Related
I have the following data frame in IPython, where each row is a single stock:
In [261]: bdata
Out[261]:
<class 'pandas.core.frame.DataFrame'>
Int64Index: 21210 entries, 0 to 21209
Data columns:
BloombergTicker 21206 non-null values
Company 21210 non-null values
Country 21210 non-null values
MarketCap 21210 non-null values
PriceReturn 21210 non-null values
SEDOL 21210 non-null values
yearmonth 21210 non-null values
dtypes: float64(2), int64(1), object(4)
I want to apply a groupby operation that computes cap-weighted average return across everything, per each date in the "yearmonth" column.
This works as expected:
In [262]: bdata.groupby("yearmonth").apply(lambda x: (x["PriceReturn"]*x["MarketCap"]/x["MarketCap"].sum()).sum())
Out[262]:
yearmonth
201204 -0.109444
201205 -0.290546
But then I want to sort of "broadcast" these values back to the indices in the original data frame, and save them as constant columns where the dates match.
In [263]: dateGrps = bdata.groupby("yearmonth")
In [264]: dateGrps["MarketReturn"] = dateGrps.apply(lambda x: (x["PriceReturn"]*x["MarketCap"]/x["MarketCap"].sum()).sum())
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TypeError Traceback (most recent call last)
/mnt/bos-devrnd04/usr6/home/espears/ws/Research/Projects/python-util/src/util/<ipython-input-264-4a68c8782426> in <module>()
----> 1 dateGrps["MarketReturn"] = dateGrps.apply(lambda x: (x["PriceReturn"]*x["MarketCap"]/x["MarketCap"].sum()).sum())
TypeError: 'DataFrameGroupBy' object does not support item assignment
I realize this naive assignment should not work. But what is the "right" Pandas idiom for assigning the result of a groupby operation into a new column on the parent dataframe?
In the end, I want a column called "MarketReturn" than will be a repeated constant value for all indices that have matching date with the output of the groupby operation.
One hack to achieve this would be the following:
marketRetsByDate = dateGrps.apply(lambda x: (x["PriceReturn"]*x["MarketCap"]/x["MarketCap"].sum()).sum())
bdata["MarketReturn"] = np.repeat(np.NaN, len(bdata))
for elem in marketRetsByDate.index.values:
bdata["MarketReturn"][bdata["yearmonth"]==elem] = marketRetsByDate.ix[elem]
But this is slow, bad, and unPythonic.
In [97]: df = pandas.DataFrame({'month': np.random.randint(0,11, 100), 'A': np.random.randn(100), 'B': np.random.randn(100)})
In [98]: df.join(df.groupby('month')['A'].sum(), on='month', rsuffix='_r')
Out[98]:
A B month A_r
0 -0.040710 0.182269 0 -0.331816
1 -0.004867 0.642243 1 2.448232
2 -0.162191 0.442338 4 2.045909
3 -0.979875 1.367018 5 -2.736399
4 -1.126198 0.338946 5 -2.736399
5 -0.992209 -1.343258 1 2.448232
6 -1.450310 0.021290 0 -0.331816
7 -0.675345 -1.359915 9 2.722156
While I'm still exploring all of the incredibly smart ways that apply concatenates the pieces it's given, here's another way to add a new column in the parent after a groupby operation.
In [236]: df
Out[236]:
yearmonth return
0 201202 0.922132
1 201202 0.220270
2 201202 0.228856
3 201203 0.277170
4 201203 0.747347
In [237]: def add_mkt_return(grp):
.....: grp['mkt_return'] = grp['return'].sum()
.....: return grp
.....:
In [238]: df.groupby('yearmonth').apply(add_mkt_return)
Out[238]:
yearmonth return mkt_return
0 201202 0.922132 1.371258
1 201202 0.220270 1.371258
2 201202 0.228856 1.371258
3 201203 0.277170 1.024516
4 201203 0.747347 1.024516
As a general rule when using groupby(), if you use the .transform() function pandas will return a table with the same length as your original. When you use other functions like .sum() or .first() then pandas will return a table where each row is a group.
I'm not sure how this works with apply but implementing elaborate lambda functions with transform can be fairly tricky so the strategy that I find most helpful is to create the variables I need, place them in the original dataset and then do my operations there.
