0

I need to make a list of objects out of a numpy array (or a pandas dataframe). Each row holds all the attribute values for the object (see example).

import numpy as np

class Dog:

def __init__(self, weight, height, width, girth):
    self.weight = weight
    self.height = height
    self.width = width
    self.girth = girth


dogs = np.array([[5, 100, 50, 80], [4, 80, 30, 70], [7, 120, 60, 90], [2, 50, 30, 50]])

# list comprehension with idexes
dog_list = [Dog(dogs[i][0], dogs[i][1], dogs[i][2], dogs[i][3]) for i in range(len(dogs))]

My real data is of course much bigger (up to a million rows with 5 columns), so iterating line by line and looking up the correct index takes ages. Is there a way to vectorize this or generally make it more efficient/faster? I tried finding ways myself, but I couldn't find anything translatable, at least at my level of expertise.

It's extremely important that the order of rows is preserved though, so if that doesn't work out, I suppose I'll have to live with the slow operation.

Cheers!

EDIT - regarding question about np.vectorize:

This is part of my actual code along with some actual data:

import numpy as np

class Particle:
    TrackID = 0
    def __init__(self, uniq_ident, intensity, sigma, chi2, past_nn_ident, past_distance, aligned_x, aligned_y, NeNA):
        self.uniq_ident = uniq_ident
        self.intensity = intensity
        self.sigma = sigma
        self.chi2 = chi2
        self.past_nn_ident = past_nn_ident
        self.past_distance = past_distance
        self.aligned_y = aligned_y
        self.aligned_x = aligned_x
        self.NeNA = NeNA
        self.new_track_length = 1
        self.quality_pass = True  
        self.re_seeder(self.NeNA)


def re_seeder(self, NeNA):

    if np.isnan(self.past_nn_ident):  
        self.newseed = True            
        self.new_track_id = Particle.TrackID
        print(self.new_track_id)
        Particle.TrackID += 1

    else:
        self.newseed = False
        self.new_track_id = None

data = np.array([[0.00000000e+00, 2.98863746e+03, 2.11794100e+02, 1.02241467e+04, np.NaN,np.NaN, 9.00081968e+02, 2.52456745e+04, 1.50000000e+01],
       [1.00000000e+00, 2.80583577e+03, 4.66145720e+02, 6.05642671e+03, np.NaN, np.NaN, 8.27249728e+02, 2.26365501e+04, 1.50000000e+01],
       [2.00000000e+00, 5.28702810e+02, 3.30889610e+02, 5.10632793e+03, np.NaN, np.NaN, 6.03337243e+03, 6.52702811e+04, 1.50000000e+01],
       [3.00000000e+00, 3.56128350e+02, 1.38663730e+02, 3.37923885e+03, np.NaN, np.NaN, 6.43263261e+03, 6.14788766e+04, 1.50000000e+01],
       [4.00000000e+00, 9.10148200e+01, 8.30057400e+01, 4.31205993e+03, np.NaN, np.NaN, 7.63955009e+03, 6.08925862e+04, 1.50000000e+01]])

Particle.TrackID = 0
particles = np.vectorize(Particle)(*data.transpose())

l = [p.new_track_id for p in particles]

The curious thing about this is that the print statement inside the ree_seeder function "print(self.new_track_id)", it prints 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

If I then take the particle objects and make a list out of their new_track_id attributes "l = [p.new_track_id for p in particles]" the values are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

So somewhere, somehow the first object is either lost, re-written or something else I don't understand.

