Is there a concise way of doing this?
Came across this page while looking for an answer to this problem, but didn't like the existing answers. I ended up finding something better in the DataFrame.fillna documentation, and figured I'd contribute for anyone else that happens upon this.
If you have multiple columns, but only want to replace the NaN in a subset of them, you can use:
df.fillna({'Name':'.', 'City':'.'}, inplace=True)
This also allows you to specify different replacements for each column. And if you want to go ahead and fill all remaining NaN values, you can just throw another fillna on the end:
df.fillna({'Name':'.', 'City':'.'}, inplace=True).fillna(0, inplace=True)
Edit (22 Apr 2021)
Functionality (presumably / apparently) changed since original post, and you can no longer chain 2 inplace fillna() operations. You can still chain, but now must assign that chain to the df instead of modifying in place, e.g. like so:
df = df.fillna({'Name':'.', 'City':'.'}).fillna(0)
You could use apply for your columns with checking dtype whether it's numeric or not by checking dtype.kind:
res = df.apply(lambda x: x.fillna(0) if x.dtype.kind in 'biufc' else x.fillna('.'))
print(res)
A B City Name
0 1.0 0.25 Seattle Jack
1 2.1 0.00 SF Sue
2 0.0 0.00 LA .
3 4.7 4.00 OC Bob
4 5.6 12.20 . Alice
5 6.8 14.40 . John
You can either list the string columns by hand or glean them from df.dtypes. Once you have the list of string/object columns, you can call fillna on all those columns at once.
# str_cols = ['Name','City']
str_cols = df.columns[df.dtypes==object]
df[str_cols] = df[str_cols].fillna('.')
df = df.fillna(0)
define a function:
def myfillna(series):
if series.dtype is pd.np.dtype(float):
return series.fillna(0)
elif series.dtype is pd.np.dtype(object):
return series.fillna('.')
else:
return series
you can add other elif statements if you want to fill a column of a different dtype in some other way. Now apply this function over all columns of the dataframe
df = df.apply(myfillna)
this is the same as 'inplace'
The most concise and readable way to accomplish this, especially with many columns is to use df.select_dtypes.columns.
(df.select_dtypes, df.columns)
df.select_dtypes returns a new df containing only the columns that match the dtype you need.
df.columns returns a list of the column names in your df.
Full code:
float_column_names = df.select_dtypes(float).columns
df[float_column_names] = df[float_column_names].fillna(0)
string_column_names = df.select_dtypes(object).columns
df[string_column_names] df[string_column_names].fillna('.')
There is a simpler way, that can be done in one line:
df.fillna({'Name':0,'City':0},inplace=True)
Not an awesome improvement but if you multiply it by 100, writting only the column names + ':0' is way faster than copying and pasting everything 100 times.
If you want to replace a list of columns ("lst") with the same value ("v")
def nan_to_zero(df, lst, v):
d = {x:v for x in lst}
df.fillna(d, inplace=True)
return df
If you don't want to specify individual per-column replacement values, you can do it this way:
df[['Name', 'City']].fillna('.',inplace=True)
If you don't like inplace (like me) you can do it like this:
columns = ['Name', 'City']
df[columns] = df.copy()[columns].fillna('.')
The .copy() is added to avoid the SettingWithCopyWarning, which is designed to warn you that the original values of a dataframe is overwritten, which is what we want.
If you don't like that syntax, you can see this question to see other ways of dealing with this: How to deal with SettingWithCopyWarning in Pandas
Much easy way is :dt.replace(pd.np.nan, "NA").
In case you want other replacement, you should use the next:dt.replace("pattern", "replaced by (new pattern)")
Is it possible to change the order of columns in a dataframe in place?
If yes, would that be faster than making a copy? I am working with a large dataframe with 100 million+ rows.
I see how to change the order with a copy:
How to change the order of DataFrame columns?
Their is no easy way to do this without making a copy. In theory it is possible to do if you ONLY have a single dtype (or are only changing columns WITHIN out the labels changing dtypes). But is fairly complicated, and hence is not implemented.
That said, if you are careful you can do this. You should ONLY do this with a single-dtyped frame (you are forewarned).
In [22]: df = DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=list('ABC'))
In [23]: df
Out[23]:
A B C
0 -0.696593 -0.459067 1.935033
1 1.783658 0.612771 1.553773
2 -0.572515 0.634174 0.113974
3 -0.908203 1.454289 0.509968
4 0.776575 1.629816 1.630023
If df is multi-dtyped then df.values WILL NOT BE A VIEW (of course you can subselect out the single-dtyped frame which is a view itself). Another note, this is NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE to have this come out as a view. It depends on what you are doing, YMMV.
e.g. df.values.take([2,0,1],axis=1) gives you the same result BUT IS A COPY.