If I understand what you're trying to do correctly first you can calculate the total market cap for each group:
bdata['group_MarketCap'] = bdata.groupby('yearmonth')['MarketCap'].transform('sum')
This will add a column called "group_MarketCap" to your original data which would contain the sum of market caps for each group. Then you can calculate the weighted values directly:
bdata['weighted_P'] = bdata['PriceReturn'] * (bdata['MarketCap']/bdata['group_MarketCap'])
And finally you would calculate the weighted average for each group using the same transform function:
bdata['MarketReturn'] = bdata.groupby('yearmonth')['weighted_P'].transform('sum')
I tend to build my variables this way. Sometimes you can pull off putting it all in a single command but that doesn't always work with groupby() because most of the time pandas needs to instantiate the new object to operate on it at the full dataset scale (i.e. you can't add two columns together if one doesn't exist yet).
Hope this helps :)
May I suggest the transform method (instead of aggregate)? If you use it in your original example it should do what you want (the broadcasting).
I did not find a way to make assignment to the original dataframe. So I just store the results from the groups and concatenate them. Then we sort the concatenated dataframe by index to get the original order as the input dataframe. Here is a sample code:
In [10]: df = pd.DataFrame({'month': np.random.randint(0,11, 100), 'A': np.random.randn(100), 'B': np.random.randn(100)})
In [11]: df.head()
Out[11]:
month A B
0 4 -0.029106 -0.904648
1 2 -2.724073 0.492751
2 7 0.732403 0.689530
3 2 0.487685 -1.017337
4 1 1.160858 -0.025232
In [12]: res = []
In [13]: for month, group in df.groupby('month'):
...: new_df = pd.DataFrame({
...: 'A^2+B': group.A ** 2 + group.B,
...: 'A+B^2': group.A + group.B**2
...: })
...: res.append(new_df)
...:
In [14]: res = pd.concat(res).sort_index()
In [15]: res.head()
Out[15]:
A^2+B A+B^2
0 -0.903801 0.789282
1 7.913327 -2.481270
2 1.225944 1.207855
3 -0.779501 1.522660
4 1.322360 1.161495
This method is pretty fast and extensible. You can derive any feature here.
Note: If the dataframe is too large, concat may cause you MMO error.
I'm trying to modify multiple column values in pandas.Dataframes with different increments in each column so that the values in each column do not overlap with each other when graphed on a line graph.
Here's the end goal of what I want to do: link
Let's say I have this kind of Dataframe:
Col1 Col2 Col3
0 0.3 0.2
1 1.1 1.2
2 2.2 2.4
3 3 3.1
but with hundreds of columns and thousands of values.
When graphing this on a line-graph on excel or matplotlib, the values overlap with each other, so I would like to separate each column by adding the same values for each column like so:
Col1(+0) Col2(+10) Col3(+20)
0 10.3 20.2
1 11.1 21.2
2 12.2 22.4
3 13 23.1
By adding the same value to one column and increasing by an increment of 10 over each column, I am able to see each line without it overlapping in one graph.
I thought of using loops and iterations to automate this value-adding process, but I couldn't find any previous solutions on Stackoverflow that addresses how I could change the increment value (e.g. from adding 0 in Col1 in one loop, then adding 10 to Col2 in the next loop) between different columns, but not within the values in a column. To make things worse, I'm a beginner with no clue about programming or data manipulation.
Since the data is in a CSV format, I first used Pandas to read it and store in a Dataframe, and selected the columns that I wanted to edit:
import pandas as pd
#import CSV file
df = pd.read_csv ('data.csv')
#store csv data into dataframe
df1 = pd.DataFrame (data = df)
# Locate columns that I want to edit with df.loc
columns = df1.loc[:, ' C000':]
here is where I'm stuck:
# use iteration with increments to add numbers
n = 0
for values in columns:
values = n + 0
print (values)
But this for-loop only adds one increment value (in this case 0), and adds it to all columns, not just the first column. Not only that, but I don't know how to add the next increment value for the next column.
Any possible solutions would be greatly appreciated.
IIUC ,just use df.add() over axis=1 with a list made from the length of df.columns:
df1 = df.add(list(range(0,len(df.columns)*10))[::10],axis=1)
Or as #jezrael suggested, better:
df1=df.add(range(0,len(df.columns)*10, 10),axis=1)
print(df1)
Col1 Col2 Col3
0 0 10.3 20.2
1 1 11.1 21.2
2 2 12.2 22.4
3 3 13.0 23.1
Details :
list(range(0,len(df.columns)*10))[::10]
#[0, 10, 20]
I would recommend you to avoid looping over the data frame as it is inefficient but rather think of adding to matrixes.
e.g.
