When should I ever want to use pandas apply() in my code?












10















This is a self-answered QnA meant to instruct users about the pitfalls and benefits of apply.



I have seen many answers posted to questions on Stack Overflow involving the use of apply. I have also users commenting under these answers saying that "apply is slow", and should be avoided".



I have read many articles on the topic of performance, that explain apply is slow. I have also seen a disclaimer in the docs about how apply is simply a convenience function for passing UDFs. So, the general consensus is that apply should be avoided if possible. However, this raises the following questions:




  1. If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?

  2. How and when should I make my code apply-free?

  3. Are there ever any situations where apply is good (better than other possible solutions)?










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    The answer is Never! :-) Nice work...

    – Stephen Rauch
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Never ever using apply , I learn it from you long time ago.

    – Wen-Ben
    4 hours ago











  • @W-B Correct. Although, devil's advocate: you might be interested in giving the "Are there ever any situations where apply is good?" a read if you can.

    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Money line: If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't

    – Stephen Rauch
    4 hours ago













  • Hi cold , maybe you can list some bugs cause by apply(We have seen a lot) , from safety purpose .

    – Wen-Ben
    4 hours ago
















10















This is a self-answered QnA meant to instruct users about the pitfalls and benefits of apply.



I have seen many answers posted to questions on Stack Overflow involving the use of apply. I have also users commenting under these answers saying that "apply is slow", and should be avoided".



I have read many articles on the topic of performance, that explain apply is slow. I have also seen a disclaimer in the docs about how apply is simply a convenience function for passing UDFs. So, the general consensus is that apply should be avoided if possible. However, this raises the following questions:




  1. If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?

  2. How and when should I make my code apply-free?

  3. Are there ever any situations where apply is good (better than other possible solutions)?










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    The answer is Never! :-) Nice work...

    – Stephen Rauch
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Never ever using apply , I learn it from you long time ago.

    – Wen-Ben
    4 hours ago











  • @W-B Correct. Although, devil's advocate: you might be interested in giving the "Are there ever any situations where apply is good?" a read if you can.

    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Money line: If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't

    – Stephen Rauch
    4 hours ago













  • Hi cold , maybe you can list some bugs cause by apply(We have seen a lot) , from safety purpose .

    – Wen-Ben
    4 hours ago














10












10








10


3






This is a self-answered QnA meant to instruct users about the pitfalls and benefits of apply.



I have seen many answers posted to questions on Stack Overflow involving the use of apply. I have also users commenting under these answers saying that "apply is slow", and should be avoided".



I have read many articles on the topic of performance, that explain apply is slow. I have also seen a disclaimer in the docs about how apply is simply a convenience function for passing UDFs. So, the general consensus is that apply should be avoided if possible. However, this raises the following questions:




  1. If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?

  2. How and when should I make my code apply-free?

  3. Are there ever any situations where apply is good (better than other possible solutions)?










share|improve this question
















This is a self-answered QnA meant to instruct users about the pitfalls and benefits of apply.



I have seen many answers posted to questions on Stack Overflow involving the use of apply. I have also users commenting under these answers saying that "apply is slow", and should be avoided".



I have read many articles on the topic of performance, that explain apply is slow. I have also seen a disclaimer in the docs about how apply is simply a convenience function for passing UDFs. So, the general consensus is that apply should be avoided if possible. However, this raises the following questions:




  1. If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?

  2. How and when should I make my code apply-free?

  3. Are there ever any situations where apply is good (better than other possible solutions)?







python pandas performance apply






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









jpp

98.5k2159110




98.5k2159110










asked 4 hours ago









coldspeedcoldspeed

127k23128215




127k23128215








  • 3





    The answer is Never! :-) Nice work...

    – Stephen Rauch
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Never ever using apply , I learn it from you long time ago.

    – Wen-Ben
    4 hours ago











  • @W-B Correct. Although, devil's advocate: you might be interested in giving the "Are there ever any situations where apply is good?" a read if you can.

    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Money line: If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't

    – Stephen Rauch
    4 hours ago













  • Hi cold , maybe you can list some bugs cause by apply(We have seen a lot) , from safety purpose .

    – Wen-Ben
    4 hours ago














  • 3





    The answer is Never! :-) Nice work...

    – Stephen Rauch
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Never ever using apply , I learn it from you long time ago.

    – Wen-Ben
    4 hours ago











  • @W-B Correct. Although, devil's advocate: you might be interested in giving the "Are there ever any situations where apply is good?" a read if you can.

    – coldspeed
    4 hours ago






  • 2





    Money line: If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't

    – Stephen Rauch
    4 hours ago













  • Hi cold , maybe you can list some bugs cause by apply(We have seen a lot) , from safety purpose .

    – Wen-Ben
    4 hours ago








3




3





The answer is Never! :-) Nice work...

– Stephen Rauch
4 hours ago





The answer is Never! :-) Nice work...

– Stephen Rauch
4 hours ago




2




2





Never ever using apply , I learn it from you long time ago.

– Wen-Ben
4 hours ago





Never ever using apply , I learn it from you long time ago.

– Wen-Ben
4 hours ago













@W-B Correct. Although, devil's advocate: you might be interested in giving the "Are there ever any situations where apply is good?" a read if you can.

– coldspeed
4 hours ago





@W-B Correct. Although, devil's advocate: you might be interested in giving the "Are there ever any situations where apply is good?" a read if you can.

– coldspeed
4 hours ago




2




2





Money line: If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't

– Stephen Rauch
4 hours ago







Money line: If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't

– Stephen Rauch
4 hours ago















Hi cold , maybe you can list some bugs cause by apply(We have seen a lot) , from safety purpose .

– Wen-Ben
4 hours ago





Hi cold , maybe you can list some bugs cause by apply(We have seen a lot) , from safety purpose .

– Wen-Ben
4 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6















apply, the Convenience Function you Never Needed



We start by addressing the questions in the OP, one by one.




If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?




DataFrame.apply and Series.apply are convenience functions defined on DataFrame and Series object respectively. apply accepts any user defined function that applies a transformation/aggregation on a DataFrame. apply is effectively a silver bullet that does whatever any existing pandas function cannot do.



Some of the things apply can do:




  • Run any user-defined function on a DataFrame or Series

  • Apply a function either row-wise (axis=1) or column-wise (axis=0) on a DataFrame

  • Perform index alignment while applying the function

  • Perform aggregation with user-defined functions (however, we usually prefer agg or transform in these cases)

  • Perform element-wise transformations

  • Broadcast aggregated results to original rows (see the result_type argument).

  • Accept positional/keyword arguments to pass to the user-defined functions.


...Among others. For more information, see Row or Column-wise Function Application in the documentation.



So, with all these features, why is apply bad? It is because apply is slow. Pandas makes no assumptions about the nature of your function, and so iteratively applies your function to each row/column as necessary. Additionally, handling all of the situations above means apply incurs some major overhead at each iteration. Further, apply consumes a lot more memory, which is a challenge for memory bounded applications.



There are very few situations where apply is appropriate to use (more on that below). If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't.





Let's address the next question.




How and when should I make my code apply-free?




Numeric Data

If you're working with numeric data, there is likely already a vectorized cython function that does exactly what you're trying to do (if not, please either ask a question on Stack Overflow or open a feature request on GitHub).



Contrast the performance of apply for a simple addition operation.



