-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 646
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PERF-#6876: Skip the masking stage on 'iloc' where beneficial #6878
Changes from 1 commit
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -1161,12 +1161,22 @@ | |
extra_log="Mask takes only list-like numeric indexers, " | ||
+ f"received: {type(indexer)}", | ||
) | ||
if isinstance(indexer, list): | ||
indexer = np.array(indexer, dtype=np.int64) | ||
indexers.append(indexer) | ||
row_positions, col_positions = indexers | ||
|
||
if col_positions is None and row_positions is None: | ||
return self.copy() | ||
|
||
# quite fast check that allows skip sorting | ||
must_sort_row_pos = row_positions is not None and not np.all( | ||
row_positions[1:] >= row_positions[:-1] | ||
) | ||
must_sort_col_pos = col_positions is not None and not np.all( | ||
col_positions[1:] >= col_positions[:-1] | ||
) | ||
|
||
if col_positions is None and row_positions is not None: | ||
# Check if the optimization that first takes part of the data using the mask | ||
# operation so that later less data is concatenated into a whole column is useful. | ||
|
@@ -1175,18 +1185,40 @@ | |
all_rows = None | ||
if self.has_materialized_index: | ||
all_rows = len(self.index) | ||
elif self._row_lengths_cache: | ||
elif self._row_lengths_cache or must_sort_row_pos: | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. we will have to trigger |
||
all_rows = sum(self._row_lengths_cache) | ||
dchigarev marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
if all_rows: | ||
if len(row_positions) > 0.9 * all_rows: | ||
return self._reorder_labels( | ||
row_positions=row_positions, col_positions=col_positions | ||
) | ||
|
||
# 'base_num_cols' specifies the number of columns that the dataframe should have | ||
# in order to jump to 'reordered_labels' in case of len(row_positions) / len(self) >= base_ratio; | ||
# these variables may be a subject to change in order to tune performance more accurately | ||
base_num_cols = 10 | ||
base_ratio = 0.2 | ||
# Example: | ||
# len(self.columns): 10 == base_num_cols -> min ratio to jump to reorder_labels: 0.2 == base_ratio | ||
# len(self.columns): 15 -> min ratio to jump to reorder_labels: 0.3 | ||
# len(self.columns): 20 -> min ratio to jump to reorder_labels: 0.4 | ||
# ... | ||
# len(self.columns): 49 -> min ratio to jump to reorder_labels: 0.98 | ||
# len(self.columns): 50 -> min ratio to jump to reorder_labels: 1.0 | ||
# len(self.columns): 55 -> min ratio to jump to reorder_labels: 1.0 | ||
# ... | ||
if (all_rows and len(row_positions) > 0.9 * all_rows) or ( | ||
must_sort_row_pos | ||
and len(row_positions) * base_num_cols | ||
>= min( | ||
all_rows * len(self.columns) * base_ratio, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is it performance-wise safe to materialize columns here? (Are they already materializing somewhere nearby or not?) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. no, they're not materialized explicitly anywhere nearby, but this value is required to properly branch here, so I guess I have no good choices here There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. my assumption is that columns are more likely to be pre-computed than indices, so accessing them shouldn't always trigger computations There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ok, we can try to use |
||
len(row_positions) * base_num_cols, | ||
) | ||
): | ||
return self._reorder_labels( | ||
row_positions=row_positions, col_positions=col_positions | ||
) | ||
sorted_row_positions = sorted_col_positions = None | ||
|
||
if row_positions is not None: | ||
sorted_row_positions = self._get_sorted_positions(row_positions) | ||
if must_sort_row_pos: | ||
sorted_row_positions = self._get_sorted_positions(row_positions) | ||
else: | ||
sorted_row_positions = row_positions | ||
# Get dict of row_parts as {row_index: row_internal_indices} | ||
row_partitions_dict = self._get_dict_of_block_index( | ||
0, sorted_row_positions, are_indices_sorted=True | ||
|
@@ -1201,7 +1233,10 @@ | |
new_index = self.copy_index_cache(copy_lengths=True) | ||
|
||
if col_positions is not None: | ||
sorted_col_positions = self._get_sorted_positions(col_positions) | ||
if must_sort_col_pos: | ||
sorted_col_positions = self._get_sorted_positions(col_positions) | ||
else: | ||
sorted_col_positions = col_positions | ||
# Get dict of col_parts as {col_index: col_internal_indices} | ||
col_partitions_dict = self._get_dict_of_block_index( | ||
1, sorted_col_positions, are_indices_sorted=True | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this check was copied from
_maybe_reorder_labels
and it indeed works pretty fast: