I have a class that has 3 properties: Name, ID, and ParentID.
My data:
Name ID ParentID
Event A 1 1
Event B 2 1
Event C 3 1
Event D 4 2
I have everything in a List and was trying to use the OrderBy or perhaps the Sort methods. Not sure which would be better.
I need the data in the list to be ordered so that an event has it's child as the next item in the list. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated, I am doing this in VB by the way. Thanks!!
You can sort the list like this
list.Sort(Function(x, y) 2 * x.ParentID.CompareTo(y.ParentID) + _
x.ChildID.CompareTo(y.ChildID))
Explanation: I am using a lambda expression here. You can think of it as a kind of inline declaration of a function. CompareTo returns either -1, 0 or +1. A negative number means x is less than y, 0 both are equal and +1 means x is greater than y. By multiplying the first comparison by two, its sign takes precedence over the second comparison. The second has only an effect, if the first one returns 0.
The advantage of using the lists Sort method over LINQ is that the list is sorted in-place. With LINQ you would have to create a new list.
Related
I have a data frame that is a single row of numerical values and I want to know if any of those values is greater than 2 and if so create a new column with the word 'Diff'
Col_,F_1,F_2
1,5,0
My dataframe is diff_df. Here is one thing I tried
c = diff_df >2
if c.any():
diff_df['difference']='Difference'
If I were to print c. it would be
Col_,F_1,F_2
False,True,False
I have tried c.all() and many iterations of other things. Clearly my inexperience is holding me back and google is not helping in this regards. Everything I try is either "The truth value of a Series (or Data Frame) is ambiguous use a.any(), a.all()...." Any help would be appreciated.
Since it is only one row, take the .max().max() of the dataframe. With one .max() you are going to get the .max() of each column. The second .max() takes the max of all the columns.
if diff_df.max().max() > 2: diff_df['difference']='Difference'
output:
Col_ F_1 F_2 difference
0 1 5 0 Difference
Use .loc accessor and .gt() to query and at the same time create new column and populate it
df.loc[df.gt(2).any(1), "difference"] = 'Difference'
Col_ F_1 F_2 difference
0 1 5 0 Difference
In addition to David's reponse you may also try this:
if ((df > 2).astype(int)).sum(axis=1).values[0] == 1:
df['difference']='Difference'
I am trying to iterate over rows in a Pandas Dataframe using the itertuples()-method, which works quite fine for my case. Now i want to check if a specific value ('x') is in a specific tuple. I used the count() method for that, as i need to use the number of occurences of x later.
The weird part is, for some Tuples that works just fine (i.e. in my case (namedtuple[7].count('x')) + (namedtuple[8].count('x')) ), but for some (i.e. namedtuple[9].count('x')) i get an AttributeError: 'int' object has no attribute 'count'
Would appreciate your help very much!
Apparently, some columns of your DataFrame are of object type (actually a string)
and some of them are of int type (more generally - numbers).
To count occurrences of x in each row, you should:
Apply a function to each row which:
checks whether the type of the current element is str,
if it is, return count('x'),
if not, return 0 (don't attempt to look for x in a number).
So far this function returns a Series, with a number of x in each column
(separately), so to compute the total for the whole row, this Series should
be summed.
Example of working code:
Test DataFrame:
C1 C2 C3
0 axxv bxy 10
1 vx cy 20
2 vv vx 30
Code:
for ind, row in df.iterrows():
print(ind, row.apply(lambda it:
it.count('x') if type(it).__name__ == 'str' else 0).sum())
(in my opinion, iterrows is more convenient here).
The result is:
0 3
1 1
2 1
So as you can see, it is possible to count occurrences of x,
even when some columns are not strings.
I have read this: https://www.topcoder.com/community/competitive-programming/tutorials/binary-search.
I can't understand some parts==>
What we can call the main theorem states that binary search can be
used if and only if for all x in S, p(x) implies p(y) for all y > x.
This property is what we use when we discard the second half of the
search space. It is equivalent to saying that ¬p(x) implies ¬p(y) for
all y < x (the symbol ¬ denotes the logical not operator), which is
what we use when we discard the first half of the search space.