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
# Create your example df
df = pd.DataFrame(data=np.random.randn(10,3))
# Create a Matrix of ones
x = np.ones(df.shape)
# Multiply each column with an incremented value * 10
x = x * 10*np.arange(1,df.shape[1]+1)
# Add the matrix to the data
df + x
Edit: In case you do not want to increment with 10, 20 ,30 but 0,10,20 use this instead
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
# Create your example df
df = pd.DataFrame(data=np.random.randn(10,3))
# Create a Matrix of ones
x = np.ones(df.shape)
# THIS LINE CHANGED
# Obmit the 1 so there is only an end value -> default start is 0
# Adjust the length of the vector
x = x * 10*np.arange(df.shape[1])
# Add the matrix to the data
df + x
I have a dataset
category
cat a
cat b
cat a
I'd like to be able to return something like (showing unique values and frequency)
category freq
cat a 2
cat b 1
Use value_counts() as #DSM commented.
In [37]:
df = pd.DataFrame({'a':list('abssbab')})
df['a'].value_counts()
Out[37]:
b 3
a 2
s 2
dtype: int64
Also groupby and count. Many ways to skin a cat here.
In [38]:
df.groupby('a').count()
Out[38]:
a
a
a 2
b 3
s 2
[3 rows x 1 columns]
See the online docs.
If you wanted to add frequency back to the original dataframe use transform to return an aligned index:
In [41]:
df['freq'] = df.groupby('a')['a'].transform('count')
df
Out[41]:
a freq
0 a 2
1 b 3
2 s 2
3 s 2
4 b 3
5 a 2
6 b 3
[7 rows x 2 columns]
If you want to apply to all columns you can use:
df.apply(pd.value_counts)
This will apply a column based aggregation function (in this case value_counts) to each of the columns.
df.category.value_counts()
This short little line of code will give you the output you want.
If your column name has spaces you can use
df['category'].value_counts()
df.apply(pd.value_counts).fillna(0)
value_counts - Returns object containing counts of unique values
apply - count frequency in every column. If you set axis=1, you get frequency in every row
fillna(0) - make output more fancy. Changed NaN to 0
In 0.18.1 groupby together with count does not give the frequency of unique values:
>>> df
a
0 a
1 b
2 s
3 s
4 b
5 a
6 b
>>> df.groupby('a').count()
Empty DataFrame
Columns: []
Index: [a, b, s]
However, the unique values and their frequencies are easily determined using size:
>>> df.groupby('a').size()
a
a 2
b 3
s 2
With df.a.value_counts() sorted values (in descending order, i.e. largest value first) are returned by default.
Using list comprehension and value_counts for multiple columns in a df
[my_series[c].value_counts() for c in list(my_series.select_dtypes(include=['O']).columns)]
https://stackoverflow.com/a/28192263/786326
As everyone said, the faster solution is to do:
df.column_to_analyze.value_counts()
But if you want to use the output in your dataframe, with this schema:
df input:
category
cat a
cat b
cat a
df output:
category counts
cat a 2
cat b 1
cat a 2
you can do this:
df['counts'] = df.category.map(df.category.value_counts())
df
If your DataFrame has values with the same type, you can also set return_counts=True in numpy.unique().
index, counts = np.unique(df.values,return_counts=True)
np.bincount() could be faster if your values are integers.
You can also do this with pandas by broadcasting your columns as categories first, e.g. dtype="category" e.g.
cats = ['client', 'hotel', 'currency', 'ota', 'user_country']
df[cats] = df[cats].astype('category')
and then calling describe:
df[cats].describe()
This will give you a nice table of value counts and a bit more :):
client hotel currency ota user_country
count 852845 852845 852845 852845 852845
unique 2554 17477 132 14 219
top 2198 13202 USD Hades US
freq 102562 8847 516500 242734 340992
Without any libraries, you could do this instead:
def to_frequency_table(data):
frequencytable = {}
for key in data:
if key in frequencytable:
frequencytable[key] += 1
else:
frequencytable[key] = 1
return frequencytable
Example:
to_frequency_table([1,1,1,1,2,3,4,4])
>>> {1: 4, 2: 1, 3: 1, 4: 2}
I believe this should work fine for any DataFrame columns list.
def column_list(x):
column_list_df = []
for col_name in x.columns:
y = col_name, len(x[col_name].unique())
column_list_df.append(y)
return pd.DataFrame(column_list_df)
column_list_df.rename(columns={0: "Feature", 1: "Value_count"})
The function "column_list" checks the columns names and then checks the uniqueness of each column values.
#metatoaster has already pointed this out.
Go for Counter. It's blazing fast.
import pandas as pd
from collections import Counter
import timeit
import numpy as np
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(1, 10000, (100, 2)), columns=["NumA", "NumB"])
Timers
%timeit -n 10000 df['NumA'].value_counts()
# 10000 loops, best of 3: 715 µs per loop
%timeit -n 10000 df['NumA'].value_counts().to_dict()
# 10000 loops, best of 3: 796 µs per loop
%timeit -n 10000 Counter(df['NumA'])
# 10000 loops, best of 3: 74 µs per loop
%timeit -n 10000 df.groupby(['NumA']).count()
# 10000 loops, best of 3: 1.29 ms per loop
Cheers!
