Merging a huge list of dataframes using dask delayed









up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have a function which returns a dataframe to me. I am trying to use this function in parallel by using dask.

I append the delayed objects of the dataframes into a list. However, the run-time of my code is the same with and without dask.delayed.

I use the reduce function from functools along with pd.merge to merge my dataframes.

Any suggestions on how to improve the run-time?

The visualized graph and code are as below.




from functools import reduce 
d =
for lot in lots:
lot_data = data[data["LOTID"]==lot]
trmat = delayed(LOT)(lot, lot_data).transition_matrix(lot)
d.append(trmat)
df = delayed(reduce)(lambda x, y: x.merge(y, how='outer', on=['from', "to"]), d)



Visualized graph of the operations










share|improve this question



























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    I have a function which returns a dataframe to me. I am trying to use this function in parallel by using dask.

    I append the delayed objects of the dataframes into a list. However, the run-time of my code is the same with and without dask.delayed.

    I use the reduce function from functools along with pd.merge to merge my dataframes.

    Any suggestions on how to improve the run-time?

    The visualized graph and code are as below.




    from functools import reduce 
    d =
    for lot in lots:
    lot_data = data[data["LOTID"]==lot]
    trmat = delayed(LOT)(lot, lot_data).transition_matrix(lot)
    d.append(trmat)
    df = delayed(reduce)(lambda x, y: x.merge(y, how='outer', on=['from', "to"]), d)



    Visualized graph of the operations










    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      I have a function which returns a dataframe to me. I am trying to use this function in parallel by using dask.

      I append the delayed objects of the dataframes into a list. However, the run-time of my code is the same with and without dask.delayed.

      I use the reduce function from functools along with pd.merge to merge my dataframes.

      Any suggestions on how to improve the run-time?

      The visualized graph and code are as below.




      from functools import reduce 
      d =
      for lot in lots:
      lot_data = data[data["LOTID"]==lot]
      trmat = delayed(LOT)(lot, lot_data).transition_matrix(lot)
      d.append(trmat)
      df = delayed(reduce)(lambda x, y: x.merge(y, how='outer', on=['from', "to"]), d)



      Visualized graph of the operations










      share|improve this question















      I have a function which returns a dataframe to me. I am trying to use this function in parallel by using dask.

      I append the delayed objects of the dataframes into a list. However, the run-time of my code is the same with and without dask.delayed.

      I use the reduce function from functools along with pd.merge to merge my dataframes.

      Any suggestions on how to improve the run-time?

      The visualized graph and code are as below.




      from functools import reduce 
      d =
      for lot in lots:
      lot_data = data[data["LOTID"]==lot]
      trmat = delayed(LOT)(lot, lot_data).transition_matrix(lot)
      d.append(trmat)
      df = delayed(reduce)(lambda x, y: x.merge(y, how='outer', on=['from', "to"]), d)



      Visualized graph of the operations







      dask dask-delayed






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 12 at 8:01

























      asked Nov 11 at 19:46









      NIMA MANAFZADEH DIZBIN

      11




      11






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          General rule: if your data comfortable fits into memory (including the base size times a small number for possible intermediates), then there is a good chance that Pandas is fast and efficient for your use case.



          Specifically for your case, there is a good chance that the tasks you are trying to parallelise do not release python's internal lock, the GIL, in which case although you have independent threads, only one can run at a time. The solution would be to use the "distributed" scheduler instead, which can have any mix of multiple threads and processed; however using processes comes at a cost for moving data between client and processes, and you may find that the extra cost dominates any time saving. You would certainly want to ensure that you load the data within the workers rather than passing from the client.



          Short story, you should do some experimentation, measure well, and read the data-frame and distributed scheduler documentation carefully.






          share|improve this answer




















            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',
            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%2f53252539%2fmerging-a-huge-list-of-dataframes-using-dask-delayed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote













            General rule: if your data comfortable fits into memory (including the base size times a small number for possible intermediates), then there is a good chance that Pandas is fast and efficient for your use case.



            Specifically for your case, there is a good chance that the tasks you are trying to parallelise do not release python's internal lock, the GIL, in which case although you have independent threads, only one can run at a time. The solution would be to use the "distributed" scheduler instead, which can have any mix of multiple threads and processed; however using processes comes at a cost for moving data between client and processes, and you may find that the extra cost dominates any time saving. You would certainly want to ensure that you load the data within the workers rather than passing from the client.



            Short story, you should do some experimentation, measure well, and read the data-frame and distributed scheduler documentation carefully.






            share|improve this answer
























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              General rule: if your data comfortable fits into memory (including the base size times a small number for possible intermediates), then there is a good chance that Pandas is fast and efficient for your use case.



              Specifically for your case, there is a good chance that the tasks you are trying to parallelise do not release python's internal lock, the GIL, in which case although you have independent threads, only one can run at a time. The solution would be to use the "distributed" scheduler instead, which can have any mix of multiple threads and processed; however using processes comes at a cost for moving data between client and processes, and you may find that the extra cost dominates any time saving. You would certainly want to ensure that you load the data within the workers rather than passing from the client.



              Short story, you should do some experimentation, measure well, and read the data-frame and distributed scheduler documentation carefully.






              share|improve this answer






















                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                General rule: if your data comfortable fits into memory (including the base size times a small number for possible intermediates), then there is a good chance that Pandas is fast and efficient for your use case.



                Specifically for your case, there is a good chance that the tasks you are trying to parallelise do not release python's internal lock, the GIL, in which case although you have independent threads, only one can run at a time. The solution would be to use the "distributed" scheduler instead, which can have any mix of multiple threads and processed; however using processes comes at a cost for moving data between client and processes, and you may find that the extra cost dominates any time saving. You would certainly want to ensure that you load the data within the workers rather than passing from the client.



                Short story, you should do some experimentation, measure well, and read the data-frame and distributed scheduler documentation carefully.






                share|improve this answer












                General rule: if your data comfortable fits into memory (including the base size times a small number for possible intermediates), then there is a good chance that Pandas is fast and efficient for your use case.



                Specifically for your case, there is a good chance that the tasks you are trying to parallelise do not release python's internal lock, the GIL, in which case although you have independent threads, only one can run at a time. The solution would be to use the "distributed" scheduler instead, which can have any mix of multiple threads and processed; however using processes comes at a cost for moving data between client and processes, and you may find that the extra cost dominates any time saving. You would certainly want to ensure that you load the data within the workers rather than passing from the client.



                Short story, you should do some experimentation, measure well, and read the data-frame and distributed scheduler documentation carefully.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Nov 18 at 15:49









                mdurant

                9,79111435




                9,79111435



























                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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%2f53252539%2fmerging-a-huge-list-of-dataframes-using-dask-delayed%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







                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                    How to read a connectionString WITH PROVIDER in .NET Core?

                    Node.js Script on GitHub Pages or Amazon S3

                    Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto