Trouble understanding how the indices of a series are determined
So I have a huge data frame that i am reading a single column from, and I need to choose 100 unique values from this column. I think that what I did resulted in 100 unique values but I'm confused about the indexing of the resulting series. I looked at the indices of the data frame and they did not correspond to the value associated with the same indices of the series. I would like this to be the case, that is I want the indices of the resulting series to be the same as the indices of the data frame from which I am reading the column from. Would someone be able to explain to me how the resulting indices were determined here?
The indices of the sample do not correspond to the indices that exist in the DataFrame. This is due to the following fact:
When doing CSsq.unique() you are in fact getting back a np.ndarray (check the docs here). An array does not have any indices. But, you are passing this to the pd.Series constructor and as a result, a new Series is created, which in fact has indexing (starting from 0 up to n-1, where n is the size of the Series). This, of course, has nothing to do with the DataFrame indices, because you have firstly isolated the unique values.
See the example below for a hypothetical Series called s:
s
0 100
1 100
2 100
3 200
4 250
5 300
6 300
Let's isolate the unique occurences:
s.unique()
# [100, 200, 250, 300]
And now let's feed this to the pd.Series constructor:
pd.Series(s.unique())
0 100
1 200
2 250
3 300
As you can see this Series was generated from an array and its indices have nothing to do with the initial indices!
Now, if you take a random sample out of this Series, you'll get values with indices that correspond to this new Series object!
If you'd like to get a sample with indices that are derived from the DataFrame try something like this:
CSsq.drop_duplicates().sample(100)
Related
I have a list of strings, and two separate pandas dataframes. One of the dataframes contains NaNs. I am trying to find a fast way of checking if any item in the list is contained in either of the dataframes, and if so, to remove it from the list.
Currently, I do this with list comprehension. I first concatenate the two dataframes. I then loop through the list, and using an if statement check if it is contained in the concatenated dataframe values.
patches = [patch for patch in patches if not patch in bad_patches.values]
The first 5 elements of my list of strings:
patches[1:5]
['S2A_MSIL2A_20170613T101031_11_52',
'S2A_MSIL2A_20170717T113321_35_89',
'S2A_MSIL2A_20170613T101031_12_39',
'S2A_MSIL2A_20170613T101031_11_77']
An example of one of my dataframes, with the second being the same but containing less rows. Note first row contains patches[2].
cloud_patches.head()
0 S2A_MSIL2A_20170717T113321_35_89
1 S2A_MSIL2A_20170717T113321_39_84
2 S2B_MSIL2A_20171112T114339_0_13
3 S2B_MSIL2A_20171112T114339_0_52
4 S2B_MSIL2A_20171112T114339_0_53
The concatenated dataframe:
bad_patches = pd.concat([cloud_patches, snow_patches], axis=1)
bad_patches.head()
0 S2A_MSIL2A_20170717T113321_35_89 S2B_MSIL2A_20170831T095029_27_76
1 S2A_MSIL2A_20170717T113321_39_84 S2B_MSIL2A_20170831T095029_27_85
2 S2B_MSIL2A_20171112T114339_0_13 S2B_MSIL2A_20170831T095029_29_75
3 S2B_MSIL2A_20171112T114339_0_52 S2B_MSIL2A_20170831T095029_30_75
4 S2B_MSIL2A_20171112T114339_0_53 S2B_MSIL2A_20170831T095029_30_78
and the tail, showing the NaNs of one column:
bad_patches.tail()
61702 NaN S2A_MSIL2A_20180228T101021_43_6
61703 NaN S2A_MSIL2A_20180228T101021_43_8
61704 NaN S2A_MSIL2A_20180228T101021_43_11
61705 NaN S2A_MSIL2A_20180228T101021_43_13
61706 NaN S2A_MSIL2A_20180228T101021_43_16
Column headers are all (poorly) named 0.