The following code creates frequency table for the various values in a column called "Total_score" in a dataframe called "smaller_dat1", and then returns the number of times the value "300" appears in the column.
valuec = smaller_dat1.Total_score.value_counts()
valuec.loc[300]
n_values = data.income.value_counts()
First unique value count
n_at_most_50k = n_values[0]
Second unique value count
n_greater_50k = n_values[1]
n_values
Output:
<=50K 34014
>50K 11208
Name: income, dtype: int64
Output:
n_greater_50k,n_at_most_50k:-
(11208, 34014)
your data:
|category|
cat a
cat b
cat a
solution:
df['freq'] = df.groupby('category')['category'].transform('count')
df = df.drop_duplicates()
I have the following df,
A id
[ObjectId('5abb6fab81c0')] 0
[ObjectId('5abb6fab81c3'),ObjectId('5abb6fab81c4')] 1
[ObjectId('5abb6fab81c2'),ObjectId('5abb6fab81c1')] 2
I like to flatten each list in A, and assign its corresponding id to each element in the list like,
A id
ObjectId('5abb6fab81c0') 0
ObjectId('5abb6fab81c3') 1
ObjectId('5abb6fab81c4') 1
ObjectId('5abb6fab81c2') 2
ObjectId('5abb6fab81c1') 2
I think the comment is coming from this question ? you can using my original post or this one
df.set_index('id').A.apply(pd.Series).stack().reset_index().drop('level_1',1)
Out[497]:
id 0
0 0 1.0
1 1 2.0
2 1 3.0
3 1 4.0
4 2 5.0
5 2 6.0
Or
pd.DataFrame({'id':df.id.repeat(df.A.str.len()),'A':df.A.sum()})
Out[498]:
A id
0 1 0
1 2 1
1 3 1
1 4 1
2 5 2
2 6 2
This probably isn't the most elegant solution, but it works. The idea here is to loop through df (which is why this is likely an inefficient solution), and then loop through each list in column A, appending each item and the id to new lists. Those two new lists are then turned into a new DataFrame.
a_list = []
id_list = []
for index, a, i in df.itertuples():
for item in a:
a_list.append(item)
id_list.append(i)
df1 = pd.DataFrame(list(zip(alist, idlist)), columns=['A', 'id'])
As I said, inelegant, but it gets the job done. There's probably at least one better way to optimize this, but hopefully it gets you moving forward.
EDIT (April 2, 2018)
I had the thought to run a timing comparison between mine and Wen's code, simply out of curiosity. The two variables are the length of column A, and the length of the list entries in column A. I ran a bunch of test cases, iterating by orders of magnitude each time. For example, I started with A length = 10 and ran through to 1,000,000, at each step iterating through randomized A entry list lengths of 1-10, 1-100 ... 1-1,000,000. I found the following:
Overall, my code is noticeably faster (especially at increasing A lengths) as long as the list lengths are less than ~1,000. As soon as the randomized list length hits the ~1,000 barrier, Wen's code takes over in speed. This was a huge surprise to me! I fully expected my code to lose every time.
Length of column A generally doesn't matter - it simply increases the overall execution time linearly. The only case in which it changed the results was for A length = 10. In that case, no matter the list length, my code ran faster (also strange to me).
Conclusion: If the list entries in A are on the order of a few hundred elements (or less) long, my code is the way to go. But if you're working with huge data sets, use Wen's! Also worth noting that as you hit the 1,000,000 barrier, both methods slow down drastically. I'm using a fairly powerful computer, and each were taking minutes by the end (it actually crashed on the A length = 1,000,000 and list length = 1,000,000 case).
Flattening and unflattening can be done using this function
def flatten(df, col):
col_flat = pd.DataFrame([[i, x] for i, y in df[col].apply(list).iteritems() for x in y], columns=['I', col])
col_flat = col_flat.set_index('I')
df = df.drop(col, 1)
df = df.merge(col_flat, left_index=True, right_index=True)
return df
Unflattening:
def unflatten(flat_df, col):
flat_df.groupby(level=0).agg({**{c:'first' for c in flat_df.columns}, col: list})
After unflattening we get the same dataframe except column order:
(df.sort_index(axis=1) == unflatten(flatten(df)).sort_index(axis=1)).all().all()
>> True
To create unique index you can call reset_index after flattening
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.