In [24]: df2 = DataFrame(df.values[:,[2,0,1]],columns=list('ABC'))
In [25]: df2
Out[25]:
A B C
0 1.935033 -0.696593 -0.459067
1 1.553773 1.783658 0.612771
2 0.113974 -0.572515 0.634174
3 0.509968 -0.908203 1.454289
4 1.630023 0.776575 1.629816
We have a view on the original values
In [26]: df2.values.base
Out[26]:
array([[ 1.93503267, 1.55377291, 0.1139739 , 0.5099681 , 1.63002264],
[-0.69659276, 1.78365777, -0.5725148 , -0.90820288, 0.7765751 ],
[-0.45906706, 0.61277136, 0.63417392, 1.45428912, 1.62981613]])
Note that if you then assign to df2 (another float column for instance), you will trigger a copy. So you have to be extremely careful with this.
That said the creation from a view of another frame takes almost no memory and is just a pointer, so very fast.
Hmm... no one proposed drop and insert:
df = pd.DataFrame([['a','b','c']],columns=list('ABC'))
print('Before', id(df))
for i,col in enumerate(['C','B', 'A']):
tmp = df[col]
df.drop(labels=[col],axis=1,inplace=True)
df.insert(i,col,tmp)
print('After ', id(df))
df.head()
The result will preserve the original dataframe
Before 140441780394360
After 140441780394360
C B A
----------
0 c b a
Here is a short and even more memory efficient way (because no additional temporary variable needs to be saved):
df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [0, 1], "B": [2, 3], "C": [4, 5]})
new_order = ["B", "C", "A"]
for column in new_order:
df[column] = df.pop(column)
This works, because the new columns are assigned to the DataFrame in the new order and the old columns are deleted one by one. Pop returns a column and deletes it from the DataFrame.
How can I find the row for which the value of a specific column is maximal?
df.max() will give me the maximal value for each column, I don't know how to get the corresponding row.
Use the pandas idxmax function. It's straightforward:
>>> import pandas
>>> import numpy as np
>>> df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
>>> df
A B C
0 1.232853 -1.979459 -0.573626
1 0.140767 0.394940 1.068890
2 0.742023 1.343977 -0.579745
3 2.125299 -0.649328 -0.211692
4 -0.187253 1.908618 -1.862934
>>> df['A'].idxmax()
3
>>> df['B'].idxmax()
4
>>> df['C'].idxmax()
1
Alternatively you could also use numpy.argmax, such as numpy.argmax(df['A']) -- it provides the same thing, and appears at least as fast as idxmax in cursory observations.
idxmax() returns indices labels, not integers.
Example': if you have string values as your index labels, like rows 'a' through 'e', you might want to know that the max occurs in row 4 (not row 'd').
if you want the integer position of that label within the Index you have to get it manually (which can be tricky now that duplicate row labels are allowed).
HISTORICAL NOTES:
idxmax() used to be called argmax() prior to 0.11
argmax was deprecated prior to 1.0.0 and removed entirely in 1.0.0
back as of Pandas 0.16, argmax used to exist and perform the same function (though appeared to run more slowly than idxmax).
argmax function returned the integer position within the index of the row location of the maximum element.
pandas moved to using row labels instead of integer indices. Positional integer indices used to be very common, more common than labels, especially in applications where duplicate row labels are common.
For example, consider this toy DataFrame with a duplicate row label:
In [19]: dfrm
Out[19]:
A B C
a 0.143693 0.653810 0.586007
b 0.623582 0.312903 0.919076
c 0.165438 0.889809 0.000967
d 0.308245 0.787776 0.571195
e 0.870068 0.935626 0.606911
f 0.037602 0.855193 0.728495
g 0.605366 0.338105 0.696460
h 0.000000 0.090814 0.963927
i 0.688343 0.188468 0.352213
i 0.879000 0.105039 0.900260
In [20]: dfrm['A'].idxmax()
Out[20]: 'i'
In [21]: dfrm.iloc[dfrm['A'].idxmax()] # .ix instead of .iloc in older versions of pandas
Out[21]:
A B C
i 0.688343 0.188468 0.352213
i 0.879000 0.105039 0.900260
So here a naive use of idxmax is not sufficient, whereas the old form of argmax would correctly provide the positional location of the max row (in this case, position 9).
This is exactly one of those nasty kinds of bug-prone behaviors in dynamically typed languages that makes this sort of thing so unfortunate, and worth beating a dead horse over. If you are writing systems code and your system suddenly gets used on some data sets that are not cleaned properly before being joined, it's very easy to end up with duplicate row labels, especially string labels like a CUSIP or SEDOL identifier for financial assets. You can't easily use the type system to help you out, and you may not be able to enforce uniqueness on the index without running into unexpectedly missing data.
So you're left with hoping that your unit tests covered everything (they didn't, or more likely no one wrote any tests) -- otherwise (most likely) you're just left waiting to see if you happen to smack into this error at runtime, in which case you probably have to go drop many hours worth of work from the database you were outputting results to, bang your head against the wall in IPython trying to manually reproduce the problem, finally figuring out that it's because idxmax can only report the label of the max row, and then being disappointed that no standard function automatically gets the positions of the max row for you, writing a buggy implementation yourself, editing the code, and praying you don't run into the problem again.
