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)
Related
I have a big dataframe its about 200k of rows and 3 columns (x, y, z). Some rows doesn't have y,z values and just have x value. I want to make a new column that first set of data with z value be 1,second one be 2,then 3, etc. Or make a multiIndex same format.
Following image shows what I mean
Like this image
I made a new column called "NO." and put zero as initial value. Then
I tried to record the index of where I want the new column get a new value. with following code
df = pd.read_fwf(path, header=None, names=['x','y','z'])
df['NO.']=0
index_NO_changed = df.index[df['z'].isnull()]
Then I loop through it and change the number:
for i in range(len(index_NO_changed)-1):
df['NO.'].iloc[index_NO_changed[i]:index_NO_changed[i+1]]=i+1
df['NO.'].iloc[index_NO_changed[-1]:]=len(index_NO_changed)
But the problem is I get a warning that "
A value is trying to be set on a copy of a slice from a DataFrame
I was wondering
Is there any better way? Is creating multiIndex instead of adding another column easier considering size of dataframe?
I have a task to compare two dataframe with same columns name but different size, we can call it previous and current. I am trying to get the difference between (previous and current) in the Quantity and Booked Columns and highlight it as yellow. The common key between the two dataframe would be the 'SN' columns
I have coded out the following
for idx, rows in df_n.iterrows():
if rows["Quantity"] == rows['Available'] + rows['Booked']:
continue
else:
rows["Quantity"] = rows["Quantity"] - rows['Available'] - rows['Booked']
df_n.loc[idx, 'Quantity'].style.applymap('background-color: yellow')
# pdb.set_trace()
if (df_o['Booked'][df_o['SN'] == rows["SN"]] != rows['Booked']).bool():
df_n.loc[idx, 'Booked'].style.apply('background-color: yellow')
I realise I have a few problems here and need some help
df_n.loc[idx, 'Quantity'] returns value instead of a dataframe type. How can I get a dataframe from one cell. Do I have to pd.DataFrame(data=df_n.loc[idx, 'Quantity'], index=idx, columns ='Quantity'). Will this create a copy or will update the reference?
How do I compare the SN of both dataframe, looking for a better way to compare. One thing I could think of is to use set index for both dataframe and when finished using them, reset them back?
My dataframe:
Previous dataframe
Current Dataframe
df_n.loc[idx, 'Quantity'] returns value instead of a dataframe type.
How can I get a dataframe from one cell. Do I have to
pd.DataFrame(data=df_n.loc[idx, 'Quantity'], index=idx, columns
='Quantity'). Will this create a copy or will update the reference?
To create a DataFrame from one cell you can try: df_n.loc[idx, ['Quantity']].to_frame().T
How do I compare the SN of both dataframe, looking for a better way to
compare. One thing I could think of is to use set index for both
dataframe and when finished using them, reset them back?
You can use df_n.merge(df_o, on='S/N') to merge dataframes and 'compare' columns.
I have a dataframe at hourly level with several columns. I want to extract the entire rows (containing all columns) of the 10 top values of a specific column for every year in my dataframe.
so far I ran the following code:
df = df.groupby([df.index.year])['totaldemand'].apply(lambda grp: grp.nlargest(10)))
The problem here is that I only get the top 10 values for each year of that specific column and I lose the other columns. How can I do this operation and having the corresponding values of the other columns that correspond to the top 10 values per year of my 'totaldemand' column?
We usually do head after sort_values
df = df.sort_values('totaldemand',ascending = False).groupby([df.index.year])['totaldemand'].head(10)
nlargest can be applied to each group, passing the column to look for
largest values.
So run:
df.groupby([df.index.year]).apply(lambda grp: grp.nlargest(3, 'totaldemand'))
Of course, in the final version replace 3 with your actual value.
Get the index of your query and use it as a mask on your original df:
idx = df.groupby([df.index.year])['totaldemand'].apply(lambda grp: grp.nlargest(10))).index.to_list()
df.iloc[idx,]
(or something to that extend, I can't test now without any test data)
In my dataframe, I have a one column which has a very large set with a lot of information.
When I do:
df.head()
It crops the column data so I can't see it all. Any ideas how stop the cropping and have scrollbar instead?
Thanks
An easy solution is to just set display.max_colwidth to -1 like:
pd.set_option('display.max_colwidth', -1)
The command df.head() prints the first few rows of a dataframe, df.tail() the last rows. It is 5 by default, but you could say, e.g., df.head(20) to get 20 rows.
df should return the entire data frame and with df[n:m] you can return the rows from n to m, just df[:5] is the same as the head function.
See here for more on data frames.
One to do this:
pd.set_option('max_colwidth', 2000)
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)