i have a pandas dataframe
id no_of_rows
1 2689
2 1515
3 3826
4 814
5 1650
6 2292
7 1867
8 2096
9 1618
10 923
11 766
12 191
i want to divide id's into 5 different bins based on their no. of rows,
such that every bin has approx(equal no of rows)
and assign it as a new column bin
One approach i thought was
df.no_of_rows.sum() = 20247
div_factor = 20247//5 == 4049
if we add 1st and 2nd row its sum = 2689+1515 = 4204 > div_factor.
Therefore assign bin = 1 where id = 1.
Now look for the next ones
id no_of_rows bin
1 2689 1
2 1515 2
3 3826 3
4 814 4
5 1650 4
6 2292 5
7 1867
8 2096
9 1618
10 923
11 766
12 191
But this method proved wrong.
Is there a way to have 5 bins such that every bin has good amount of stores(approximately equal)
You can use an approach based on percentiles.
n_bins = 5
dfa = df.sort_values(by='no_of_rows').cumsum()
df['bin'] = dfa.no_of_rows.apply(lambda x: int(n_bins*x/dfa.no_of_rows.max()))
And then you can check with
df.groupby('bin').sum()
The more records you have the more fair it will be in terms of dispersion.
Related
I have created a set of 4 clusters using kmeans, but I'd like to reorder the clusters in an ascending manner to have a predictable way of outputting an analysis every time the script is executed.
The resulting df with the clusters is something like:
customer_id recency frequency monetary_value recency_cluster \
0 44792907512250289 21 1 43.76 0
1 4277896431638207047 443 1 73.13 1
2 1509512561185834874 559 1 37.50 1
3 -8259919882769629944 437 1 34.38 1
4 8269311313560571571 133 2 324.78 0
5 6521698907264712834 311 1 6.32 3
6 9102795320443090762 340 1 174.99 3
7 6203217338400763719 39 1 77.50 0
8 7633758030510673403 625 1 95.26 2
9 -2417721548925747504 644 1 76.84 2
frequency_cluster monetary_value_cluster
0 1 0
1 1 0
2 1 0
3 1 0
4 0 1
5 1 0
6 1 1
7 1 0
8 1 0
9 1 0
The recency clusters are not sorted by the data, I'd like for example that the recency cluster 0 to be the one with the min value = 1.0 (recency cluster 1).
recency_cluster count mean std min 25% 50% 75% max
0 17609.0 700.900960 56.895995 609.0 651.0 697.0 749.0 807.0
1 16458.0 102.692672 62.952229 1.0 47.0 101.0 159.0 210.0
2 17166.0 515.971746 56.592490 418.0 466.0 517.0 567.0 608.0
3 18634.0 317.599227 58.852980 211.0 269.0 319.0 367.0 416.0
Using something like:
rfm_df.groupby('recency_cluster')['recency'].transform('min')
Will return a colum with the min value of each clusters
0 1
1 418
2 418
3 418
4 1
...
69862 609
69863 1
69864 211
69865 609
69866 211
I guess there's got to be a way to convert this categories [1,211,418,609] into [0, 1, 2, 3] in order to get the desired result but I can't come up with a solution.
Or maybe there's a better approach to the problem.
Edit: I did this and I think it's working:
rfm_df['recency_normalized_cluster'] = rfm_df.groupby('recency_cluster')['recency'].transform('min').astype('category').cat.codes
rfm_df['recency_normalized_cluster'] = rfm_df.groupby('recency_cluster')['recency'].transform('min').astype('category').cat.codes
I've researched previous similar questions, but couldn't find any applicable leads:
I have a dataframe, called "df" which is roughly structured as follows:
Income Income_Quantile Score_1 Score_2 Score_3
0 100000 5 75 75 100
1 97500 5 80 76 94
2 80000 5 79 99 83
3 79000 5 88 78 91
4 70000 4 55 77 80
5 66348 4 65 63 57
6 67931 4 60 65 57
7 69232 4 65 59 62
8 67948 4 64 64 60
9 50000 3 66 50 60
10 49593 3 58 51 50
11 49588 3 58 54 50
12 48995 3 59 59 60
13 35000 2 61 50 53
14 30000 2 66 35 77
15 12000 1 22 60 30
16 10000 1 15 45 12
Using the "Income_Quantile" column and the following "for-loop", I divided the dataframe into a list of 5 subset dataframes (which each contain observations from the same income quantile):
dfs = []
for level in df.Income_Quantile.unique():
df_temp = df.loc[df.Income_Quantile == level]
dfs.append(df_temp)
Now, I would like to apply the following function for calculating the spearman correlation, p-value and t-statistic to the dataframe (fyi: scipy.stats functions are used in the main function):
def create_list_of_scores(df):
df_result = pd.DataFrame(columns=cols)
df_result.loc['t-statistic'] = [ttest_ind(df['Income'], df[x])[0] for x in cols]
df_result.loc['p-value'] = [ttest_ind(df['Income'], df[x])[1] for x in cols]
df_result.loc['correlation'] = [spearmanr(df['Income'], df[x])[1] for x in cols]
return df_result
The functions that "create_list_of_scores" uses, i.e. "ttest_ind" and "ttest_ind", can be accessed from scipy.stats as follows:
from scipy.stats import ttest_ind
from scipy.stats import spearmanr
I tested the function on one subset of the dataframe:
data = dfs[1]
result = create_list_of_scores(data)
It works as expected.
