Related
I have a problem where I would like to count the number of times the current value has not changed in a dataframe over rolling periods.
For example:
df = pd.DataFrame({'col':list('aaaabbab')})
would somehow give output of
0
1
2
3
0
1
0
0
I have been trying something along the following
df['col'] = df['col'] == df['col'].shift(1)
df.rolling(window=3).sum().reset_index(drop=True, level=0)
I have added in the rolling as I will want to look at the full data set in terms of rolling periods but even without having it over rolling periods I can not quite figure out the logic.
I am not sure if I am missing something simple or this may not be possible using shift
You need to generate a grouper for the change in values. For this compare each value with the previous one and apply a cumsum. This gives you groups in the itertools.groupby style ([1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4]), finally group and apply a cumcount.
df['count'] = (df.groupby(df['col'].ne(df['col'].shift()).cumsum())
.cumcount()
)
output:
col count
0 a 0
1 a 1
2 a 2
3 a 3
4 b 0
5 b 1
6 a 0
7 b 0
edit: for fun here is a solution using itertools (much faster):
from itertools import groupby, chain
df['count'] = list(chain(*(list(range(len(list(g))))
for _,g in groupby(df['col']))))
NB. this runs much faster (88 µs vs 707 µs on the provided example)
I can't comment so just to add some more to #mozway answer.
My goal was to count consecutives value for an entire huge dataframe effectively.
The pb I encounter is that by construction
np.nan == np.nan
will return False so you could have a whole column full of only NaN and yet the counter will be at 0.
A simple workaround would be to replace all NaN in your df by a value not already in it.
For instance in the case of a float dataset you could do
df.fillna('NA')
which will work but by changing the dtype of your columns to Object the following code will be much slower (20x on my set up).
I would rather advised something like :
all_values = list(np.unique(np.array(df)))
all_values = [a for a in all_values if a==a]
unik_val = min(all_values)-1
temp = df.fillna(unik_val).copy()
from itertools import groupby, chain
for col in temp.columns:
temp[col] = list(chain(*(list(range(len(list(g))))
for _,g in groupby(temp[col]))))
count_df
I've got a tricky situation - tricky for me since I'm really new to python. I've got a dataframe in pandas and I need to logic my way through building a new column that will be used later in a data match from a difference source. Basically, the picture tells what I can't figure out.
For any of the LOW labels I need to retrieve their MID_LEVEL label and copy it to a new column. The DESIRED OUTPUT column is what I need to create.
You can see that the LABEL_PATH is formatted in a way that I can use the first 9 digits as a "lookup" to find the corresponding LABEL, but I can't figure out how to achieve that. As an example, for any row that the LABEL_PATH starts with "0.02.0004" the desired output needs to be "MID_LEVEL1".
This dataset has around 25k rows, so wanted to avoid row iteration as well.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Chosing a similar example as you did:
df = pd.DataFrame({"a":["1","1.1","1.1.1","1.1.2","2"],"b":range(5)})
df["c"] = np.nan
mask = df.a.apply(lambda x: len(x.split(".")) < 3)
df.loc[mask,"c"] = df.b[mask]
df.c.fillna(method="ffill", inplace=True)
Most of the magic takes place in the line where mask is defined, but it's not that difficult: if the value in a gets split into less than 3 parts (i.e., has at most one dot), mark it as True, otherwise not.
Use that mask to copy over the values, and then fill unspecified values with valid values from above.
I am using this data for comparison :
test_dict = {"label_path": [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], "label": ["low1", "low2", "mid1", "mid2", "high1", "high2"], "desired_output": ["mid1", "mid2", "mid1", "mid2", "high1", "high2"]}
df = pd.DataFrame(test_dict)
Which gives :
label_path label desired_output
0 1 low1 mid1
1 2 low2 mid2
2 3 mid1 mid1
3 4 mid2 mid2
4 5 high1 high1
5 6 high2 high2
With a bit ogf logic and a merge :
desired_label_df = df.drop_duplicates("desired_output", keep="last")
desired_label_df = desired_label_df[["label_path", "desired_output"]]
desired_label_df.columns = ["desired_label_path", "desired_output"]
df = df.merge(desired_label_df, on="desired_output", how="left")
Gives us :
label_path label desired_output desired_label_path
0 1 low1 mid1 3
1 2 low2 mid2 4
2 3 mid1 mid1 3
3 4 mid2 mid2 4
4 5 high1 high1 5
5 6 high2 high2 6
Edit: if you want to create the desired_output column, just do the following :
df["desired_output"] = df["label"].apply(lambda x: x.replace("low", "mid"))
I have the following problem: I have a matrix opened with pandas module, where each cell has a number between -1 and 1. What I wanted to find is the maximum "posible" value in a row that is also not the maximum value in another row.
If for example 2 rows has their maximum value at the same column, I compare both values and take the bigger one, then for the row that has its maximum value smaller that the other row, I took the second maximum value (and do the same analysis again and again).