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [9, 4, 2, 1], "B": [12, 7, 5, 4]})
df

A B
0 9 12
1 4 7
2 2 5
3 1 4




df.apply(np.sum)

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64

df.sum()

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64


Performance wise, there's no comparison, the cythonized equivalent is much faster. There's no need for a graph, because the difference is obvious even for toy data.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum)
%timeit df.sum()
2.22 ms ± 41.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
471 µs ± 8.16 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Even if you enable passing raw arrays with the raw argument, it's still twice as slow.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum, raw=True)
840 µs ± 691 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)


Another example:



df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

df.max() - df.min()

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())
%timeit df.max() - df.min()

2.43 ms ± 450 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
1.23 ms ± 14.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


In general, seek out vectorized alternatives if possible.





String/Regex

Pandas provides "vectorized" string functions in most situations, but there are rare cases where those functions do not... "apply", so to speak.



A common problem is to check whether a value in a column is present in another column of the same row.



df = pd.DataFrame({
'Name': ['mickey', 'donald', 'minnie'],
'Title': ['wonderland', "welcome to donald's castle", 'Minnie mouse clubhouse'],
'Value': [20, 10, 86]})
df

Name Value Title
0 mickey 20 wonderland
1 donald 10 welcome to donald's castle
2 minnie 86 Minnie mouse clubhouse


This should return the row second and third row, since "donald" and "minnie" are present in their respective "Title" columns.



Using apply, this would be done using



df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)

0 False
1 True
2 True
dtype: bool

df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86


However, a better solution exists using list comprehensions.



df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86




%timeit df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]
%timeit df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

2.85 ms ± 38.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
788 µs ± 16.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


The thing to note here is that iterative routines happen to be faster than apply, because of the lower overhead. If you need to handle NaNs and invalid dtypes, you can build on this using a custom function you can then call with arguments inside the list comprehension.



For more information on when list comprehensions should be considered a good option, see my writeup: For loops with pandas - When should I care?.




Note

Date and datetime operations also have vectorized versions. So, for example, you should prefer pd.to_datetime(df['date']), over,
say, df['date'].apply(pd.to_datetime).



Read more at the
docs.






Exploding Columns of Lists



s = pd.Series([[1, 2]] * 3)
s

0 [1, 2]
1 [1, 2]
2 [1, 2]
dtype: object


People are tempted to use apply(pd.Series). This is horrible in terms of performance.



s.apply(pd.Series)

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2


A better option is to listify the column and pass it to pd.DataFrame.



pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2




%timeit s.apply(pd.Series)
%timeit pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

2.65 ms ± 294 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
816 µs ± 40.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)




Lastly,




Are there ever any situations where apply is good?




Apply is a convenience function, so there are situations where the overhead is negligible enough to forgive. It really depends on how many times the function is called.



Functions that are Vectorized for Series, but not DataFrames

What if you want to apply a string operation on multiple columns? What if you want to convert multiple columns to datetime? These functions are vectorized for Series only, so they must be applied over each column that you want to convert/operate on.



df = pd.DataFrame(
pd.date_range('2018-12-31','2019-01-31', freq='2D').date.astype(str).reshape(-1, 2),
columns=['date1', 'date2'])
df

date1 date2
0 2018-12-31 2019-01-02
1 2019-01-04 2019-01-06
2 2019-01-08 2019-01-10
3 2019-01-12 2019-01-14
4 2019-01-16 2019-01-18
5 2019-01-20 2019-01-22
6 2019-01-24 2019-01-26
7 2019-01-28 2019-01-30

df.dtypes

date1 object
date2 object
dtype: object


This is an admissible case for apply:



df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce').dtypes

date1 datetime64[ns]
date2 datetime64[ns]
dtype: object


Note that it would also make sense to stack, or just use an explicit loop. All these options are slightly faster than using apply, but the difference is small enough to forgive.



%timeit df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce')
%timeit pd.to_datetime(df.stack(), errors='coerce').unstack()
%timeit pd.concat([pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') for c in df], axis=1)
%timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce')

5.49 ms ± 247 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.94 ms ± 48.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.16 ms ± 216 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
2.41 ms ± 1.71 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)


You can make a similar case for other operations such as string operations, or conversion to category.



u = df.apply(lambda x: x.str.contains(...))
v = df.apply(lambda x: x.astype(category)


v/s



u = pd.concat([df[c].str.contains(...) for c in df], axis=1)
v = df.copy()
for c in df:
v[c] = df[c].astype(category)


And so on...





Converting Series to str dtype using astype v/s apply

This seems like an idiosyncrasy of the API. Using apply to convert integers in a Series to string is comparable (and sometimes faster) than using astype.



enter image description here
The graph was plotted using the perfplot library.



import perfplot

perfplot.show(
setup=lambda n: pd.Series(np.random.randint(0, n, n)),
kernels=[
lambda s: s.astype(str),
lambda s: s.apply(str)
],
labels=['astype', 'apply'],
n_range=[2**k for k in range(1, 20)],
xlabel='N',
logx=True,
logy=True,
equality_check=lambda x, y: (x == y).all()
)


With floats, I see the astype is consistently as fast as, or slightly faster than apply. So this has to do with the fact that the data in the test is integer type.





GroupBy operation involving two functions
GroupBy.apply has not been discussed until now, but GroupBy.apply is also an iterative convenience function to handle anything that the existing GroupBy functions do not.



One common requirement is to perform a GroupBy and then two prime operations such as a "lagged cumsum":



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": list('aabcccddee'), "B": [12, 7, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 10]})
df

A B
0 a 12
1 a 7
2 b 5
3 c 4
4 c 5
5 c 4
6 d 3
7 d 2
8 e 1
9 e 10




You'd need two successive groupby calls here:



df.groupby('A').B.cumsum().groupby(df.A).shift()

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


Using apply, you can shorten this to a a single call.



df.groupby('A').B.apply(lambda x: x.cumsum().shift())

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


It is very hard to quantify the performance because it depends on the data. But in general, apply is an acceptable solution if the goal is to reduce a groupby call (because groupby is also quite expensive).






share|improve this answer


























  • I think we need to be careful.. with %timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') surely after the first iteration it'll be much quicker since you're converting datetime to ... datetime?

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp I had the same concern. But you still need to do a linear scan either way, calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as calling them on datetime objects, if not faster. The ballpark timings are the same. The alternative would be to implement some pre-copy step for every timed solution which takes away from the main point. But it is a valid concern.

    – coldspeed
    3 hours ago











  • "Calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as on ... datetime objects" .. really? I included dataframe creation (fixed cost) in apply vs for loop timings and the difference is much smaller.

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp Well, that's what I got from my (admittedly limited) testing. I'm sure it depends on the data, but the general idea is that for the purpose of illustration, the difference is "seriously, don't worry about it".

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago



















1














All apply's aren't alike



The below chart suggests when to consider apply1. Green means possibly efficient; red avoid.



enter image description here



Some of this is intuitive: pd.Series.apply is a Python-level row-wise loop, ditto pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise (axis=1). The misuses of these are many and wide-ranging. The other post deals with them in more depth. Popular solutions are to use vectorised methods, list comprehensions (assumes clean data), or efficient tools such as the pd.DataFrame constructor (e.g. to avoid apply(pd.Series)).



If you are using pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise, specifying raw=True (where possible) is often beneficial. At this stage, numba is usually a better choice.