David
  • 73
  • 1
  • 7
  • Not sure if this is any faster but it is simpler: `dog_list = [Dog(*row) for row in dogs]` – iz_ Nov 08 '18 at 09:00
  • Better `[Dog(*x) for x in dogs.tolist()]` – Paul Panzer Nov 08 '18 at 09:02
  • Thanks, these should at least keep my code cleaner! – David Nov 08 '18 at 09:16
  • 2
    Vectorizing the class constructor gives you another boost: `dog_list = np.vectorize(Dog)(*dogs.transpose())` – Jeronimo Nov 08 '18 at 09:17
  • @Jeronimo Holy crap, that just sped up my code from 50s to 1.3s :D Thanks a ton! – David Nov 08 '18 at 09:45
  • `np.frompyfunc` might do even better than `np.vectorize` – hpaulj Nov 08 '18 at 13:05
  • @Jeronimo I get a strange effect when doing this. I use a class variable as a counter, so whenever an object is made the variable goes up by 1. If I use vectorize, the counter is somehow messed up. I assume this won't process rows in the same order as in the array? Or is it a different issue? I can give you a more detailed example if this isn't clear enough. – David Nov 08 '18 at 14:53
  • @hpaulj Hm, I'm not sure how to use that one. Could you give an example? – David Nov 08 '18 at 15:04
  • @David I don't know, let's see an example. – Jeronimo Nov 08 '18 at 15:43
  • @Jeronimo I put my code into an EDIT in my main post to make it more readable. – David Nov 08 '18 at 16:24
  • `np.vectorize` performs a test calc to determine the return dtype. It's dangerous to use this function without a good read of its docs. – hpaulj Nov 08 '18 at 16:53
  • On the use of `frompyfunc` to create (or access) an object array of custom class objects. – hpaulj Nov 08 '18 at 17:00
  • by defining [`__slots__`](https://stackoverflow.com/a/28059785/1562285) on `Foo`, you might make the object more lightweight and speed up the creation – Maarten Fabré Nov 09 '18 at 08:49

3 Answers3

2

You won't get great efficiency/speed gains as long as you are insisting on building Python objects. With that many items, you will be much better served by keeping the data in the numpy array. If you want nicer attribute access, you could cast the array as a record array (recarray), which would allow you to name the columns (as weight, height, etc) while still having the data in the numpy array.

dog_t = np.dtype([
    ('weight', int),
    ('height', int),
    ('width', int),
    ('girth', int)
])

dogs = np.array([
    (5, 100, 50, 80),
    (4, 80, 30, 70),
    (7, 120, 60, 90),
    (2, 50, 30, 50),
], dtype=dog_t)

dogs_recarray = dogs.view(np.recarray)

print(dogs_recarray.weight)
print(dogs_recarray[2].height)

You can also mix and match data types if you need to (if some columns are integer and others are float, for example). Be aware when playing with this code that the items in the dogs array needs to be specified in tuples (using ()) rather than in lists for the datatype to be applied properly.

lxop
  • 7,596
  • 3
  • 27
  • 42
  • Thanks! Unfortunately I have to use objects in this case (it would take some major redesigning and the time investment wouldn't be worth it) so I guess I'll have to live with it being a bit slow. At least I now know I don't need to keep searching! – David Nov 08 '18 at 09:16
  • You might still find a few tweaks that can help. @jeronimo has left a comment about using `np.vectorize` which might be useful. With that many objects, using slots on your Dog class might help a bit too – lxop Nov 08 '18 at 09:25
0

Multiprocessing might be worth a look.

from multiprocessing import Pool dog_list = []

Function to append objects to the list:

def append_dog(i): dog_list.append(Dog(*dogs[i]))

Let multiple workers append to this list in parallel:

number_of_workers = 4 pool = Pool(processes=number_of_workers) pool.map_async(append_dog, range(len(dogs)))

Or as a shorter version:

from multiprocessing import Pool
number_of_workers = 4
pool = Pool(processes=number_of_workers)
pool.map_async(lambda i: dog_list.append(Dog(*dogs[i])), range(len(dogs)))
randomwalker
  • 1,573
  • 1
  • 9
  • 14
  • Thanks! I ended up using the np.vectorize function Jeronimo proposed, but this will fit very nicely for another thing I'm working on. – David Nov 14 '18 at 13:14
  • Using process pool would introduce too much overhead of serializing and deserializing in this case. – Wei Qiu Apr 29 '21 at 06:01
0

