Skip to content

Loc enhancements #22826

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 1, 2018
Merged

Loc enhancements #22826

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
16177af
PERF: improve get_indexer_non_unique on sorted, non-unique indexes
rtlee9 Sep 5, 2018
8b704c5
PERF: parameterize index structure for asv indexing benchmarks
rtlee9 Sep 5, 2018
4ad3006
CLN: use underscore in asv param names
rtlee9 Sep 26, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
75 changes: 45 additions & 30 deletions asv_bench/benchmarks/indexing.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -11,95 +11,110 @@
class NumericSeriesIndexing(object):

goal_time = 0.2
params = [Int64Index, Float64Index]
param = ['index']
params = [
(Int64Index, Float64Index),
('unique_monotonic_inc', 'nonunique_monotonic_inc'),
]
param_names = ['index dtype', 'index structure']
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

did you actually try this? I am shocked if this works when it has spaces in the name, or maybe the names are just mapped by postion. in any event these need underscores

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I tried this and you can see it working in this sample output from the asv run:

[ 97.63%] ··· indexing.NumericSeriesIndexing.time_loc_list_like                                                     ok
[ 97.63%] ··· ========================================== ========================= ============
                             index dtype                      index structure                  
              ------------------------------------------ ------------------------- ------------
                pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Int64Index      unique_monotonic_inc     379±2μs   
                pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Int64Index    nonunique_monotonic_inc   69.3±0.5ms 
               pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Float64Index     unique_monotonic_inc     170±1ms   
               pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Float64Index   nonunique_monotonic_inc   65.7±0.3ms 
              ========================================== ========================= ============

I've added underscores in commit 4ad3006.


def setup(self, index):
def setup(self, index, index_structure):
N = 10**6
idx = index(range(N))
self.data = Series(np.random.rand(N), index=idx)
indices = {
'unique_monotonic_inc': index(range(N)),
'nonunique_monotonic_inc': index(
list(range(55)) + [54] + list(range(55, N - 1))),
}
self.data = Series(np.random.rand(N), index=indices[index_structure])
self.array = np.arange(10000)
self.array_list = self.array.tolist()

def time_getitem_scalar(self, index):
def time_getitem_scalar(self, index, index_structure):
self.data[800000]

def time_getitem_slice(self, index):
def time_getitem_slice(self, index, index_structure):
self.data[:800000]

def time_getitem_list_like(self, index):
def time_getitem_list_like(self, index, index_structure):
self.data[[800000]]

def time_getitem_array(self, index):
def time_getitem_array(self, index, index_structure):
self.data[self.array]

def time_getitem_lists(self, index):
def time_getitem_lists(self, index, index_structure):
self.data[self.array_list]

def time_iloc_array(self, index):
def time_iloc_array(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.iloc[self.array]

def time_iloc_list_like(self, index):
def time_iloc_list_like(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.iloc[[800000]]

def time_iloc_scalar(self, index):
def time_iloc_scalar(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.iloc[800000]

def time_iloc_slice(self, index):
def time_iloc_slice(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.iloc[:800000]

def time_ix_array(self, index):
def time_ix_array(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.ix[self.array]

def time_ix_list_like(self, index):
def time_ix_list_like(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.ix[[800000]]

def time_ix_scalar(self, index):
def time_ix_scalar(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.ix[800000]

def time_ix_slice(self, index):
def time_ix_slice(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.ix[:800000]

def time_loc_array(self, index):
def time_loc_array(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.loc[self.array]

def time_loc_list_like(self, index):
def time_loc_list_like(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.loc[[800000]]

def time_loc_scalar(self, index):
def time_loc_scalar(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.loc[800000]

def time_loc_slice(self, index):
def time_loc_slice(self, index, index_structure):
self.data.loc[:800000]


class NonNumericSeriesIndexing(object):

goal_time = 0.2
params = ['string', 'datetime']
param_names = ['index']
params = [
('string', 'datetime'),
('unique_monotonic_inc', 'nonunique_monotonic_inc'),
]
param_names = ['index dtype', 'index structure']
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

added underscores in commit 4ad3006


def setup(self, index):
N = 10**5
def setup(self, index, index_structure):
N = 10**6
indexes = {'string': tm.makeStringIndex(N),
'datetime': date_range('1900', periods=N, freq='s')}
index = indexes[index]
if index_structure == 'nonunique_monotonic_inc':
index = index.insert(item=index[2], loc=2)[:-1]
self.s = Series(np.random.rand(N), index=index)
self.lbl = index[80000]