To explain myself better consider my code
import pandas as pd
matrix = pd.read_csv("matrix.csv")
# this matrix has an id (or name) for each column
# ... and the firt column has the id of each row
results = pd.DataFrame(np.empty((len(matrix),3),dtype=pd.Timestamp),columns=['id1','id2','max_pos'])
l = len(matrix.col[[0]]) # number of columns
while next = 1:
next = 0
for i in range(0, len(matrix)):
max_column = str(0)
for j in range(1, l): # 1 because the first column is an id
if matrix[max_column][i] < matrix[str(j)][i]:
max_column = str(j)
results['id1'][i] = str(i) # I coul put here also matrix['0'][i]
results['id2'][i] = max_column
results['max_pos'][i] = matrix[max_column][i]
for i in range(0, len(results)): #now I will check if two or more rows have the same max column
for ii in range(0, len(results)):
# if two id1 has their max in the same column, I keep it with the biggest
# ... max value and chage the other to "-1" to iterate again
if (results['id2'][i] == results['id2'][ii]) and (results['max_pos'][i] < results['max_pos'][ii]):
matrix[results['id2'][i]][i] = -1
next = 1
Putting an example:
#consider
pd.DataFrame({'a':[1, 2, 5, 0], 'b':[4, 5, 1, 0], 'c':[3, 3, 4, 2], 'd':[1, 0, 0, 1]})
a b c d
0 1 4 3 1
1 2 5 3 0
2 5 1 4 0
3 0 0 2 1
#at the first iterarion I will have the following result
0 b 4 # this means that the row 0 has its maximum at column 'b' and its value is 4
1 b 5
2 a 5
3 c 2
#the problem is that column b is the maximum of row 0 and 1, but I know that the maximum of row 1 is bigger than row 0, so I take the second maximum of row 0, then:
0 c 3
1 b 5
2 a 5
3 c 2
#now I solved the problem for row 0 and 1, but I have that the column c is the maximum of row 0 and 3, so I compare them and take the second maximum in row 3
0 c 3
1 b 5
2 a 5
3 d 1
#now I'm done. In the case that two rows have the same column as maximum and also the same number, nothing happens and I keep with that values.
#what if the matrix would be
pd.DataFrame({'a':[1, 2, 5, 0], 'b':[5, 5, 1, 0], 'c':[3, 3, 4, 2], 'd':[1, 0, 0, 1]})
a b c d
0 1 5 3 1
1 2 5 3 0
2 5 1 4 0
3 0 0 2 1
#then, at the first itetarion the result will be:
0 b 5
1 b 5
2 a 5
3 c 2
#then, given that the max value of row 0 and 1 is at the same column, I should compare the maximum values
# ... but in this case the values are the same (both are 5), this would be the end of iterating
# ... because I can't choose between row 0 and 1 and the other rows have their maximum at different columns...
This code works perfect to me if I have a matrix of 100x100 for example. But, if the matrix size goes to 50,000x50,000 the code takes to much time in finish it. I now that my code could be the most inneficient way to do it, but I don't know how to deal with this.
I have been reading about threads in python that could help but it doesn't help if I put 50,000 threads because my computer doesn't use more CPU. I also tried to use some functions as .max() but I'm not able to get column of the max an compare it with the other max ...
If anyone could help me of give me a piece of advice to make this more efficient I would be very grateful.
Going to need more information on this. What are you trying to accomplish here?
This will help you get some of the way, but in order to fully achieve what you're doing I need more context.
We'll import numpy, random, and Counter from collections:
import numpy as np
import random
from collections import Counter
We'll create a random 50k x 50k matrix of numbers between -10M and +10M
mat = np.random.randint(-10000000,10000000,(50000,50000))
Now to get the maximums for each row we can just do the following list comprehension:
maximums = [max(mat[x,:]) for x in range(len(mat))]
Now we want to find out which ones are not maximums in any other rows. We can use Counter on our maximums list to find out how many of each there are. Counter returns a counter object that is like a dictionary with the maximum as the key, and the # of times it appears as the value.
We then do dictionary comprehension where the value is == to 1. That will give us the maximums that only show up once. we use the .keys() function to grab the numbers themselves, and then turn it into a list.
c = Counter(maximums)
{9999117: 15,
9998584: 2,
9998352: 2,
9999226: 22,
9999697: 59,
9999534: 32,
9998775: 8,
9999288: 18,
9998956: 9,
9998119: 1,
...}
k = list( {x: c[x] for x in c if c[x] == 1}.keys() )
[9998253,
9998139,
9998091,
9997788,
9998166,
9998552,
9997711,
9998230,
9998000,
...]
Lastly we can do the following list comprehension to iterate through the original maximums list to get the indicies of where these rows are.
indices = [i for i, x in enumerate(maximums) if x in k]
Depending on what else you're looking to do we can go from here.
Its not the speediest program but finding the maximums, the counter, and the indicies takes 182 seconds on a 50,000 by 50,000 matrix that is already loaded.
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'm trying filter a DataFrame columns based on a value.
In[41]: df = pd.DataFrame({'A':['a',2,3,4,5], 'B':[6,7,8,9,10]})
In[42]: df
Out[42]:
A B
0 a 6
1 2 7
2 3 8
3 4 9
4 5 10
Filtering columns:
In[43]: df.loc[:, (df != 6).iloc[0]]
Out[43]:
A
0 a
1 2
2 3
3 4
4 5
It works! But, When I used strings,
In[44]: df.loc[:, (df != 'a').iloc[0]]
I'm getting this error: TypeError: Could not compare ['a'] with block values
You are trying to compare string 'a' with numeric values in column B.
If you want your code to work, first promote dtype of column B as numpy.object, It will work.
df.B = df.B.astype(np.object)
Always check data types of the columns before performing the operations using
df.info()
You could do this with masks instead, for example:
df[df.A!='a'].A
and to filter from any column:
df[df.apply(lambda x: sum([x_=='a' for x_ in x])==0, axis=1)]
The problem is due to the fact that there are numeric and string objects in the dataframe.
You can loop through each column and check each column as a series for a specific value using
(Series=='a').any()