The second element of patches should be removed as it's contained in the first row of bad_patches. My method does work but takes absolutely ages. Bad_patches is 60,000 rows and the length of patches is variable. Right now for a length of 1000 patches it takes a 2.04 seconds but I need to scale up to 500k patches so hoping there is a faster way. Thanks!
I would create a set with the values from cloud_patches and snow_patches. Then also create a set of patches:
patch_set = set(cloud_patches[0]).union(set(snow_patches[0])
patches = set(patches)
Now you just subtract all values in patch_set from the values in patches, and you will be left with only values in patches that do not show up in cloud_patches nor snow_patches:
cleaned_list = list(patches - patch_set)
I initially had 100k rows in my dataset. I read the csv using pandas into a dataframe called data. I tried to do a subset selection of 51 rows using .loc. My index labels are numeric values 0, 1, 2, 3 etc. I tried using this command -
data = data.loc['0':'50']
But the results were weird, it took all the rows from 0 to 49999, looks like it is taking rows till the index value starts with 50.
Similarly, I tried with this command - new_data = data.loc['0':'19']
and the result was all the rows, starting from 0 till 18999.
Could this be a bug in pandas?
You want to use .iloc in place of .loc, since you are selecting data from the dataframe via numeric indices.
For example:
data.iloc[:50,:]
Keep in mind that your indices are of numeric-type, not string-type, so querying with a string (as you have done in your OP) attempts to match string-wise comparisons.
I have two dataframes as:
df1.ix[1:3]
DateTime
2018-01-02 [-0.0031537018416199097, 0.006451397621428631,...
2018-01-03 [-0.0028882814454597745, -0.005829869983964528...
df2.ix[1:3]
DateTime
2018-01-02 [-0.03285881500135208, -0.027806145786217932, ...
2018-01-03 [-0.0001314381449719178, -0.006278235444742629...
len(df1.ix['2018-01-02'][0])
500
len(df2.ix['2018-01-02'][0])
500
When I do df1 + df2 I get:
len((df1 + df2).ix['2018-01-02'][0])
1000
So, the lists instead of being summation is being concatenated.
How do I add element wise the lists in the dataframes df1 and df2.
When an operation is applied between two dataframes, it gets broadcasted at element level. Element in your case is a list and when '+' operator is applied between two lists, it concatenates them. That's why resulting dataframe contains concatenated lists.
There can be multiple approaches for actually summing up elements of lists instead of concatenating.
One approach can be converting list elements into columns and then adding dataframes and then merging columns back to a single list.(which has been suggested in first answer but in a wrong way)
Step 1: Converting list elements to columns
df1=df1.apply(lambda row:pd.Series(row[0]), axis=1)
df2=df2.apply(lambda row:pd.Series(row[0]), axis=1)
We need to pass row[0] instead of row to get rid of column index associated with series.
Step 2: Add dataframes
df=df1+df2 #this dataframe will have 500 columns
Step 3: Merge columns back to lists
df=df.apply(lambda row:pd.Series({0:list(row)}),axis=1)
This is an interesting part. Why are we returning a series here? Why only returning list(row) doesn't work and keep retaining 500 columns?
Reason is - if length of list returned is same as length of columns in the beginning, then this list gets fit in columns and to us it seems nothing happened. Whereas if length of the list is not equal to number of columns, then it is returned as single list.
Let's look at an example.
Suppose I've a dataframe, having columns 0 ,1 and 2.
df=pd.DataFrame({0:[1,2,3],1:[4,5,6],2:[7,8,9]})
0 1 2
0 1 4 7
1 2 5 8
2 3 6 9
Number of columns in original dataframe are 3. If I try to return a list with two columns, it works and a series is returned,
df1=df.apply(lambda row:[row[0],row[1]],axis=1)
0 [1, 4]
1 [2, 5]
2 [3, 6]
dtype: object
Instead if try to return list of three numbers, it would get fit in columns.
df1=df.apply(list,axis=1)
0 1 2
0 1 4 7
1 2 5 8
2 3 6 9
So if we want to return list of same size as number of columns, we'll have to return it in form of Series where one row's value has been given as list.
