I did non trivial work with apache spark dataframes and came to appreciate them before ever being exposed to Pandas. After spark, pandas just seemed frustrating and incomprehensible. Polars is much more like spark and I am very happy about that.
DuckDb even goes so far as to include a clone of the pyspark dataframe API, so somebody there must like it too.
Pandas sat alone in the Python ecosphere for a long time. Lack of competition is generally not a good thing. I'm thrilled to have Polars around to innovate on the API end (and push Pandas to be better).
And I say this as someone who makes much of their living from Pandas.
The difference is a sanely and presciently designed expression API, which is a bit more verbose in some common cases, but is more predictable and much more expressive in more complex situations like this.
On a tangent, i wonder what this op would look like in SQL? Probably would need support for filtering in a window function, which I'm not sure is standardized?
I've wanted to convert a massive Pandas codebase to Polars for a long time. Probably 90% of the compute time is Pandas operations, especially creating new columns / resizing dataframes (which I understand to involve less of a speed difference compared to the grouping operations mentioned in the post, but still substantial). Anyone had success doing this and found it to be worth the effort?
The power of having an API that allows usage of the Free monad.
And in less-funny-FP-speak, the power of allowing the user write a program (expressions), that the sufficiently-smart backend later compiles/interprets.
Awesome! Didn't expect such a vast difference in usability at first.
I've always liked scatter solutions for these kind of problems:
import numpy as np
def scatter_mean(index, value):
sums = np.zeros(max(index)+1)
counts = np.zeros(max(index)+1)
for i in range(len(index)):
j = index[i]
sums[j] += value[i]
counts[j] += 1
return sums / counts
def scatter_max(index, value):
maxs = -np.inf * np.ones(max(index)+1)
for i in range(len(index)):
j = index[i]
maxs[j] = max(maxs[j], value[i])
return maxs
def scatter_count(index):
counts = np.zeros(max(index)+1, dtype=np.int32)
for i in range(len(index)):
counts[index[i]] += 1
return counts
id = np.array([1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2]) - 1
sales = np.array([4, 1, 2, 7, 6, 7])
views = np.array([3, 1, 2, 8, 6, 7])
means = scatter_mean(id, sales).repeat(scatter_count(id))
print(views[sales > means].max())
Obviously you'd need good implementations of the scatter operations, not these naive python for-loops. But once you have them the solution is a pretty readable two-liner.
I’ve moved mostly to polars. I still have some frameworks that demand pandas and pandas is still a very solid dataframe, but when I need to interpolate months in millions of lines of quarterly data, polars just blows it away.
Even better is using tools like Narwhals and Ibis which can convert back and forth to any frames you want.
Data point: I have a medium-complexity data transformation use case that I still prefer pandas for.
Reason: I can speed things up fairly easily with Cython functions, and do multithreading using the Python module. With polars I would have to learn Rust for that.
If I'm doing some data science just for fun and personal projects, is there any reason to not go with Polars?
I took some data science classes in grad school, but basically haven't had any reason to touch pandas since I graduated. But, did like the ecosystem of tools, learning materials, and other libraries surrounding it when I was working with it. I recently just started a new project and am quickly going through my old notes to refamiliarize myself with pandas, but maybe I should just go and learn Polars?
Does anyone have a good heuristic for when a dataframe library is a good tool choice? I work on a team that has a lot of data scientists and a few engineers (including myself) and I often see the data scientists using dataframes when simple python classes would be much more appropriate so that you have a better sense of the object you're working with. I'm been having a hard time getting this idea across to people though.
I’m just using Ibis: https://ibis-project.org/
They provide a nice backend agnostic API. For most backends it will just compile to SQL and act as a query builder. SQL basically has solved the problem of providing a declarative data transformation syntax, why reinvent the wheel?
I did non trivial work with apache spark dataframes and came to appreciate them before ever being exposed to Pandas. After spark, pandas just seemed frustrating and incomprehensible. Polars is much more like spark and I am very happy about that.
DuckDb even goes so far as to include a clone of the pyspark dataframe API, so somebody there must like it too.
Pandas sat alone in the Python ecosphere for a long time. Lack of competition is generally not a good thing. I'm thrilled to have Polars around to innovate on the API end (and push Pandas to be better).
And I say this as someone who makes much of their living from Pandas.
The difference is a sanely and presciently designed expression API, which is a bit more verbose in some common cases, but is more predictable and much more expressive in more complex situations like this.
On a tangent, i wonder what this op would look like in SQL? Probably would need support for filtering in a window function, which I'm not sure is standardized?
I've wanted to convert a massive Pandas codebase to Polars for a long time. Probably 90% of the compute time is Pandas operations, especially creating new columns / resizing dataframes (which I understand to involve less of a speed difference compared to the grouping operations mentioned in the post, but still substantial). Anyone had success doing this and found it to be worth the effort?
The power of having an API that allows usage of the Free monad. And in less-funny-FP-speak, the power of allowing the user write a program (expressions), that the sufficiently-smart backend later compiles/interprets.
Awesome! Didn't expect such a vast difference in usability at first.
I've always liked scatter solutions for these kind of problems:
Obviously you'd need good implementations of the scatter operations, not these naive python for-loops. But once you have them the solution is a pretty readable two-liner.I’ve moved mostly to polars. I still have some frameworks that demand pandas and pandas is still a very solid dataframe, but when I need to interpolate months in millions of lines of quarterly data, polars just blows it away.
Even better is using tools like Narwhals and Ibis which can convert back and forth to any frames you want.
Data point: I have a medium-complexity data transformation use case that I still prefer pandas for.
Reason: I can speed things up fairly easily with Cython functions, and do multithreading using the Python module. With polars I would have to learn Rust for that.
If I'm doing some data science just for fun and personal projects, is there any reason to not go with Polars?
I took some data science classes in grad school, but basically haven't had any reason to touch pandas since I graduated. But, did like the ecosystem of tools, learning materials, and other libraries surrounding it when I was working with it. I recently just started a new project and am quickly going through my old notes to refamiliarize myself with pandas, but maybe I should just go and learn Polars?
Does anyone have a good heuristic for when a dataframe library is a good tool choice? I work on a team that has a lot of data scientists and a few engineers (including myself) and I often see the data scientists using dataframes when simple python classes would be much more appropriate so that you have a better sense of the object you're working with. I'm been having a hard time getting this idea across to people though.
I’m just using Ibis: https://ibis-project.org/ They provide a nice backend agnostic API. For most backends it will just compile to SQL and act as a query builder. SQL basically has solved the problem of providing a declarative data transformation syntax, why reinvent the wheel?
I' m tired of remembering of all these library invented concepts and prefer doing brainless for loops to process data in Julia.