However, when it comes to applying the function to the entire list of dataframes, "dfs", a lot of issues arise. If I apply it to the list of dataframes as follows:
result = pd.concat([create_list_of_scores(d) for d in dfs], axis=1)
I get the output as the columns "Score_1, Score_2, and Score_3" x 5.
I would like to:
Have just three columns "Score_1, Score_2, and Score_3".
Index the output using the t-statistic, p-value and correlations as the first level index, and; the "Income_Quantile" as the second level index.
Here is what I have in mind:
Score_1 Score_2 Score_3
t-statistic 1
2
3
4
5
p-value 1
2
3
4
5
correlation 1
2
3
4
5
Any idea on how I can merge the output of my function as requested?
I think better is use GroupBy.apply:
cols = ['Score_1','Score_2','Score_3']
def create_list_of_scores(df):
df_result = pd.DataFrame(columns=cols)
df_result.loc['t-statistic'] = [ttest_ind(df['Income'], df[x])[0] for x in cols]
df_result.loc['p-value'] = [ttest_ind(df['Income'], df[x])[1] for x in cols]
df_result.loc['correlation'] = [spearmanr(df['Income'], df[x])[1] for x in cols]
return df_result
df = df.groupby('Income_Quantile').apply(create_list_of_scores).swaplevel(0,1).sort_index()
print (df)
Score_1 Score_2 Score_3
Income_Quantile
correlation 1 NaN NaN NaN
2 NaN NaN NaN
3 6.837722e-01 0.000000e+00 1.000000e+00
4 4.337662e-01 6.238377e-01 4.818230e-03
5 2.000000e-01 2.000000e-01 2.000000e-01
p-value 1 8.190692e-03 8.241377e-03 8.194933e-03
2 5.887943e-03 5.880440e-03 5.888611e-03
3 3.606128e-13 3.603267e-13 3.604996e-13
4 5.584822e-14 5.587619e-14 5.586583e-14
5 3.861801e-06 3.862192e-06 3.864736e-06
t-statistic 1 1.098143e+01 1.094719e+01 1.097856e+01
2 1.297459e+01 1.298294e+01 1.297385e+01
3 2.391611e+02 2.391927e+02 2.391736e+02
4 1.090548e+02 1.090479e+02 1.090505e+02
5 1.594605e+01 1.594577e+01 1.594399e+01
in my data frame I want to iterrows() of two columns but want to save result in 1 column.for example df is
x y
5 10
30 445
70 32
expected output is
points sequence
5 1
10 2
30 1
445 2
I know about iterrows() but it saved out put in two different columns.How can I get expected output and is there any way to generate sequence number according to condition? any help will be appreciated.
First never use iterrows, because really slow.
If want 1, 2 sequence by number of columns convert values to numy array by DataFrame.to_numpy and add numpy.ravel, then for sequence use numpy.tile:
df = pd.DataFrame({'points': df.to_numpy().ravel(),
'sequence': np.tile([1,2], len(df))})
print (df)
points sequence
0 5 1
1 10 2
2 30 1
3 445 2
4 70 1
5 32 2
Do this way:
>>> pd.DataFrame([i[1] for i in df.iterrows()])
points sequence
0 5 1
1 10 2
2 30 1
3 445 2
So I learned that I can use DataFrame.groupby without having a MultiIndex to do subsampling/cross-sections.
On the other hand, when I have a MultiIndex on a DataFrame, I still need to use DataFrame.groupby to do sub-sampling/cross-sections.
So what is a MultiIndex good for apart from the quite helpful and pretty display of the hierarchies when printing?
Hierarchical indexing (also referred to as “multi-level” indexing) was introduced in the pandas 0.4 release.
