I have a dataframe with a column that contains tuples. I would like to create a new column that extracts the smallest tuple from the tuple column.
What I have tried so far
mydataframe['min_values'] = mydataframe['tuple_column'].apply(lambda x: min(x))
This above approach seems to work when I have at least 2 tuples, but it fails when I only have one tuple e.g. 5 in the example below. Could you guys please suggest a method that would help me accomplish this task in a better manner?
Example and desired result
Tuple Column
New Column
(1,2,3,5)
1
(10,11)
10
(5)
5
Thanks
(5) is not a tuple, this is 5. Use numpy.min that handles scalar values as input:
import numpy as np
df['New Column'] = df['Tuple Column'].apply(np.min)
Output:
Tuple Column New Column
0 (1, 2, 3, 5) 1
1 (10, 11) 10
2 5 5
Here is a way using map()
df['Tuple Column'].map(lambda x: min(x) if isinstance(x,tuple) else x)
Output:
0 1
1 3
2 5
df1.applymap(lambda x:pd.Series(eval(x)).min())
Output:
0 1
1 3
2 5
I want to apply numpy function average on pandas dataframe object. Since, I want to apply this function on row wise element of dataframe object, therefore I have applied map function. code is as follows:
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.rand(5,3),columns = ['Col1','Col2','Col3'])
df_averge_row = df.apply(np.average(weights=[[1,1,1],[2,2,2],[3,3,3],[4,4,4],[5,5,5]]),axis=0)
Unfortunately, it is not working. Any Suggestion would be helpful
Since you have 3 columns in each row and are applying the function row-wise (not column wise) per your question, the weights function can only have 3 elements (one per each column in a given row, let's say [1,2,3]):
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.rand(5,3),columns = ['Col1','Col2','Col3'])
weights = weights=[1,2,3]
df_averge_row = df.apply(lambda x: np.average(x, weights=weights),axis=1)
df_averge_row
out:
0 0.618617
1 0.757778
2 0.551463
3 0.497654
4 0.755083
dtype: float64
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()
What is the right way to multiply two sorted pandas Series?
When I run the following
import pandas as pd
x = pd.Series([1,3,2])
x.sort()
print(x)
w = [1]*3
print(w*x)
I get what I would expect - [1,2,3]
However, when I change it to a Series:
w = pd.Series(w)
print(w*x)
It appears to multiply based on the index of the two series, so it returns [1,3,2]
Your results are essentially the same, just sorted differently.
>>> w*x
0 1
2 2
1 3
>>> pd.Series(w)*x
0 1
1 3
2 2
>>> (w*x).sort_index()
0 1
1 3
2 2
The rule is basically this: Anytime you multiply a dataframe or series by a dataframe or series, it will be done by index. That's what makes it pandas and not numpy. As a result, any pre-sorting is necessarily ignored.
But if you multiply a dataframe or series by a list or numpy array of a conforming shape/size, then the list or array will be treated as having the exact same index as the dataframe or series. The pre-sorting of the series or dataframe can be preserved in this case because there can not be any conflict with the list or array (which don't have an index at all).
Both of these types of behavior can be very desirable depending on what you are trying do. That's why you will often see answers here that do something like df1 * df2.values when the second type of behavior is desired.
In this example, it doesn't really matter because your list is [1,1,1] and gives the same answer either way, but if it was [1,2,3] you would get different answers, not just differently sorted answers.