You might also try idxmax:
In [5]: df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(10,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
In [6]: df
Out[6]:
A B C
0 2.001289 0.482561 1.579985
1 -0.991646 -0.387835 1.320236
2 0.143826 -1.096889 1.486508
3 -0.193056 -0.499020 1.536540
4 -2.083647 -3.074591 0.175772
5 -0.186138 -1.949731 0.287432
6 -0.480790 -1.771560 -0.930234
7 0.227383 -0.278253 2.102004
8 -0.002592 1.434192 -1.624915
9 0.404911 -2.167599 -0.452900
In [7]: df.idxmax()
Out[7]:
A 0
B 8
C 7
e.g.
In [8]: df.loc[df['A'].idxmax()]
Out[8]:
A 2.001289
B 0.482561
C 1.579985
Both above answers would only return one index if there are multiple rows that take the maximum value. If you want all the rows, there does not seem to have a function.
But it is not hard to do. Below is an example for Series; the same can be done for DataFrame:
In [1]: from pandas import Series, DataFrame
In [2]: s=Series([2,4,4,3],index=['a','b','c','d'])
In [3]: s.idxmax()
Out[3]: 'b'
In [4]: s[s==s.max()]
Out[4]:
b 4
c 4
dtype: int64
df.iloc[df['columnX'].argmax()]
argmax() would provide the index corresponding to the max value for the columnX. iloc can be used to get the row of the DataFrame df for this index.
A more compact and readable solution using query() is like this:
import pandas as pd
df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
print(df)
# find row with maximum A
df.query('A == A.max()')
It also returns a DataFrame instead of Series, which would be handy for some use cases.
Very simple: we have df as below and we want to print a row with max value in C:
A B C
x 1 4
y 2 10
z 5 9
In:
df.loc[df['C'] == df['C'].max()] # condition check
Out:
A B C
y 2 10
If you want the entire row instead of just the id, you can use df.nlargest and pass in how many 'top' rows you want and you can also pass in for which column/columns you want it for.
df.nlargest(2,['A'])
will give you the rows corresponding to the top 2 values of A.
use df.nsmallest for min values.
The direct ".argmax()" solution does not work for me.
The previous example provided by #ely
>>> import pandas
>>> import numpy as np
>>> df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.randn(5,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
>>> df
A B C
0 1.232853 -1.979459 -0.573626
1 0.140767 0.394940 1.068890
2 0.742023 1.343977 -0.579745
3 2.125299 -0.649328 -0.211692
4 -0.187253 1.908618 -1.862934
>>> df['A'].argmax()
3
>>> df['B'].argmax()
4
>>> df['C'].argmax()
1
returns the following message :
FutureWarning: 'argmax' is deprecated, use 'idxmax' instead. The behavior of 'argmax'
will be corrected to return the positional maximum in the future.
Use 'series.values.argmax' to get the position of the maximum now.
So that my solution is :
df['A'].values.argmax()
mx.iloc[0].idxmax()
This one line of code will give you how to find the maximum value from a row in dataframe, here mx is the dataframe and iloc[0] indicates the 0th index.
Considering this dataframe
[In]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randn(4,3),columns=['A','B','C'])
[Out]:
A B C
0 -0.253233 0.226313 1.223688
1 0.472606 1.017674 1.520032
2 1.454875 1.066637 0.381890
3 -0.054181 0.234305 -0.557915
Assuming one want to know the rows where column "C" is max, the following will do the work
[In]: df[df['C']==df['C'].max()])
[Out]:
A B C
1 0.472606 1.017674 1.520032
The idmax of the DataFrame returns the label index of the row with the maximum value and the behavior of argmax depends on version of pandas (right now it returns a warning). If you want to use the positional index, you can do the following:
max_row = df['A'].values.argmax()
or
import numpy as np
max_row = np.argmax(df['A'].values)
Note that if you use np.argmax(df['A']) behaves the same as df['A'].argmax().
Use:
data.iloc[data['A'].idxmax()]
data['A'].idxmax() -finds max value location in terms of row
data.iloc() - returns the row
If there are ties in the maximum values, then idxmax returns the index of only the first max value. For example, in the following DataFrame:
A B C
0 1 0 1
1 0 0 1
2 0 0 0
3 0 1 1
4 1 0 0
idxmax returns
A 0
B 3
C 0
dtype: int64
Now, if we want all indices corresponding to max values, then we could use max + eq to create a boolean DataFrame, then use it on df.index to filter out indexes:
out = df.eq(df.max()).apply(lambda x: df.index[x].tolist())
Output:
A [0, 4]
B [3]
C [0, 1, 3]
dtype: object
what worked for me is:
df[df['colX'] == df['colX'].max()
You then get the row in your df with the maximum value of colX.
Then if you just want the index you can add .index at the end of the query.