GroupBy.apply



Repeating groupby operations to avoid apply will hurt performance. GroupBy.apply is usually fine here, provided the methods you use in your custom function are themselves vectorised. Sometimes there is no native Pandas method for a groupwise aggregation you wish to apply. In this case, for a small number of groups apply with a custom function may still offer reasonable performance.




pd.DataFrame.apply along columns



pd.DataFrame.apply column-wise (axis=0) is an interesting case. For a small number of rows versus a large number of columns, it's almost always expensive. For a large number of rows relative to columns, the more common case, you may sometimes see significant performance improvements using apply:



# Python 3.7, Pandas 0.23.4
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**7, 3))) # Scenario_1, many rows
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**4, 10**3))) # Scenario_2, many columns

# Scenario_1 | Scenario_2
%timeit df.sum() # 800 ms | 109 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.sum) # 568 ms | 325 ms

%timeit df.max() - df.min() # 1.63 s | 314 ms
%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min()) # 838 ms | 473 ms

%timeit df.mean() # 108 ms | 94.4 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.mean) # 276 ms | 233 ms




1 There are exceptions, but these are usually marginal or uncommon. A couple of examples:





  1. df['col'].apply(str) may slightly outperform df['col'].astype(str).


  2. df.apply(pd.to_datetime) working on strings doesn't scale well with rows versus a regular for loop.






share|improve this answer


























  • Thanks for pitching in, appreciate multiple perspectives :) +1

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago













Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54432583%2fwhen-should-i-ever-want-to-use-pandas-apply-in-my-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6















apply, the Convenience Function you Never Needed



We start by addressing the questions in the OP, one by one.




If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?




DataFrame.apply and Series.apply are convenience functions defined on DataFrame and Series object respectively. apply accepts any user defined function that applies a transformation/aggregation on a DataFrame. apply is effectively a silver bullet that does whatever any existing pandas function cannot do.



Some of the things apply can do:




  • Run any user-defined function on a DataFrame or Series

  • Apply a function either row-wise (axis=1) or column-wise (axis=0) on a DataFrame

  • Perform index alignment while applying the function

  • Perform aggregation with user-defined functions (however, we usually prefer agg or transform in these cases)

  • Perform element-wise transformations

  • Broadcast aggregated results to original rows (see the result_type argument).

  • Accept positional/keyword arguments to pass to the user-defined functions.


...Among others. For more information, see Row or Column-wise Function Application in the documentation.



So, with all these features, why is apply bad? It is because apply is slow. Pandas makes no assumptions about the nature of your function, and so iteratively applies your function to each row/column as necessary. Additionally, handling all of the situations above means apply incurs some major overhead at each iteration. Further, apply consumes a lot more memory, which is a challenge for memory bounded applications.



There are very few situations where apply is appropriate to use (more on that below). If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't.





Let's address the next question.




How and when should I make my code apply-free?




Numeric Data

If you're working with numeric data, there is likely already a vectorized cython function that does exactly what you're trying to do (if not, please either ask a question on Stack Overflow or open a feature request on GitHub).



Contrast the performance of apply for a simple addition operation.



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [9, 4, 2, 1], "B": [12, 7, 5, 4]})
df

A B
0 9 12
1 4 7
2 2 5
3 1 4




df.apply(np.sum)

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64

df.sum()

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64


Performance wise, there's no comparison, the cythonized equivalent is much faster. There's no need for a graph, because the difference is obvious even for toy data.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum)
%timeit df.sum()
2.22 ms ± 41.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
471 µs ± 8.16 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Even if you enable passing raw arrays with the raw argument, it's still twice as slow.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum, raw=True)
840 µs ± 691 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)


Another example:



df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

df.max() - df.min()

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())
%timeit df.max() - df.min()

2.43 ms ± 450 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
1.23 ms ± 14.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


In general, seek out vectorized alternatives if possible.





String/Regex

Pandas provides "vectorized" string functions in most situations, but there are rare cases where those functions do not... "apply", so to speak.



A common problem is to check whether a value in a column is present in another column of the same row.



df = pd.DataFrame({
'Name': ['mickey', 'donald', 'minnie'],
'Title': ['wonderland', "welcome to donald's castle", 'Minnie mouse clubhouse'],
'Value': [20, 10, 86]})
df

Name Value Title
0 mickey 20 wonderland
1 donald 10 welcome to donald's castle
2 minnie 86 Minnie mouse clubhouse


This should return the row second and third row, since "donald" and "minnie" are present in their respective "Title" columns.



Using apply, this would be done using



df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)

0 False
1 True
2 True
dtype: bool

df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86


However, a better solution exists using list comprehensions.



df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86




%timeit df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]
%timeit df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

2.85 ms ± 38.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
788 µs ± 16.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


The thing to note here is that iterative routines happen to be faster than apply, because of the lower overhead. If you need to handle NaNs and invalid dtypes, you can build on this using a custom function you can then call with arguments inside the list comprehension.



For more information on when list comprehensions should be considered a good option, see my writeup: For loops with pandas - When should I care?.




Note

Date and datetime operations also have vectorized versions. So, for example, you should prefer pd.to_datetime(df['date']), over,
say, df['date'].apply(pd.to_datetime).



Read more at the
docs.






Exploding Columns of Lists



s = pd.Series([[1, 2]] * 3)
s

0 [1, 2]
1 [1, 2]
2 [1, 2]
dtype: object


People are tempted to use apply(pd.Series). This is horrible in terms of performance.



s.apply(pd.Series)

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2


A better option is to listify the column and pass it to pd.DataFrame.



pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2




%timeit s.apply(pd.Series)
%timeit pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

2.65 ms ± 294 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
816 µs ± 40.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)




Lastly,




Are there ever any situations where apply is good?




Apply is a convenience function, so there are situations where the overhead is negligible enough to forgive. It really depends on how many times the function is called.



Functions that are Vectorized for Series, but not DataFrames

What if you want to apply a string operation on multiple columns? What if you want to convert multiple columns to datetime? These functions are vectorized for Series only, so they must be applied over each column that you want to convert/operate on.



df = pd.DataFrame(
pd.date_range('2018-12-31','2019-01-31', freq='2D').date.astype(str).reshape(-1, 2),
columns=['date1', 'date2'])
df

date1 date2
0 2018-12-31 2019-01-02
1 2019-01-04 2019-01-06
2 2019-01-08 2019-01-10
3 2019-01-12 2019-01-14
4 2019-01-16 2019-01-18
5 2019-01-20 2019-01-22
6 2019-01-24 2019-01-26
7 2019-01-28 2019-01-30

df.dtypes

date1 object
date2 object
dtype: object


This is an admissible case for apply:



df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce').dtypes

date1 datetime64[ns]
date2 datetime64[ns]
dtype: object


Note that it would also make sense to stack, or just use an explicit loop. All these options are slightly faster than using apply, but the difference is small enough to forgive.



%timeit df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce')
%timeit pd.to_datetime(df.stack(), errors='coerce').unstack()
%timeit pd.concat([pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') for c in df], axis=1)
%timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce')

5.49 ms ± 247 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.94 ms ± 48.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.16 ms ± 216 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
2.41 ms ± 1.71 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)


You can make a similar case for other operations such as string operations, or conversion to category.



u = df.apply(lambda x: x.str.contains(...))
v = df.apply(lambda x: x.astype(category)


v/s



u = pd.concat([df[c].str.contains(...) for c in df], axis=1)
v = df.copy()
for c in df:
v[c] = df[c].astype(category)


And so on...





Converting Series to str dtype using astype v/s apply

This seems like an idiosyncrasy of the API. Using apply to convert integers in a Series to string is comparable (and sometimes faster) than using astype.



enter image description here
The graph was plotted using the perfplot library.



import perfplot

perfplot.show(
setup=lambda n: pd.Series(np.random.randint(0, n, n)),
kernels=[
lambda s: s.astype(str),
lambda s: s.apply(str)
],
labels=['astype', 'apply'],
n_range=[2**k for k in range(1, 20)],
xlabel='N',
logx=True,
logy=True,
equality_check=lambda x, y: (x == y).all()
)


With floats, I see the astype is consistently as fast as, or slightly faster than apply. So this has to do with the fact that the data in the test is integer type.