But I think this condition does not hold when we want to find an element(checking for equality only) in an array and this condition only holds when we're trying to find Inequality for example when we're searching for an element greater or equal to our target value.
Example: We are finding 5 in this array.
indexes=0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9
we define p(x)=>
if(a[x]==5) return true else return false
step one=>middle index = 8+1/2 = 9/2 = 4 ==> a[4]=5
and p(x) is correct for this and from the main theory, the result is that
p(x+1) ........ p(n) is true but its not.
So what is the problem?
We CAN use that theorem when looking for an exact value, because we
only use it when discarding one half. If we are looking for say 5,
and we find say 6 in the middle, the we can discard the upper half,
because we now know (due to the theorem) that all items in there are > 5
Also notice, that if we have a sorted sequence, and want to find any element
that satisfies an inequality, looking at the end elements is enough.
Below is the query that will give the data and distance where distance is <=10km
var s=spark.sql("select date,distance from table_new where distance <=10km")
s.show()
this will give the output like
12/05/2018 | 5
13/05/2018 | 8
14/05/2018 | 18
15/05/2018 | 15
16/05/2018 | 23
---------- | --
i want to use first row of the dataframe s , store the date value in a variable v , in first iteration.
In next iteration it should pick the second row , and corresponding data value to be replaced the old variable b .
like wise so on .
I think you should look at Spark "Window Functions". You may find here what you need.
The "bad" way to do this would be to collect the dataframe using df.collect() which would return a list of Rows which you can manually iterate over each using a loop.This is bad cause it brings all the data in your driver.
The better way would be to use foreach() :
df.foreach(lambda x: <<your code here>>)
foreach() takes a lambda function as argument which iterates over each row of the dataframe without bringing all the data in the driver.But you cant use a simple local variable v inside a lambda fuction when there is overwriting involved.you can use spark accumulators for such a case.
eg: if i want to sum all the values in 2nd column
counter = sc.longAccumulator("counter")
df.foreach(lambda row: counter.add(row.get(1)))
There is an inconsistency with dataframes that I cant explain. In the following, I'm not looking for a workaround (already found one) but an explanation of what is going on under the hood and how it explains the output.
One of my colleagues which I talked into using python and pandas, has a dataframe "data" with 12,000 rows.
"data" has a column "length" that contains numbers from 0 to 20. she wants to divided the dateframe into groups by length range: 0 to 9 in group 1, 9 to 14 in group 2, 15 and more in group 3. her solution was to add another column, "group", and fill it with the appropriate values. she wrote the following code:
data['group'] = np.nan
mask = data['length'] < 10;
data['group'][mask] = 1;
mask2 = (data['length'] > 9) & (data['phraseLength'] < 15);
data['group'][mask2] = 2;
mask3 = data['length'] > 14;
data['group'][mask3] = 3;
This code is not good, of course. the reason it is not good is because you dont know in run time whether data['group'][mask3], for example, will be a view and thus actually change the dataframe, or it will be a copy and thus the dataframe would remain unchanged. It took me quit sometime to explain it to her, since she argued correctly that she is doing an assignment, not a selection, so the operation should always return a view.
But that was not the strange part. the part the even I couldn't understand is this:
After performing this set of operation, we verified that the assignment took place in two different ways:
By typing data in the console and examining the dataframe summary. It told us we had a few thousand of null values. The number of null values was the same as the size of mask3 so we assumed the last assignment was made on a copy and not on a view.
By typing data.group.value_counts(). That returned 3 values: 1,2 and 3 (surprise) we then typed data.group.value_counts.sum() and it summed up to 12,000!
So by method 2, the group column contained no null values and all the values we wanted it to have. But by method 1 - it didnt!
Can anyone explain this?
see docs here.
You dont' want to set values this way for exactly the reason you pointed; since you don't know if its a view, you don't know that you are actually changing the data. 0.13 will raise/warn that you are attempting to do this, but easiest/best to just access like:
data.loc[mask3,'group'] = 3
which will guarantee you inplace setitem