This opens the door to some quite sophisticated data analysis and manipulation, especially for working with higher dimensional data. In essence, it enables you to effectively store and manipulate arbitrarily high dimension data in a 2-dimensional tabular structure (DataFrame), for example.
Imagine constructing a dataframe using MultiIndex like this:-
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
np.arrays = [['one','one','one','two','two','two'],[1,2,3,1,2,3]]
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randn(6,2),index=pd.MultiIndex.from_tuples(list(zip(*np.arrays))),columns=['A','B'])
df # This is the dataframe we have generated
A B
one 1 -0.732470 -0.313871
2 -0.031109 -2.068794
3 1.520652 0.471764
two 1 -0.101713 -1.204458
2 0.958008 -0.455419
3 -0.191702 -0.915983
This df is simply a data structure of two dimensions
df.ndim
2
But we can imagine it, looking at the output, as a 3 dimensional data structure.
one with 1 with data -0.732470 -0.313871.
one with 2 with data -0.031109 -2.068794.
one with 3 with data 1.520652 0.471764.
A.k.a.: "effectively store and manipulate arbitrarily high dimension data in a 2-dimensional tabular structure"
This is not just a "pretty display". It has the benefit of easy retrieval of data since we now have a hierarchal index.
For example.
In [44]: df.ix["one"]
Out[44]:
A B
1 -0.732470 -0.313871
2 -0.031109 -2.068794
3 1.520652 0.471764
will give us a new data frame only for the group of data belonging to "one".
And we can narrow down our data selection further by doing this:-
In [45]: df.ix["one"].ix[1]
Out[45]:
A -0.732470
B -0.313871
Name: 1
And of course, if we want a specific value, here's an example:-
In [46]: df.ix["one"].ix[1]["A"]
Out[46]: -0.73247029752040727
So if we have even more indexes (besides the 2 indexes shown in the example above), we can essentially drill down and select the data set we are really interested in without a need for groupby.
We can even grab a cross-section (either rows or columns) from our dataframe...
By rows:-
In [47]: df.xs('one')
Out[47]:
A B
1 -0.732470 -0.313871
2 -0.031109 -2.068794
3 1.520652 0.471764
By columns:-
In [48]: df.xs('B', axis=1)
Out[48]:
one 1 -0.313871
2 -2.068794
3 0.471764
two 1 -1.204458
2 -0.455419
3 -0.915983
Name: B
Great post by #Calvin Cheng, but thought I'd take a stab at this as well.
When to use a MultiIndex:
When a single column’s value isn’t enough to uniquely identify a row.
When data is logically hierarchical - meaning that it has multiple dimensions or “levels.”
Why (your core question) - at least these are the biggest benefits IMO:
Easy manipulation via stack() and unstack()
Easy math when there are multiple column levels
Syntactic sugar for slicing/filtering
Example:
Dollars Units
Date Store Category Subcategory UPC EAN
2018-07-10 Store 1 Alcohol Liqour 80480280024 154.77 7
Store 2 Alcohol Liqour 80480280024 82.08 4
Store 3 Alcohol Liqour 80480280024 259.38 9
Store 1 Alcohol Liquor 80432400630 477.68 14
674545000001 139.68 4
Store 2 Alcohol Liquor 80432400630 203.88 6
674545000001 377.13 13
Store 3 Alcohol Liquor 80432400630 239.19 7
674545000001 432.32 14
Store 1 Beer Ales 94922755711 65.17 7
702770082018 174.44 14
736920111112 50.70 5
Store 2 Beer Ales 94922755711 129.60 12
702770082018 107.40 10
736920111112 59.65 5
Store 3 Beer Ales 94922755711 154.00 14
702770082018 137.40 10
736920111112 107.88 12
Store 1 Beer Lagers 702770081011 156.24 12
Store 2 Beer Lagers 702770081011 137.06 11
Store 3 Beer Lagers 702770081011 119.52 8
1) If we want to easily compare sales across stores, we can use df.unstack('Store') to line everything up side-by-side:
Dollars Units
Store Store 1 Store 2 Store 3 Store 1 Store 2 Store 3
Date Category Subcategory UPC EAN
2018-07-10 Alcohol Liqour 80480280024 154.77 82.08 259.38 7 4 9
Liquor 80432400630 477.68 203.88 239.19 14 6 7
674545000001 139.68 377.13 432.32 4 13 14
Beer Ales 94922755711 65.17 129.60 154.00 7 12 14
702770082018 174.44 107.40 137.40 14 10 10
736920111112 50.70 59.65 107.88 5 5 12
Lagers 702770081011 156.24 137.06 119.52 12 11 8
2) We can also easily do math on multiple columns. For example, df['Dollars'] / df['Units'] will then divide each store's dollars by its units, for every store without multiple operations:
Store Store 1 Store 2 Store 3
Date Category Subcategory UPC EAN
2018-07-10 Alcohol Liqour 80480280024 22.11 20.52 28.82
Liquor 80432400630 34.12 33.98 34.17
674545000001 34.92 29.01 30.88
Beer Ales 94922755711 9.31 10.80 11.00
702770082018 12.46 10.74 13.74
736920111112 10.14 11.93 8.99
Lagers 702770081011 13.02 12.46 14.94
3) If we then want to filter to just specific rows, instead of using the
df[(df[col1] == val1) and (df[col2] == val2) and (df[col3] == val3)]
format, we can instead .xs or .query (yes these work for regular dfs, but it's not very useful). The syntax would instead be:
df.xs((val1, val2, val3), level=(col1, col2, col3))
More examples can be found in this tutorial notebook I put together.
The alternative to using a multiindex is to store your data using multiple columns of a dataframe. One would expect multiindex to provide a performance boost over naive column storage, but as of Pandas v 1.1.4, that appears not to be the case.
Timinigs
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
np.random.seed(2020)
inv = pd.DataFrame({
'store_id': np.random.choice(10000, size=10**7),
'product_id': np.random.choice(1000, size=10**7),
'stock': np.random.choice(100, size=10**7),
})
# Create a DataFrame with a multiindex
inv_multi = inv.groupby(['store_id', 'product_id'])[['stock']].agg('sum')
print(inv_multi)
stock
store_id product_id
0 2 48
4 18
5 58
7 149
8 158
... ...
9999 992 132
995 121
996 105
998 99
999 16
[6321869 rows x 1 columns]
# Create a DataFrame without a multiindex
inv_cols = inv_multi.reset_index()
print(inv_cols)
store_id product_id stock
0 0 2 48
1 0 4 18
2 0 5 58
3 0 7 149
4 0 8 158
... ... ... ...
6321864 9999 992 132
6321865 9999 995 121
6321866 9999 996 105
6321867 9999 998 99
6321868 9999 999 16
[6321869 rows x 3 columns]
%%timeit
inv_multi.xs(key=100, level='store_id')
10 loops, best of 3: 20.2 ms per loop
%%timeit
inv_cols.loc[inv_cols.store_id == 100]
The slowest run took 8.79 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
100 loops, best of 3: 11.5 ms per loop
%%timeit
inv_multi.xs(key=100, level='product_id')
100 loops, best of 3: 9.08 ms per loop
%%timeit
inv_cols.loc[inv_cols.product_id == 100]
100 loops, best of 3: 12.2 ms per loop
%%timeit
inv_multi.xs(key=(100, 100), level=('store_id', 'product_id'))
10 loops, best of 3: 29.8 ms per loop
%%timeit
inv_cols.loc[(inv_cols.store_id == 100) & (inv_cols.product_id == 100)]
10 loops, best of 3: 28.8 ms per loop
Conclusion
The benefits from using a MultiIndex are about syntactic sugar, self-documenting data, and small conveniences from functions like unstack() as mentioned in #ZaxR's answer; Performance is not a benefit, which seems like a real missed opportunity.
Based on the comment on this
answer it seems the
experiment was flawed. Here is my attempt at a correct experiment.