GroupBy operation involving two functions
GroupBy.apply has not been discussed until now, but GroupBy.apply is also an iterative convenience function to handle anything that the existing GroupBy functions do not.



One common requirement is to perform a GroupBy and then two prime operations such as a "lagged cumsum":



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": list('aabcccddee'), "B": [12, 7, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 10]})
df

A B
0 a 12
1 a 7
2 b 5
3 c 4
4 c 5
5 c 4
6 d 3
7 d 2
8 e 1
9 e 10




You'd need two successive groupby calls here:



df.groupby('A').B.cumsum().groupby(df.A).shift()

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


Using apply, you can shorten this to a a single call.



df.groupby('A').B.apply(lambda x: x.cumsum().shift())

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


It is very hard to quantify the performance because it depends on the data. But in general, apply is an acceptable solution if the goal is to reduce a groupby call (because groupby is also quite expensive).






share|improve this answer


























  • I think we need to be careful.. with %timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') surely after the first iteration it'll be much quicker since you're converting datetime to ... datetime?

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp I had the same concern. But you still need to do a linear scan either way, calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as calling them on datetime objects, if not faster. The ballpark timings are the same. The alternative would be to implement some pre-copy step for every timed solution which takes away from the main point. But it is a valid concern.

    – coldspeed
    3 hours ago











  • "Calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as on ... datetime objects" .. really? I included dataframe creation (fixed cost) in apply vs for loop timings and the difference is much smaller.

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp Well, that's what I got from my (admittedly limited) testing. I'm sure it depends on the data, but the general idea is that for the purpose of illustration, the difference is "seriously, don't worry about it".

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago
















6















apply, the Convenience Function you Never Needed



We start by addressing the questions in the OP, one by one.




If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?




DataFrame.apply and Series.apply are convenience functions defined on DataFrame and Series object respectively. apply accepts any user defined function that applies a transformation/aggregation on a DataFrame. apply is effectively a silver bullet that does whatever any existing pandas function cannot do.



Some of the things apply can do:




  • Run any user-defined function on a DataFrame or Series

  • Apply a function either row-wise (axis=1) or column-wise (axis=0) on a DataFrame

  • Perform index alignment while applying the function

  • Perform aggregation with user-defined functions (however, we usually prefer agg or transform in these cases)

  • Perform element-wise transformations

  • Broadcast aggregated results to original rows (see the result_type argument).

  • Accept positional/keyword arguments to pass to the user-defined functions.


...Among others. For more information, see Row or Column-wise Function Application in the documentation.



So, with all these features, why is apply bad? It is because apply is slow. Pandas makes no assumptions about the nature of your function, and so iteratively applies your function to each row/column as necessary. Additionally, handling all of the situations above means apply incurs some major overhead at each iteration. Further, apply consumes a lot more memory, which is a challenge for memory bounded applications.



There are very few situations where apply is appropriate to use (more on that below). If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't.





Let's address the next question.




How and when should I make my code apply-free?




Numeric Data

If you're working with numeric data, there is likely already a vectorized cython function that does exactly what you're trying to do (if not, please either ask a question on Stack Overflow or open a feature request on GitHub).



Contrast the performance of apply for a simple addition operation.



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [9, 4, 2, 1], "B": [12, 7, 5, 4]})
df

A B
0 9 12
1 4 7
2 2 5
3 1 4




df.apply(np.sum)

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64

df.sum()

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64


Performance wise, there's no comparison, the cythonized equivalent is much faster. There's no need for a graph, because the difference is obvious even for toy data.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum)
%timeit df.sum()
2.22 ms ± 41.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
471 µs ± 8.16 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Even if you enable passing raw arrays with the raw argument, it's still twice as slow.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum, raw=True)
840 µs ± 691 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)


Another example:



df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

df.max() - df.min()

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())
%timeit df.max() - df.min()

2.43 ms ± 450 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
1.23 ms ± 14.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


In general, seek out vectorized alternatives if possible.





String/Regex

Pandas provides "vectorized" string functions in most situations, but there are rare cases where those functions do not... "apply", so to speak.



A common problem is to check whether a value in a column is present in another column of the same row.



df = pd.DataFrame({
'Name': ['mickey', 'donald', 'minnie'],
'Title': ['wonderland', "welcome to donald's castle", 'Minnie mouse clubhouse'],
'Value': [20, 10, 86]})
df

Name Value Title
0 mickey 20 wonderland
1 donald 10 welcome to donald's castle
2 minnie 86 Minnie mouse clubhouse


This should return the row second and third row, since "donald" and "minnie" are present in their respective "Title" columns.



Using apply, this would be done using



df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)

0 False
1 True
2 True
dtype: bool

df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86


However, a better solution exists using list comprehensions.



df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86




%timeit df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]
%timeit df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

2.85 ms ± 38.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
788 µs ± 16.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


The thing to note here is that iterative routines happen to be faster than apply, because of the lower overhead. If you need to handle NaNs and invalid dtypes, you can build on this using a custom function you can then call with arguments inside the list comprehension.



For more information on when list comprehensions should be considered a good option, see my writeup: For loops with pandas - When should I care?.




Note

Date and datetime operations also have vectorized versions. So, for example, you should prefer pd.to_datetime(df['date']), over,
say, df['date'].apply(pd.to_datetime).



Read more at the
docs.






Exploding Columns of Lists



s = pd.Series([[1, 2]] * 3)
s

0 [1, 2]
1 [1, 2]
2 [1, 2]
dtype: object


People are tempted to use apply(pd.Series). This is horrible in terms of performance.



s.apply(pd.Series)

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2


A better option is to listify the column and pass it to pd.DataFrame.



pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2




%timeit s.apply(pd.Series)
%timeit pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

2.65 ms ± 294 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
816 µs ± 40.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)




Lastly,




Are there ever any situations where apply is good?




Apply is a convenience function, so there are situations where the overhead is negligible enough to forgive. It really depends on how many times the function is called.



Functions that are Vectorized for Series, but not DataFrames

What if you want to apply a string operation on multiple columns? What if you want to convert multiple columns to datetime? These functions are vectorized for Series only, so they must be applied over each column that you want to convert/operate on.



df = pd.DataFrame(
pd.date_range('2018-12-31','2019-01-31', freq='2D').date.astype(str).reshape(-1, 2),
columns=['date1', 'date2'])
df

date1 date2
0 2018-12-31 2019-01-02
1 2019-01-04 2019-01-06
2 2019-01-08 2019-01-10
3 2019-01-12 2019-01-14
4 2019-01-16 2019-01-18
5 2019-01-20 2019-01-22
6 2019-01-24 2019-01-26
7 2019-01-28 2019-01-30

df.dtypes

date1 object
date2 object
dtype: object


This is an admissible case for apply:



df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce').dtypes

date1 datetime64[ns]
date2 datetime64[ns]
dtype: object


Note that it would also make sense to stack, or just use an explicit loop. All these options are slightly faster than using apply, but the difference is small enough to forgive.



%timeit df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce')
%timeit pd.to_datetime(df.stack(), errors='coerce').unstack()
%timeit pd.concat([pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') for c in df], axis=1)
%timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce')

5.49 ms ± 247 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.94 ms ± 48.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.16 ms ± 216 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
2.41 ms ± 1.71 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)


You can make a similar case for other operations such as string operations, or conversion to category.



u = df.apply(lambda x: x.str.contains(...))
v = df.apply(lambda x: x.astype(category)


v/s



u = pd.concat([df[c].str.contains(...) for c in df], axis=1)
v = df.copy()
for c in df:
v[c] = df[c].astype(category)


And so on...