Another approach can be, introduce one column of a dataframe into other and then add columns using apply function.
df1[1]=df2[0]
df=df1.apply(lambda r: list(np.array(r[0])+np.array(r[1])),axis=1)
We can take advantage of numpy arrays here. '+' operator on numpy arrays sums up corresponding values and gives a single numpy array.
Cast them to series so that they become columns, then add your dfs:
df1 = df1.apply(pd.Series, axis=1)
df2 = df2.apply(pd.Series, axis=1)
df1 + df2
I am trying to preset the dimensions of my data frame in pandas so that I can have 500 rows by 300 columns. I want to set it before I enter data into the dataframe.
I am working on a project where I need to take a column of data, copy it, shift it one to the right and shift it down by one row.
I am having trouble with the last row being cut off when I shift it down by one row (eg: I started with 23 rows and it remains at 23 rows despite the fact that I shifted down by one and should have 24 rows).
Here is what I have done so far:
bolusCI = pd.DataFrame()
##set index to very high number to accommodate shifting row down by 1
bolusCI = bolus_raw[["Activity (mCi)"]].copy()
activity_copy = bolusCI.shift(1)
activity_copy
pd.concat([bolusCI, activity_copy], axis =1)
Thanks!
There might be a more efficient way to achieve what you are looking to do, but to directly answer your question you could do something like this to init the DataFrame with certain dimensions
pd.DataFrame(columns=range(300),index=range(500))
You just need to define the index and columns in the constructor. The simplest way is to use pandas.RangeIndex. It mimics np.arange and range in syntax. You can also pass a name parameter to name it.
pd.DataFrame
pd.Index
df = pd.DataFrame(
index=pd.RangeIndex(500),
columns=pd.RangeIndex(300)
)
print(df.shape)
(500, 300)
What is the most efficient way to forward fill information in a large dataframe?
I combined about 6 million rows x 50 columns of dimensional data from daily files. I dropped the duplicates and now I have about 200,000 rows of unique data which would track any change that happens to one of the dimensions.
Unfortunately, some of the raw data is messed up and has null values. How do I efficiently fill in the null data with the previous values?
id start_date end_date is_current location dimensions...
xyz987 2016-03-11 2016-04-02 Expired CA lots_of_stuff
xyz987 2016-04-03 2016-04-21 Expired NaN lots_of_stuff
xyz987 2016-04-22 NaN Current CA lots_of_stuff
That's the basic shape of the data. The issue is that some dimensions are blank when they shouldn't be (this is an error in the raw data). An example is that for previous rows, the location is filled out for the row but it is blank in the next row. I know that the location has not changed but it is capturing it as a unique row because it is blank.
I assume that I need to do a groupby using the ID field. Is this the correct syntax? Do I need to list all of the columns in the dataframe?
cols = [list of all of the columns in the dataframe]
wfm.groupby(['id'])[cols].fillna(method='ffill', inplace=True)
There are about 75,000 unique IDs within the 200,000 row dataframe. I tried doing a
df.fillna(method='ffill', inplace=True)
but I need to do it based on the IDs and I want to make sure that I am being as efficient as possible (it took my computer a long time to read and consolidate all of these files into memory).
It is likely efficient to execute the fillna directly on the groupby object:
df = df.groupby(['id']).fillna(method='ffill')
Method referenced
here
in documentation.
How about forward filling each group?
df = df.groupby(['id'], as_index=False).apply(lambda group: group.ffill())
github/jreback: this is a dupe of #7895. .ffill is not implemented in cython on a groupby operation (though it certainly could be), and instead calls python space on each group.
here's an easy way to do this.
url:https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/11296
according to jreback's answer, when you do a groupby ffill() is not optimized, but cumsum() is. try this:
df = df.sort_values('id')
df.ffill() * (1 - df.isnull().astype(int)).groupby('id').cumsum().applymap(lambda x: None if x == 0 else 1)