def time_getitem_label_slice(self, index):
def time_getitem_label_slice(self, index, index_structure):
self.s[:self.lbl]

def time_getitem_pos_slice(self, index):
def time_getitem_pos_slice(self, index, index_structure):
self.s[:80000]

def time_get_value(self, index):
def time_get_value(self, index, index_structure):
with warnings.catch_warnings(record=True):
self.s.get_value(self.lbl)

def time_getitem_scalar(self, index):
def time_getitem_scalar(self, index, index_structure):
self.s[self.lbl]

def time_getitem_list_like(self, index, index_structure):
self.s[[self.lbl]]


class DataFrameStringIndexing(object):

Expand Down
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions doc/source/whatsnew/v0.24.0.txt
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -604,6 +604,8 @@ Performance Improvements
:meth:`~HDFStore.keys`. (i.e. ``x in store`` checks are much faster)
(:issue:`21372`)
- Improved the performance of :func:`pandas.get_dummies` with ``sparse=True`` (:issue:`21997`)
- Improved performance of :func:`IndexEngine.get_indexer_non_unique` for sorted, non-unique indexes (:issue:`9466`)


.. _whatsnew_0240.docs:

Expand Down
25 changes: 17 additions & 8 deletions pandas/_libs/index.pyx
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -294,14 +294,23 @@ cdef class IndexEngine:
result = np.empty(n_alloc, dtype=np.int64)
missing = np.empty(n_t, dtype=np.int64)

# form the set of the results (like ismember)
members = np.empty(n, dtype=np.uint8)
for i in range(n):
val = values[i]
if val in stargets:
if val not in d:
d[val] = []
d[val].append(i)
# map each starget to its position in the index
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what if you drop the len(stargets) < 5 and just use it if its monotonic_increasing? does the small case actually make any difference here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you drop the len(stargets) < 5, then we'd be running a binary search against the index for each item in a potentially large set of targets -- runtime should be O(m log n) where m is the number of items in the set and n is the length of the index. Presumably, this would be slower when m is large enough compared to the current behavior which is to run through each item in the index and check if it is in the set of targets, which should be O(n) assuming constant time checks for whether an item is in the set of targets. Thoughts?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you add a case where this is true in the asv's and compare?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, in each of the following asv's stargets is either length one or length two

     [ab9dbd64]       [b704c5bb]
     <master>         <loc-enhancements>
-         383±4ms          211±3ms     0.55  indexing.NonNumericSeriesIndexing.time_getitem_list_like('datetime', 'nonunique_monotonic_inc')
-        59.0±2ms         11.9±1ms     0.20  indexing.CategoricalIndexIndexing.time_get_indexer_list('monotonic_incr')
-      69.4±0.6ms          445±3μs     0.01  indexing.NumericSeriesIndexing.time_getitem_list_like(<class 'pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Int64Index'>, 'nonunique_monotonic_inc')
-      66.3±0.3ms          423±1μs     0.01  indexing.NumericSeriesIndexing.time_getitem_list_like(<class 'pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Float64Index'>, 'nonunique_monotonic_inc')
-      66.1±0.6ms          320±2μs     0.00  indexing.NumericSeriesIndexing.time_ix_list_like(<class 'pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Float64Index'>, 'nonunique_monotonic_inc')
-      69.2±0.4ms          330±3μs     0.00  indexing.NumericSeriesIndexing.time_ix_list_like(<class 'pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Int64Index'>, 'nonunique_monotonic_inc')
-      65.7±0.3ms          286±3μs     0.00  indexing.NumericSeriesIndexing.time_loc_list_like(<class 'pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Float64Index'>, 'nonunique_monotonic_inc')
-      69.3±0.5ms          295±2μs     0.00  indexing.NumericSeriesIndexing.time_loc_list_like(<class 'pandas.core.indexes.numeric.Int64Index'>, 'nonunique_monotonic_inc')

SOME BENCHMARKS HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.

if stargets and len(stargets) < 5 and self.is_monotonic_increasing:
# if there are few enough stargets and the index is monotonically
# increasing, then use binary search for each starget
for starget in stargets:
start = values.searchsorted(starget, side='left')
end = values.searchsorted(starget, side='right')
if start != end:
d[starget] = list(range(start, end))
else:
# otherwise, map by iterating through all items in the index
for i in range(n):
val = values[i]
if val in stargets:
if val not in d:
d[val] = []
d[val].append(i)

for i in range(n_t):
val = targets[i]
Expand Down