Converting Series to str dtype using astype v/s apply

This seems like an idiosyncrasy of the API. Using apply to convert integers in a Series to string is comparable (and sometimes faster) than using astype.



enter image description here
The graph was plotted using the perfplot library.



import perfplot

perfplot.show(
setup=lambda n: pd.Series(np.random.randint(0, n, n)),
kernels=[
lambda s: s.astype(str),
lambda s: s.apply(str)
],
labels=['astype', 'apply'],
n_range=[2**k for k in range(1, 20)],
xlabel='N',
logx=True,
logy=True,
equality_check=lambda x, y: (x == y).all()
)


With floats, I see the astype is consistently as fast as, or slightly faster than apply. So this has to do with the fact that the data in the test is integer type.





GroupBy operation involving two functions
GroupBy.apply has not been discussed until now, but GroupBy.apply is also an iterative convenience function to handle anything that the existing GroupBy functions do not.



One common requirement is to perform a GroupBy and then two prime operations such as a "lagged cumsum":



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": list('aabcccddee'), "B": [12, 7, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 10]})
df

A B
0 a 12
1 a 7
2 b 5
3 c 4
4 c 5
5 c 4
6 d 3
7 d 2
8 e 1
9 e 10




You'd need two successive groupby calls here:



df.groupby('A').B.cumsum().groupby(df.A).shift()

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


Using apply, you can shorten this to a a single call.



df.groupby('A').B.apply(lambda x: x.cumsum().shift())

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


It is very hard to quantify the performance because it depends on the data. But in general, apply is an acceptable solution if the goal is to reduce a groupby call (because groupby is also quite expensive).






share|improve this answer


























  • I think we need to be careful.. with %timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') surely after the first iteration it'll be much quicker since you're converting datetime to ... datetime?

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp I had the same concern. But you still need to do a linear scan either way, calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as calling them on datetime objects, if not faster. The ballpark timings are the same. The alternative would be to implement some pre-copy step for every timed solution which takes away from the main point. But it is a valid concern.

    – coldspeed
    3 hours ago











  • "Calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as on ... datetime objects" .. really? I included dataframe creation (fixed cost) in apply vs for loop timings and the difference is much smaller.

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp Well, that's what I got from my (admittedly limited) testing. I'm sure it depends on the data, but the general idea is that for the purpose of illustration, the difference is "seriously, don't worry about it".

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago














6












6








6








apply, the Convenience Function you Never Needed



We start by addressing the questions in the OP, one by one.




If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?




DataFrame.apply and Series.apply are convenience functions defined on DataFrame and Series object respectively. apply accepts any user defined function that applies a transformation/aggregation on a DataFrame. apply is effectively a silver bullet that does whatever any existing pandas function cannot do.



Some of the things apply can do:




  • Run any user-defined function on a DataFrame or Series

  • Apply a function either row-wise (axis=1) or column-wise (axis=0) on a DataFrame

  • Perform index alignment while applying the function

  • Perform aggregation with user-defined functions (however, we usually prefer agg or transform in these cases)

  • Perform element-wise transformations

  • Broadcast aggregated results to original rows (see the result_type argument).

  • Accept positional/keyword arguments to pass to the user-defined functions.


...Among others. For more information, see Row or Column-wise Function Application in the documentation.



So, with all these features, why is apply bad? It is because apply is slow. Pandas makes no assumptions about the nature of your function, and so iteratively applies your function to each row/column as necessary. Additionally, handling all of the situations above means apply incurs some major overhead at each iteration. Further, apply consumes a lot more memory, which is a challenge for memory bounded applications.



There are very few situations where apply is appropriate to use (more on that below). If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't.





Let's address the next question.




How and when should I make my code apply-free?




Numeric Data

If you're working with numeric data, there is likely already a vectorized cython function that does exactly what you're trying to do (if not, please either ask a question on Stack Overflow or open a feature request on GitHub).



Contrast the performance of apply for a simple addition operation.



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [9, 4, 2, 1], "B": [12, 7, 5, 4]})
df

A B
0 9 12
1 4 7
2 2 5
3 1 4




df.apply(np.sum)

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64

df.sum()

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64


Performance wise, there's no comparison, the cythonized equivalent is much faster. There's no need for a graph, because the difference is obvious even for toy data.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum)
%timeit df.sum()
2.22 ms ± 41.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
471 µs ± 8.16 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Even if you enable passing raw arrays with the raw argument, it's still twice as slow.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum, raw=True)
840 µs ± 691 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)


Another example:



df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

df.max() - df.min()

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())
%timeit df.max() - df.min()

2.43 ms ± 450 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
1.23 ms ± 14.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


In general, seek out vectorized alternatives if possible.





String/Regex

Pandas provides "vectorized" string functions in most situations, but there are rare cases where those functions do not... "apply", so to speak.



A common problem is to check whether a value in a column is present in another column of the same row.



df = pd.DataFrame({
'Name': ['mickey', 'donald', 'minnie'],
'Title': ['wonderland', "welcome to donald's castle", 'Minnie mouse clubhouse'],
'Value': [20, 10, 86]})
df

Name Value Title
0 mickey 20 wonderland
1 donald 10 welcome to donald's castle
2 minnie 86 Minnie mouse clubhouse


This should return the row second and third row, since "donald" and "minnie" are present in their respective "Title" columns.



Using apply, this would be done using



df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)

0 False
1 True
2 True
dtype: bool

df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86


However, a better solution exists using list comprehensions.



df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86




%timeit df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]
%timeit df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

2.85 ms ± 38.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
788 µs ± 16.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


The thing to note here is that iterative routines happen to be faster than apply, because of the lower overhead. If you need to handle NaNs and invalid dtypes, you can build on this using a custom function you can then call with arguments inside the list comprehension.



For more information on when list comprehensions should be considered a good option, see my writeup: For loops with pandas - When should I care?.




Note

Date and datetime operations also have vectorized versions. So, for example, you should prefer pd.to_datetime(df['date']), over,
say, df['date'].apply(pd.to_datetime).



Read more at the
docs.






Exploding Columns of Lists



s = pd.Series([[1, 2]] * 3)
s

0 [1, 2]
1 [1, 2]
2 [1, 2]
dtype: object


People are tempted to use apply(pd.Series). This is horrible in terms of performance.



s.apply(pd.Series)

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2


A better option is to listify the column and pass it to pd.DataFrame.



pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2




%timeit s.apply(pd.Series)
%timeit pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

2.65 ms ± 294 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
816 µs ± 40.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)




Lastly,




Are there ever any situations where apply is good?




Apply is a convenience function, so there are situations where the overhead is negligible enough to forgive. It really depends on how many times the function is called.



Functions that are Vectorized for Series, but not DataFrames

What if you want to apply a string operation on multiple columns? What if you want to convert multiple columns to datetime? These functions are vectorized for Series only, so they must be applied over each column that you want to convert/operate on.



df = pd.DataFrame(
pd.date_range('2018-12-31','2019-01-31', freq='2D').date.astype(str).reshape(-1, 2),
columns=['date1', 'date2'])
df

date1 date2
0 2018-12-31 2019-01-02
1 2019-01-04 2019-01-06
2 2019-01-08 2019-01-10
3 2019-01-12 2019-01-14
4 2019-01-16 2019-01-18
5 2019-01-20 2019-01-22
6 2019-01-24 2019-01-26
7 2019-01-28 2019-01-30

df.dtypes

date1 object
date2 object
dtype: object


This is an admissible case for apply:



df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce').dtypes

date1 datetime64[ns]
date2 datetime64[ns]
dtype: object


Note that it would also make sense to stack, or just use an explicit loop. All these options are slightly faster than using apply, but the difference is small enough to forgive.