With a simple class:

class Foo():
    _id = 0
    def __init__(self, x, y, z):
        self.x = x
        self.y = y
        self.z = z
        self.id = self._id
        Foo._id += 1
    def __repr__(self):
        return '<Foo %s>'%self.id


In [23]: arr = np.arange(12).reshape(4,3)

A straightforward list comprehension:

In [24]: [Foo(*xyz) for xyz in arr]
Out[24]: [<Foo 0>, <Foo 1>, <Foo 2>, <Foo 3>]

Default use of vectorize:

In [26]: np.vectorize(Foo)(*arr.T)
Out[26]: array([<Foo 5>, <Foo 6>, <Foo 7>, <Foo 8>], dtype=object)

Note that Foo 4 was skipped. vectorize performs a trial calculation to determine the return dtype (here object). (This has caused problems for other users.) We can get around that by specifying otypes. There's also a cache parameter that might work, but I haven't played with that.

In [27]: np.vectorize(Foo,otypes=[object])(*arr.T)
Out[27]: array([<Foo 9>, <Foo 10>, <Foo 11>, <Foo 12>], dtype=object)

Internally vectorize uses frompyfunc, which in this case works just as well, and in my experience is faster:

In [28]: np.frompyfunc(Foo, 3,1)(*arr.T)
Out[28]: array([<Foo 13>, <Foo 14>, <Foo 15>, <Foo 16>], dtype=object)

Normally vectorize/frompyfunc pass 'scalar' values to the function, iterating overall elements of a 2d array. But the use of *arr.T is a clever way of passing rows - effectively a 1d array of tuples.

In [31]: list(zip(*arr.T)) 
Out[31]: [(0, 1, 2), (3, 4, 5), (6, 7, 8), (9, 10, 11)]

Some comparative times:

In [32]: Foo._id=0
In [33]: timeit [Foo(*xyz) for xyz in arr]
14.2 µs ± 17.4 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
In [34]: Foo._id=0
In [35]: timeit np.vectorize(Foo,otypes=[object])(*arr.T)
44.9 µs ± 108 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
In [36]: Foo._id=0
In [37]: timeit np.frompyfunc(Foo, 3,1)(*arr.T)
15.6 µs ± 18.6 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)

This is consistent with my past timings. vectorize is slow. frompyfunc is competitive with a list comprehension, sometimes even 2x faster. Wrapping the list comprehension in an array will slow it down, e.g. np.array([Foo(*xyz)...]).

And your original list comprehension:

In [40]: timeit [Foo(arr[i][0],arr[i][1],arr[i][2]) for i in range(len(arr))]
10.1 µs ± 80 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)

That's even faster! So if your goal is a list rather than an array, I don't see the point to using numpy tools.

Of course these timings on a small example need to be viewed with caution.

hpaulj
  • 221,503
  • 14
  • 230
  • 353
  • Interesting. Can you do these timings again with a big array, say `np.random.randint(1, 100, (1000000, 4))`? – Jeronimo Nov 08 '18 at 18:14
  • @Jeronimo, hpaulj I think besides constant overheads there is one significant cost which is numpy's slow `__getitem__`. `vectorize`, `frompyfunc` and `.tolist` all avoid this and consequently scale similar and better than other approaches. For small arrays `.tolist` seems fastest, for large arrays `frompyfunc` – Paul Panzer Nov 08 '18 at 19:38
  • Interesting, that solves the mystery, thanks a ton! That one missing cunter was driving me crazy! Vectorize and frompyfunc are absolutely much faster than my list comprehension though, at least on larger datasets. A full dataset takes roughly 8.7 seconds with vectorize and 9.1 with frompyfunc. The same file needs 33 seconds with the list comprehension. – David Nov 09 '18 at 08:37