If I have the following dataframe, derived like so: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(0, 10, size=(10, 1)))
0
0 0
1 2
2 8
3 1
4
A loop isn't necessarily bad. The trick is to make sure it's performed on low-level objects. In this case, you can use Numba or Cython. For example, using a generator with numba.njit
:
from numba import njit
@njit
def cumsum_limit(A, limit=5):
count = 0
for i in range(A.shape[0]):
count += A[i]
if count > limit:
yield i, count
count = 0
idx, vals = zip(*cumsum_limit(df[0].values))
res = pd.Series(vals, index=idx)
To demonstrate the performance benefits of JIT-compiling with Numba:
import pandas as pd, numpy as np
from numba import njit
df = pd.DataFrame({0: [0, 2, 8, 1, 0, 0, 7, 0, 2, 2]})
@njit
def cumsum_limit_nb(A, limit=5):
count = 0
for i in range(A.shape[0]):
count += A[i]
if count > limit:
yield i, count
count = 0
def cumsum_limit(A, limit=5):
count = 0
for i in range(A.shape[0]):
count += A[i]
if count > limit:
yield i, count
count = 0
n = 10**4
df = pd.concat([df]*n, ignore_index=True)
%timeit list(cumsum_limit_nb(df[0].values)) # 4.19 ms ± 90.4 µs per loop
%timeit list(cumsum_limit(df[0].values)) # 58.3 ms ± 194 µs per loop
The loop cannot be avoided, but it can be parallelized using numba
's njit
:
from numba import njit, prange
@njit
def dynamic_cumsum(seq, index, max_value):
cumsum = []
running = 0
for i in prange(len(seq)):
if running > max_value:
cumsum.append([index[i], running])
running = 0
running += seq[i]
cumsum.append([index[-1], running])
return cumsum
The index is required here, assuming your index is not numeric/monotonically increasing.
%timeit foo(df, 5)
1.24 ms ± 41.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)
%timeit dynamic_cumsum(df.iloc(axis=1)[0].values, df.index.values, 5)
77.2 µs ± 4.01 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
If the index is of Int64Index
type, you can shorten this to:
@njit
def dynamic_cumsum2(seq, max_value):
cumsum = []
running = 0
for i in prange(len(seq)):
if running > max_value:
cumsum.append([i, running])
running = 0
running += seq[i]
cumsum.append([i, running])
return cumsum
lst = dynamic_cumsum2(df.iloc(axis=1)[0].values, 5)
pd.DataFrame(lst, columns=['A', 'B']).set_index('A')
B
A
3 10
7 8
9 4
%timeit foo(df, 5)
1.23 ms ± 30.6 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)
%timeit dynamic_cumsum2(df.iloc(axis=1)[0].values, 5)
71.4 µs ± 1.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
njit
Functions Performance
perfplot.show(
setup=lambda n: pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(0, 10, size=(n, 1))),
kernels=[
lambda df: list(cumsum_limit_nb(df.iloc[:, 0].values, 5)),
lambda df: dynamic_cumsum2(df.iloc[:, 0].values, 5)
],
labels=['cumsum_limit_nb', 'dynamic_cumsum2'],
n_range=[2**k for k in range(0, 17)],
xlabel='N',
logx=True,
logy=True,
equality_check=None # TODO - update when @jpp adds in the final `yield`
)
The log-log plot shows that the generator function is faster for larger inputs:
A possible explanation is that, as N increases, the overhead of appending to a growing list in dynamic_cumsum2
becomes prominent. While cumsum_limit_nb
just has to yield
.
simpler approach:
def dynamic_cumsum(seq,limit):
res=[]
cs=seq.cumsum()
for i, e in enumerate(cs):
if cs[i] >limit:
res.append([i,e])
cs[i+1:] -= e
if res[-1][0]==i:
return res
res.append([i,e])
return res
result:
x=dynamic_cumsum(df[0].values,5)
x
>>[[2, 10], [6, 8], [9, 4]]