%timeit df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce')
%timeit pd.to_datetime(df.stack(), errors='coerce').unstack()
%timeit pd.concat([pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') for c in df], axis=1)
%timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce')

5.49 ms ± 247 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.94 ms ± 48.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.16 ms ± 216 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
2.41 ms ± 1.71 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)


You can make a similar case for other operations such as string operations, or conversion to category.



u = df.apply(lambda x: x.str.contains(...))
v = df.apply(lambda x: x.astype(category)


v/s



u = pd.concat([df[c].str.contains(...) for c in df], axis=1)
v = df.copy()
for c in df:
v[c] = df[c].astype(category)


And so on...





Converting Series to str dtype using astype v/s apply

This seems like an idiosyncrasy of the API. Using apply to convert integers in a Series to string is comparable (and sometimes faster) than using astype.



enter image description here
The graph was plotted using the perfplot library.



import perfplot

perfplot.show(
setup=lambda n: pd.Series(np.random.randint(0, n, n)),
kernels=[
lambda s: s.astype(str),
lambda s: s.apply(str)
],
labels=['astype', 'apply'],
n_range=[2**k for k in range(1, 20)],
xlabel='N',
logx=True,
logy=True,
equality_check=lambda x, y: (x == y).all()
)


With floats, I see the astype is consistently as fast as, or slightly faster than apply. So this has to do with the fact that the data in the test is integer type.





GroupBy operation involving two functions
GroupBy.apply has not been discussed until now, but GroupBy.apply is also an iterative convenience function to handle anything that the existing GroupBy functions do not.



One common requirement is to perform a GroupBy and then two prime operations such as a "lagged cumsum":



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": list('aabcccddee'), "B": [12, 7, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 10]})
df

A B
0 a 12
1 a 7
2 b 5
3 c 4
4 c 5
5 c 4
6 d 3
7 d 2
8 e 1
9 e 10




You'd need two successive groupby calls here:



df.groupby('A').B.cumsum().groupby(df.A).shift()

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


Using apply, you can shorten this to a a single call.



df.groupby('A').B.apply(lambda x: x.cumsum().shift())

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


It is very hard to quantify the performance because it depends on the data. But in general, apply is an acceptable solution if the goal is to reduce a groupby call (because groupby is also quite expensive).






share|improve this answer
















apply, the Convenience Function you Never Needed



We start by addressing the questions in the OP, one by one.




If apply is so bad, then why is it in the API?




DataFrame.apply and Series.apply are convenience functions defined on DataFrame and Series object respectively. apply accepts any user defined function that applies a transformation/aggregation on a DataFrame. apply is effectively a silver bullet that does whatever any existing pandas function cannot do.



Some of the things apply can do:




  • Run any user-defined function on a DataFrame or Series

  • Apply a function either row-wise (axis=1) or column-wise (axis=0) on a DataFrame

  • Perform index alignment while applying the function

  • Perform aggregation with user-defined functions (however, we usually prefer agg or transform in these cases)

  • Perform element-wise transformations

  • Broadcast aggregated results to original rows (see the result_type argument).

  • Accept positional/keyword arguments to pass to the user-defined functions.


...Among others. For more information, see Row or Column-wise Function Application in the documentation.



So, with all these features, why is apply bad? It is because apply is slow. Pandas makes no assumptions about the nature of your function, and so iteratively applies your function to each row/column as necessary. Additionally, handling all of the situations above means apply incurs some major overhead at each iteration. Further, apply consumes a lot more memory, which is a challenge for memory bounded applications.



There are very few situations where apply is appropriate to use (more on that below). If you're not sure whether you should be using apply, you probably shouldn't.





Let's address the next question.




How and when should I make my code apply-free?




Numeric Data

If you're working with numeric data, there is likely already a vectorized cython function that does exactly what you're trying to do (if not, please either ask a question on Stack Overflow or open a feature request on GitHub).



Contrast the performance of apply for a simple addition operation.



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": [9, 4, 2, 1], "B": [12, 7, 5, 4]})
df

A B
0 9 12
1 4 7
2 2 5
3 1 4




df.apply(np.sum)

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64

df.sum()

A 16
B 28
dtype: int64


Performance wise, there's no comparison, the cythonized equivalent is much faster. There's no need for a graph, because the difference is obvious even for toy data.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum)
%timeit df.sum()
2.22 ms ± 41.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
471 µs ± 8.16 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Even if you enable passing raw arrays with the raw argument, it's still twice as slow.



%timeit df.apply(np.sum, raw=True)
840 µs ± 691 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)


Another example:



df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

df.max() - df.min()

A 8
B 8
dtype: int64

%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min())
%timeit df.max() - df.min()

2.43 ms ± 450 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
1.23 ms ± 14.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


In general, seek out vectorized alternatives if possible.





String/Regex

Pandas provides "vectorized" string functions in most situations, but there are rare cases where those functions do not... "apply", so to speak.



A common problem is to check whether a value in a column is present in another column of the same row.



df = pd.DataFrame({
'Name': ['mickey', 'donald', 'minnie'],
'Title': ['wonderland', "welcome to donald's castle", 'Minnie mouse clubhouse'],
'Value': [20, 10, 86]})
df

Name Value Title
0 mickey 20 wonderland
1 donald 10 welcome to donald's castle
2 minnie 86 Minnie mouse clubhouse


This should return the row second and third row, since "donald" and "minnie" are present in their respective "Title" columns.



Using apply, this would be done using



df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)

0 False
1 True
2 True
dtype: bool

df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86


However, a better solution exists using list comprehensions.



df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

Name Title Value
1 donald welcome to donald's castle 10
2 minnie Minnie mouse clubhouse 86




%timeit df[df.apply(lambda x: x['Name'].lower() in x['Title'].lower(), axis=1)]
%timeit df[[y.lower() in x.lower() for x, y in zip(df['Title'], df['Name'])]]

2.85 ms ± 38.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
788 µs ± 16.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


The thing to note here is that iterative routines happen to be faster than apply, because of the lower overhead. If you need to handle NaNs and invalid dtypes, you can build on this using a custom function you can then call with arguments inside the list comprehension.



For more information on when list comprehensions should be considered a good option, see my writeup: For loops with pandas - When should I care?.




Note

Date and datetime operations also have vectorized versions. So, for example, you should prefer pd.to_datetime(df['date']), over,
say, df['date'].apply(pd.to_datetime).



Read more at the
docs.






Exploding Columns of Lists



s = pd.Series([[1, 2]] * 3)
s

0 [1, 2]
1 [1, 2]
2 [1, 2]
dtype: object


People are tempted to use apply(pd.Series). This is horrible in terms of performance.



s.apply(pd.Series)

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2


A better option is to listify the column and pass it to pd.DataFrame.



pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

0 1
0 1 2
1 1 2
2 1 2




%timeit s.apply(pd.Series)
%timeit pd.DataFrame(s.tolist())

2.65 ms ± 294 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
816 µs ± 40.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)




Lastly,




Are there ever any situations where apply is good?




Apply is a convenience function, so there are situations where the overhead is negligible enough to forgive. It really depends on how many times the function is called.