Timings
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from timeit import timeit
random_data = np.random.randn(16, 4)
multiindex_lists = [["A", "B", "C", "D"], [1, 2, 3, 4]]
multiindex = pd.MultiIndex.from_product(multiindex_lists)
dfm = pd.DataFrame(random_data, multiindex)
df = dfm.reset_index()
print("dfm:\n", dfm, "\n")
print("df\n", df, "\n")
dfm_selection = dfm.loc[("B", 4), 3]
print("dfm_selection:", dfm_selection, type(dfm_selection))
df_selection = df[(df["level_0"] == "B") & (df["level_1"] == 4)][3].iat[0]
print("df_selection: ", df_selection, type(df_selection), "\n")
print("dfm_selection timeit:",
timeit(lambda: dfm.loc[("B", 4), 3], number=int(1e6)))
print("df_selection timeit: ",
timeit(
lambda: df[(df["level_0"] == "B") & (df["level_1"] == 4)][3].iat[0],
number=int(1e6)))
dfm:
0 1 2 3
A 1 -1.055128 -0.845019 -2.853027 0.521738
2 0.397804 0.385045 -0.121294 -0.696215
3 -0.551836 -0.666953 -0.956578 1.929732
4 -0.154780 1.778150 0.183104 -0.013989
B 1 -0.315476 0.564419 0.492496 -1.052432
2 -0.695300 0.085265 0.701724 -0.974168
3 -0.879915 -0.206499 1.597701 1.294885
4 0.653261 0.279641 -0.800613 1.050241
C 1 1.004199 -1.377520 -0.672913 1.491793
2 -0.453452 0.367264 -0.002362 0.411193
3 2.271958 0.240864 -0.923934 -0.572957
4 0.737893 -0.523488 0.485497 -2.371977
D 1 1.133661 -0.584973 -0.713320 -0.656315
2 -1.173231 -0.490667 0.634677 1.711015
3 -0.050371 -0.175644 0.124797 0.703672
4 1.349595 0.122202 -1.498178 0.013391
df
level_0 level_1 0 1 2 3
0 A 1 -1.055128 -0.845019 -2.853027 0.521738
1 A 2 0.397804 0.385045 -0.121294 -0.696215
2 A 3 -0.551836 -0.666953 -0.956578 1.929732
3 A 4 -0.154780 1.778150 0.183104 -0.013989
4 B 1 -0.315476 0.564419 0.492496 -1.052432
5 B 2 -0.695300 0.085265 0.701724 -0.974168
6 B 3 -0.879915 -0.206499 1.597701 1.294885
7 B 4 0.653261 0.279641 -0.800613 1.050241
8 C 1 1.004199 -1.377520 -0.672913 1.491793
9 C 2 -0.453452 0.367264 -0.002362 0.411193
10 C 3 2.271958 0.240864 -0.923934 -0.572957
11 C 4 0.737893 -0.523488 0.485497 -2.371977
12 D 1 1.133661 -0.584973 -0.713320 -0.656315
13 D 2 -1.173231 -0.490667 0.634677 1.711015
14 D 3 -0.050371 -0.175644 0.124797 0.703672
15 D 4 1.349595 0.122202 -1.498178 0.013391
dfm_selection: 1.0502406808918188 <class 'numpy.float64'>
df_selection: 1.0502406808918188 <class 'numpy.float64'>
dfm_selection timeit: 63.92458086000079
df_selection timeit: 450.4555013199997
Conclusion
MultiIndex single-value retrieval is over 7 times faster than conventional
dataframe single-value retrieval.
The syntax for MultiIndex retrieval is much cleaner.
I would like to apply a custom function to each level within a multiindex.
For example, I have the dataframe
df = pd.DataFrame(np.arange(16).reshape((4,4)),
columns=pd.MultiIndex.from_product([['OP','PK'],['PRICE','QTY']]))
of which I want to add a column for each level 0 column, called "Value" which is the result of the following function;
def my_func(df, scale):
return df['QTY']*df['PRICE']*scale
where the user supplies the "scale" value.
Even in setting up this example, I am not sure how to show the result I want. But I know I want the final dataframe's multiindex column to be
pd.DataFrame(columns=pd.MultiIndex.from_product([['OP','PK'],['PRICE','QTY','Value']]))
Even if that wasn't had enough, I want to apply one "scale" value for the "OP" level 0 column and a different "scale" value to the "PK" column.
Use:
def my_func(df, scale):
#select second level of columns
df1 = df.xs('QTY', axis=1, level=1).values *df.xs('PRICE', axis=1, level=1) * scale
#create MultiIndex in columns
df1.columns = pd.MultiIndex.from_product([df1.columns, ['val']])
#join to original
return pd.concat([df, df1], axis=1).sort_index(axis=1)
print (my_func(df, 10))
OP PK
PRICE QTY val PRICE QTY val
0 0 1 0 2 3 60
1 4 5 200 6 7 420
2 8 9 720 10 11 1100
3 12 13 1560 14 15 2100
EDIT:
For multiple by scaled values different for each level is possible use list of values:
print (my_func(df, [10, 20]))
OP PK
PRICE QTY val PRICE QTY val
0 0 1 0 2 3 120
1 4 5 200 6 7 840
2 8 9 720 10 11 2200
3 12 13 1560 14 15 4200
Use groupby + agg, and then concatenate the pieces together with pd.concat.
scale = 10
v = df.groupby(level=0, axis=1).agg(lambda x: x.values.prod(1) * scale)
v.columns = pd.MultiIndex.from_product([v.columns, ['value']])
pd.concat([df, v], axis=1).sort_index(axis=1, level=0)
OP PK
PRICE QTY value PRICE QTY value
0 0 1 0 2 3 60
1 4 5 200 6 7 420
2 8 9 720 10 11 1100
3 12 13 1560 14 15 2100