Reputation: 3927
I am trying to modify a DataFrame df
to only contain rows for which the values in the column closing_price
are between 99 and 101 and trying to do this with the code below.
However, I get the error
ValueError: The truth value of a Series is ambiguous. Use a.empty, a.bool(), a.item(), a.any() or a.all()
and I am wondering if there is a way to do this without using loops.
df = df[99 <= df['closing_price'] <= 101]
Upvotes: 183
Views: 356734
Reputation: 210812
there is a nicer alternative - use query() method:
In [58]: df = pd.DataFrame({'closing_price': np.random.randint(95, 105, 10)})
In [59]: df
Out[59]:
closing_price
0 104
1 99
2 98
3 95
4 103
5 101
6 101
7 99
8 95
9 96
In [60]: df.query('99 <= closing_price <= 101')
Out[60]:
closing_price
1 99
5 101
6 101
7 99
UPDATE: answering the comment (edited to fix minor mistakes):
I like the syntax here but fell down when trying to combine with expression:
df.query('(mean - 2*sd) <= closing_price <= (mean + 2*sd)')
My data is all within 2 standard deviations of the mean, so I'll do 1 instead to demonstrate:
In [161]: qry = ("(closing_price.mean() - closing_price.std())" +
...: " <= closing_price <= " +
...: "(closing_price.mean() + closing_price.std())")
...:
In [162]: df.query(qry)
Out[162]:
closing_price
1 99
2 98
5 101
6 101
7 99
9 96
or
In [163]: mean = df['closing_price'].mean()
...: sd = df['closing_price'].std()
...: df.query('(@mean - @sd) <= closing_price <= (@mean + @sd)')
...:
Out [163]:
closing_price
1 99
2 98
5 101
6 101
7 99
9 96
Upvotes: 39
Reputation: 401
Instead of this
df = df[99 <= df['closing_price'] <= 101]
You should use this
df = df[(99 <= df['closing_price']) & (df['closing_price'] <= 101)]
We have to use NumPy's bitwise logic operators |
, &
, ~
, ^
for compounding queries.
Also, the parentheses are important for operator precedence.
For more info, you can visit the link: Comparisons, Masks, and Boolean Logic (excerpt from the Python Data Science Handbook by Jake VanderPlas).
Upvotes: 6
Reputation: 107567
Consider Series.between:
df = df[df['closing_price'].between(99, 101)]
Upvotes: 362
Reputation: 9762
If one has to call pd.Series.between(l,r)
repeatedly (for different bounds l
and r
), a lot of work is repeated unnecessarily. In this case, it's beneficial to sort the frame/series once and then use pd.Series.searchsorted()
. I measured a speedup of up to 25x, see below.
def between_indices(x, lower, upper, inclusive=True):
"""
Returns smallest and largest index i for which holds
lower <= x[i] <= upper, under the assumption that x is sorted.
"""
i = x.searchsorted(lower, side="left" if inclusive else "right")
j = x.searchsorted(upper, side="right" if inclusive else "left")
return i, j
# Sort x once before repeated calls of between()
x = x.sort_values().reset_index(drop=True)
# x = x.sort_values(ignore_index=True) # for pandas>=1.0
ret1 = between_indices(x, lower=0.1, upper=0.9)
ret2 = between_indices(x, lower=0.2, upper=0.8)
ret3 = ...
Benchmark
Measure repeated evaluations (n_reps=100
) of pd.Series.between()
as well as the method based on pd.Series.searchsorted()
, for different arguments lower
and upper
. On my MacBook Pro 2015 with Python v3.8.0 and Pandas v1.0.3, the below code results in the following outpu
# pd.Series.searchsorted()
# 5.87 ms ± 321 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)
# pd.Series.between(lower, upper)
# 155 ms ± 6.08 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
# Logical expressions: (x>=lower) & (x<=upper)
# 153 ms ± 3.52 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
def between_indices(x, lower, upper, inclusive=True):
# Assumption: x is sorted.
i = x.searchsorted(lower, side="left" if inclusive else "right")
j = x.searchsorted(upper, side="right" if inclusive else "left")
return i, j
def between_fast(x, lower, upper, inclusive=True):
"""
Equivalent to pd.Series.between() under the assumption that x is sorted.
"""
i, j = between_indices(x, lower, upper, inclusive)
if True:
return x.iloc[i:j]
else:
# Mask creation is slow.
mask = np.zeros_like(x, dtype=bool)
mask[i:j] = True
mask = pd.Series(mask, index=x.index)
return x[mask]
def between(x, lower, upper, inclusive=True):
mask = x.between(lower, upper, inclusive=inclusive)
return x[mask]
def between_expr(x, lower, upper, inclusive=True):
if inclusive:
mask = (x>=lower) & (x<=upper)
else:
mask = (x>lower) & (x<upper)
return x[mask]
def benchmark(func, x, lowers, uppers):
for l,u in zip(lowers, uppers):
func(x,lower=l,upper=u)
n_samples = 1000
n_reps = 100
x = pd.Series(np.random.randn(n_samples))
# Sort the Series.
# For pandas>=1.0:
# x = x.sort_values(ignore_index=True)
x = x.sort_values().reset_index(drop=True)
# Assert equivalence of different methods.
assert(between_fast(x, 0, 1, True ).equals(between(x, 0, 1, True)))
assert(between_expr(x, 0, 1, True ).equals(between(x, 0, 1, True)))
assert(between_fast(x, 0, 1, False).equals(between(x, 0, 1, False)))
assert(between_expr(x, 0, 1, False).equals(between(x, 0, 1, False)))
# Benchmark repeated evaluations of between().
uppers = np.linspace(0, 3, n_reps)
lowers = -uppers
%timeit benchmark(between_fast, x, lowers, uppers)
%timeit benchmark(between, x, lowers, uppers)
%timeit benchmark(between_expr, x, lowers, uppers)
Upvotes: 6
Reputation: 11460
If you're dealing with multiple values and multiple inputs you could also set up an apply function like this. In this case filtering a dataframe for GPS locations that fall withing certain ranges.
def filter_values(lat,lon):
if abs(lat - 33.77) < .01 and abs(lon - -118.16) < .01:
return True
elif abs(lat - 37.79) < .01 and abs(lon - -122.39) < .01:
return True
else:
return False
df = df[df.apply(lambda x: filter_values(x['lat'],x['lon']),axis=1)]
Upvotes: 5
Reputation: 692
newdf = df.query('closing_price.mean() <= closing_price <= closing_price.std()')
or
mean = closing_price.mean()
std = closing_price.std()
newdf = df.query('@mean <= closing_price <= @std')
Upvotes: 12
Reputation: 24742
You should use ()
to group your boolean vector to remove ambiguity.
df = df[(df['closing_price'] >= 99) & (df['closing_price'] <= 101)]
Upvotes: 171