Functions that are Vectorized for Series, but not DataFrames

What if you want to apply a string operation on multiple columns? What if you want to convert multiple columns to datetime? These functions are vectorized for Series only, so they must be applied over each column that you want to convert/operate on.



df = pd.DataFrame(
pd.date_range('2018-12-31','2019-01-31', freq='2D').date.astype(str).reshape(-1, 2),
columns=['date1', 'date2'])
df

date1 date2
0 2018-12-31 2019-01-02
1 2019-01-04 2019-01-06
2 2019-01-08 2019-01-10
3 2019-01-12 2019-01-14
4 2019-01-16 2019-01-18
5 2019-01-20 2019-01-22
6 2019-01-24 2019-01-26
7 2019-01-28 2019-01-30

df.dtypes

date1 object
date2 object
dtype: object


This is an admissible case for apply:



df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce').dtypes

date1 datetime64[ns]
date2 datetime64[ns]
dtype: object


Note that it would also make sense to stack, or just use an explicit loop. All these options are slightly faster than using apply, but the difference is small enough to forgive.



%timeit df.apply(pd.to_datetime, errors='coerce')
%timeit pd.to_datetime(df.stack(), errors='coerce').unstack()
%timeit pd.concat([pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') for c in df], axis=1)
%timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce')

5.49 ms ± 247 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.94 ms ± 48.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
3.16 ms ± 216 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
2.41 ms ± 1.71 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)


You can make a similar case for other operations such as string operations, or conversion to category.



u = df.apply(lambda x: x.str.contains(...))
v = df.apply(lambda x: x.astype(category)


v/s



u = pd.concat([df[c].str.contains(...) for c in df], axis=1)
v = df.copy()
for c in df:
v[c] = df[c].astype(category)


And so on...





Converting Series to str dtype using astype v/s apply

This seems like an idiosyncrasy of the API. Using apply to convert integers in a Series to string is comparable (and sometimes faster) than using astype.



enter image description here
The graph was plotted using the perfplot library.



import perfplot

perfplot.show(
setup=lambda n: pd.Series(np.random.randint(0, n, n)),
kernels=[
lambda s: s.astype(str),
lambda s: s.apply(str)
],
labels=['astype', 'apply'],
n_range=[2**k for k in range(1, 20)],
xlabel='N',
logx=True,
logy=True,
equality_check=lambda x, y: (x == y).all()
)


With floats, I see the astype is consistently as fast as, or slightly faster than apply. So this has to do with the fact that the data in the test is integer type.





GroupBy operation involving two functions
GroupBy.apply has not been discussed until now, but GroupBy.apply is also an iterative convenience function to handle anything that the existing GroupBy functions do not.



One common requirement is to perform a GroupBy and then two prime operations such as a "lagged cumsum":



df = pd.DataFrame({"A": list('aabcccddee'), "B": [12, 7, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 10]})
df

A B
0 a 12
1 a 7
2 b 5
3 c 4
4 c 5
5 c 4
6 d 3
7 d 2
8 e 1
9 e 10




You'd need two successive groupby calls here:



df.groupby('A').B.cumsum().groupby(df.A).shift()

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


Using apply, you can shorten this to a a single call.



df.groupby('A').B.apply(lambda x: x.cumsum().shift())

0 NaN
1 12.0
2 NaN
3 NaN
4 4.0
5 9.0
6 NaN
7 3.0
8 NaN
9 1.0
Name: B, dtype: float64


It is very hard to quantify the performance because it depends on the data. But in general, apply is an acceptable solution if the goal is to reduce a groupby call (because groupby is also quite expensive).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 4 hours ago

























answered 4 hours ago









coldspeedcoldspeed

127k23128215




127k23128215













  • I think we need to be careful.. with %timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') surely after the first iteration it'll be much quicker since you're converting datetime to ... datetime?

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp I had the same concern. But you still need to do a linear scan either way, calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as calling them on datetime objects, if not faster. The ballpark timings are the same. The alternative would be to implement some pre-copy step for every timed solution which takes away from the main point. But it is a valid concern.

    – coldspeed
    3 hours ago











  • "Calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as on ... datetime objects" .. really? I included dataframe creation (fixed cost) in apply vs for loop timings and the difference is much smaller.

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp Well, that's what I got from my (admittedly limited) testing. I'm sure it depends on the data, but the general idea is that for the purpose of illustration, the difference is "seriously, don't worry about it".

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago



















  • I think we need to be careful.. with %timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') surely after the first iteration it'll be much quicker since you're converting datetime to ... datetime?

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp I had the same concern. But you still need to do a linear scan either way, calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as calling them on datetime objects, if not faster. The ballpark timings are the same. The alternative would be to implement some pre-copy step for every timed solution which takes away from the main point. But it is a valid concern.

    – coldspeed
    3 hours ago











  • "Calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as on ... datetime objects" .. really? I included dataframe creation (fixed cost) in apply vs for loop timings and the difference is much smaller.

    – jpp
    3 hours ago













  • @jpp Well, that's what I got from my (admittedly limited) testing. I'm sure it depends on the data, but the general idea is that for the purpose of illustration, the difference is "seriously, don't worry about it".

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago

















I think we need to be careful.. with %timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') surely after the first iteration it'll be much quicker since you're converting datetime to ... datetime?

– jpp
3 hours ago







I think we need to be careful.. with %timeit for c in df.columns: df[c] = pd.to_datetime(df[c], errors='coerce') surely after the first iteration it'll be much quicker since you're converting datetime to ... datetime?

– jpp
3 hours ago















@jpp I had the same concern. But you still need to do a linear scan either way, calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as calling them on datetime objects, if not faster. The ballpark timings are the same. The alternative would be to implement some pre-copy step for every timed solution which takes away from the main point. But it is a valid concern.

– coldspeed
3 hours ago





@jpp I had the same concern. But you still need to do a linear scan either way, calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as calling them on datetime objects, if not faster. The ballpark timings are the same. The alternative would be to implement some pre-copy step for every timed solution which takes away from the main point. But it is a valid concern.

– coldspeed
3 hours ago













"Calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as on ... datetime objects" .. really? I included dataframe creation (fixed cost) in apply vs for loop timings and the difference is much smaller.

– jpp
3 hours ago







"Calling to_datetime on strings is as fast as on ... datetime objects" .. really? I included dataframe creation (fixed cost) in apply vs for loop timings and the difference is much smaller.

– jpp
3 hours ago















@jpp Well, that's what I got from my (admittedly limited) testing. I'm sure it depends on the data, but the general idea is that for the purpose of illustration, the difference is "seriously, don't worry about it".

– coldspeed
48 mins ago





@jpp Well, that's what I got from my (admittedly limited) testing. I'm sure it depends on the data, but the general idea is that for the purpose of illustration, the difference is "seriously, don't worry about it".

– coldspeed
48 mins ago













1














All apply's aren't alike



The below chart suggests when to consider apply1. Green means possibly efficient; red avoid.



enter image description here



Some of this is intuitive: pd.Series.apply is a Python-level row-wise loop, ditto pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise (axis=1). The misuses of these are many and wide-ranging. The other post deals with them in more depth. Popular solutions are to use vectorised methods, list comprehensions (assumes clean data), or efficient tools such as the pd.DataFrame constructor (e.g. to avoid apply(pd.Series)).



If you are using pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise, specifying raw=True (where possible) is often beneficial. At this stage, numba is usually a better choice.



