I have identified one pandas command
timeseries.loc[z, x] = y
to be responsible for most of the time spent in an iteration. And now I am l
I always think at is the fastest, but not. ix is faster:
import pandas as pd
df = pd.DataFrame({'A':[1,2,3],
'B':[4,5,6],
'C':[7,8,9],
'D':[1,3,5],
'E':[5,3,6],
'F':[7,4,3]})
print (df)
A B C D E F
0 1 4 7 1 5 7
1 2 5 8 3 3 4
2 3 6 9 5 6 3
print (df.at[2, 'B'])
6
print (df.ix[2, 'B'])
6
print (df.loc[2, 'B'])
6
In [77]: %timeit df.at[2, 'B']
10000 loops, best of 3: 44.6 µs per loop
In [78]: %timeit df.ix[2, 'B']
10000 loops, best of 3: 40.7 µs per loop
In [79]: %timeit df.loc[2, 'B']
1000 loops, best of 3: 681 µs per loop
EDIT:
I try MaxU df
and differences are caused random.randint
function:
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.rand(10**7, 5), columns=list('ABCDE'))
In [4]: %timeit (df.ix[2, 'B'])
The slowest run took 25.80 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
10000 loops, best of 3: 20.7 µs per loop
In [5]: %timeit (df.ix[random.randint(0, 10**7), 'B'])
The slowest run took 9.42 times longer than the fastest. This could mean that an intermediate result is being cached.
10000 loops, best of 3: 28 µs per loop
if you are adding rows inside a loop consider thses performance issues; for around first 1000 to 2000 records "my_df.loc" performance is better and gradually it is become slower by increasing the number of records in loop.
If you plan to do thins inside a big loop(say 10M records or so) you are better to use a mixture of "iloc" and "append"; fill a temp datframe with iloc untill the size gets around 1000, then append it to the original dataframe, and empy the temp dataframe. this would boost your performance around 10 times
UPDATE: starting from Pandas 0.20.1 the .ix indexer is deprecated, in favor of the more strict .iloc and .loc indexers.
=====================================================================
@jezrael has provided an interesting comparison and i decided to repeat it using more indexing methods and against 10M rows DF (actually the size doesn't matter in this particular case):
setup:
In [15]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.rand(10**7, 5), columns=list('abcde'))
In [16]: df.info()
<class 'pandas.core.frame.DataFrame'>
RangeIndex: 10000000 entries, 0 to 9999999
Data columns (total 5 columns):
a float64
b float64
c float64
d float64
e float64
dtypes: float64(5)
memory usage: 381.5 MB
In [17]: df.shape
Out[17]: (10000000, 5)
Timing:
In [37]: %timeit df.loc[random.randint(0, 10**7), 'b']
1000 loops, best of 3: 502 µs per loop
In [38]: %timeit df.iloc[random.randint(0, 10**7), 1]
1000 loops, best of 3: 394 µs per loop
In [39]: %timeit df.at[random.randint(0, 10**7), 'b']
10000 loops, best of 3: 66.8 µs per loop
In [41]: %timeit df.iat[random.randint(0, 10**7), 1]
10000 loops, best of 3: 32.9 µs per loop
In [42]: %timeit df.ix[random.randint(0, 10**7), 'b']
10000 loops, best of 3: 64.8 µs per loop
In [43]: %timeit df.ix[random.randint(0, 10**7), 1]
1000 loops, best of 3: 503 µs per loop
Results as a bar plot:
Timing data as DF:
In [88]: r
Out[88]:
method timing
0 loc 502.0
1 iloc 394.0
2 at 66.8
3 iat 32.9
4 ix_label 64.8
5 ix_integer 503.0
In [89]: r.to_dict()
Out[89]:
{'method': {0: 'loc',
1: 'iloc',
2: 'at',
3: 'iat',
4: 'ix_label',
5: 'ix_integer'},
'timing': {0: 502.0,
1: 394.0,
2: 66.799999999999997,
3: 32.899999999999999,
4: 64.799999999999997,
5: 503.0}}
Plotting
ax = sns.barplot(data=r, x='method', y='timing')
ax.tick_params(labelsize=16)
[ax.annotate(str(round(p.get_height(),2)), (p.get_x() + 0.2, p.get_height() + 5)) for p in ax.patches]
ax.set_xlabel('indexing method', size=20)
ax.set_ylabel('timing (microseconds)', size=20)