GroupBy.apply



Repeating groupby operations to avoid apply will hurt performance. GroupBy.apply is usually fine here, provided the methods you use in your custom function are themselves vectorised. Sometimes there is no native Pandas method for a groupwise aggregation you wish to apply. In this case, for a small number of groups apply with a custom function may still offer reasonable performance.




pd.DataFrame.apply along columns



pd.DataFrame.apply column-wise (axis=0) is an interesting case. For a small number of rows versus a large number of columns, it's almost always expensive. For a large number of rows relative to columns, the more common case, you may sometimes see significant performance improvements using apply:



# Python 3.7, Pandas 0.23.4
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**7, 3))) # Scenario_1, many rows
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**4, 10**3))) # Scenario_2, many columns

# Scenario_1 | Scenario_2
%timeit df.sum() # 800 ms | 109 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.sum) # 568 ms | 325 ms

%timeit df.max() - df.min() # 1.63 s | 314 ms
%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min()) # 838 ms | 473 ms

%timeit df.mean() # 108 ms | 94.4 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.mean) # 276 ms | 233 ms




1 There are exceptions, but these are usually marginal or uncommon. A couple of examples:





  1. df['col'].apply(str) may slightly outperform df['col'].astype(str).


  2. df.apply(pd.to_datetime) working on strings doesn't scale well with rows versus a regular for loop.






share|improve this answer


























  • Thanks for pitching in, appreciate multiple perspectives :) +1

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago


















1














All apply's aren't alike



The below chart suggests when to consider apply1. Green means possibly efficient; red avoid.



enter image description here



Some of this is intuitive: pd.Series.apply is a Python-level row-wise loop, ditto pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise (axis=1). The misuses of these are many and wide-ranging. The other post deals with them in more depth. Popular solutions are to use vectorised methods, list comprehensions (assumes clean data), or efficient tools such as the pd.DataFrame constructor (e.g. to avoid apply(pd.Series)).



If you are using pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise, specifying raw=True (where possible) is often beneficial. At this stage, numba is usually a better choice.



GroupBy.apply



Repeating groupby operations to avoid apply will hurt performance. GroupBy.apply is usually fine here, provided the methods you use in your custom function are themselves vectorised. Sometimes there is no native Pandas method for a groupwise aggregation you wish to apply. In this case, for a small number of groups apply with a custom function may still offer reasonable performance.




pd.DataFrame.apply along columns



pd.DataFrame.apply column-wise (axis=0) is an interesting case. For a small number of rows versus a large number of columns, it's almost always expensive. For a large number of rows relative to columns, the more common case, you may sometimes see significant performance improvements using apply:



# Python 3.7, Pandas 0.23.4
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**7, 3))) # Scenario_1, many rows
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**4, 10**3))) # Scenario_2, many columns

# Scenario_1 | Scenario_2
%timeit df.sum() # 800 ms | 109 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.sum) # 568 ms | 325 ms

%timeit df.max() - df.min() # 1.63 s | 314 ms
%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min()) # 838 ms | 473 ms

%timeit df.mean() # 108 ms | 94.4 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.mean) # 276 ms | 233 ms




1 There are exceptions, but these are usually marginal or uncommon. A couple of examples:





  1. df['col'].apply(str) may slightly outperform df['col'].astype(str).


  2. df.apply(pd.to_datetime) working on strings doesn't scale well with rows versus a regular for loop.






share|improve this answer


























  • Thanks for pitching in, appreciate multiple perspectives :) +1

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago
















1












1








1







All apply's aren't alike



The below chart suggests when to consider apply1. Green means possibly efficient; red avoid.



enter image description here



Some of this is intuitive: pd.Series.apply is a Python-level row-wise loop, ditto pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise (axis=1). The misuses of these are many and wide-ranging. The other post deals with them in more depth. Popular solutions are to use vectorised methods, list comprehensions (assumes clean data), or efficient tools such as the pd.DataFrame constructor (e.g. to avoid apply(pd.Series)).



If you are using pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise, specifying raw=True (where possible) is often beneficial. At this stage, numba is usually a better choice.



GroupBy.apply



Repeating groupby operations to avoid apply will hurt performance. GroupBy.apply is usually fine here, provided the methods you use in your custom function are themselves vectorised. Sometimes there is no native Pandas method for a groupwise aggregation you wish to apply. In this case, for a small number of groups apply with a custom function may still offer reasonable performance.




pd.DataFrame.apply along columns



pd.DataFrame.apply column-wise (axis=0) is an interesting case. For a small number of rows versus a large number of columns, it's almost always expensive. For a large number of rows relative to columns, the more common case, you may sometimes see significant performance improvements using apply:



# Python 3.7, Pandas 0.23.4
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**7, 3))) # Scenario_1, many rows
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**4, 10**3))) # Scenario_2, many columns

# Scenario_1 | Scenario_2
%timeit df.sum() # 800 ms | 109 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.sum) # 568 ms | 325 ms

%timeit df.max() - df.min() # 1.63 s | 314 ms
%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min()) # 838 ms | 473 ms

%timeit df.mean() # 108 ms | 94.4 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.mean) # 276 ms | 233 ms




1 There are exceptions, but these are usually marginal or uncommon. A couple of examples:





  1. df['col'].apply(str) may slightly outperform df['col'].astype(str).


  2. df.apply(pd.to_datetime) working on strings doesn't scale well with rows versus a regular for loop.






share|improve this answer















All apply's aren't alike



The below chart suggests when to consider apply1. Green means possibly efficient; red avoid.



enter image description here



Some of this is intuitive: pd.Series.apply is a Python-level row-wise loop, ditto pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise (axis=1). The misuses of these are many and wide-ranging. The other post deals with them in more depth. Popular solutions are to use vectorised methods, list comprehensions (assumes clean data), or efficient tools such as the pd.DataFrame constructor (e.g. to avoid apply(pd.Series)).



If you are using pd.DataFrame.apply row-wise, specifying raw=True (where possible) is often beneficial. At this stage, numba is usually a better choice.



GroupBy.apply



Repeating groupby operations to avoid apply will hurt performance. GroupBy.apply is usually fine here, provided the methods you use in your custom function are themselves vectorised. Sometimes there is no native Pandas method for a groupwise aggregation you wish to apply. In this case, for a small number of groups apply with a custom function may still offer reasonable performance.




pd.DataFrame.apply along columns



pd.DataFrame.apply column-wise (axis=0) is an interesting case. For a small number of rows versus a large number of columns, it's almost always expensive. For a large number of rows relative to columns, the more common case, you may sometimes see significant performance improvements using apply:



# Python 3.7, Pandas 0.23.4
np.random.seed(0)
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**7, 3))) # Scenario_1, many rows
df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.random((10**4, 10**3))) # Scenario_2, many columns

# Scenario_1 | Scenario_2
%timeit df.sum() # 800 ms | 109 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.sum) # 568 ms | 325 ms

%timeit df.max() - df.min() # 1.63 s | 314 ms
%timeit df.apply(lambda x: x.max() - x.min()) # 838 ms | 473 ms

%timeit df.mean() # 108 ms | 94.4 ms
%timeit df.apply(pd.Series.mean) # 276 ms | 233 ms




1 There are exceptions, but these are usually marginal or uncommon. A couple of examples:





  1. df['col'].apply(str) may slightly outperform df['col'].astype(str).


  2. df.apply(pd.to_datetime) working on strings doesn't scale well with rows versus a regular for loop.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 2 hours ago









jppjpp

98.5k2159110




98.5k2159110













  • Thanks for pitching in, appreciate multiple perspectives :) +1

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago





















  • Thanks for pitching in, appreciate multiple perspectives :) +1

    – coldspeed
    48 mins ago



















Thanks for pitching in, appreciate multiple perspectives :) +1

– coldspeed
48 mins ago







Thanks for pitching in, appreciate multiple perspectives :) +1

– coldspeed
48 mins ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54432583%2fwhen-should-i-ever-want-to-use-pandas-apply-in-my-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Усть-Каменогорск

Халкинская богословская школа

Высокополье (Харьковская область)