Skip to content
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

BUG: Fix group index calculation to prevent hitting maximum recursion depth (#21524) #21541

Merged
merged 8 commits into from Jun 21, 2018
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions doc/source/whatsnew/v0.23.2.txt
Expand Up @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ Bug Fixes

- Bug in :meth:`Index.get_indexer_non_unique` with categorical key (:issue:`21448`)
- Bug in comparison operations for :class:`MultiIndex` where error was raised on equality / inequality comparison involving a MultiIndex with ``nlevels == 1`` (:issue:`21149`)
- Bug in :func:`DataFrame.duplicated` with a large number of columns causing a 'maximum recursion depth exceeded' (:issue:`21524`).
-

**I/O**
Expand Down
29 changes: 17 additions & 12 deletions pandas/core/sorting.py
Expand Up @@ -52,7 +52,21 @@ def _int64_cut_off(shape):
return i
return len(shape)

def loop(labels, shape):
def maybe_lift(lab, size):
# promote nan values (assigned -1 label in lab array)
# so that all output values are non-negative
return (lab + 1, size + 1) if (lab == -1).any() else (lab, size)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this not obfuscate NA and 0 values?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Templarrr Templarrr Jun 20, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this works with labels, not the original values. labels got here from
df.duplicate -> core.algorithms.factorize -> _factorize_array call and that method replace NA with -1 (na_sentinel : int, default -1) and assign all other values >=0
Also, I did not change this in any way, it's an existing code that already in master :)


labels = map(_ensure_int64, labels)
if not xnull:
labels, shape = map(list, zip(*map(maybe_lift, labels, shape)))

labels = list(labels)
shape = list(shape)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you comment on the purpose of the loop

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would try, though I'm not the author of original code - I've just changed it from recursion to loop, so I can't be sure I understand 100% all the nuances here...

# Iteratively process all the labels in chunks sized so less
# than _INT64_MAX unique int ids will be required for each chunk
while True:
# how many levels can be done without overflow:
nlev = _int64_cut_off(shape)

Expand All @@ -74,7 +88,7 @@ def loop(labels, shape):
out[mask] = -1

if nlev == len(shape): # all levels done!
return out
break

# compress what has been done so far in order to avoid overflow
# to retain lexical ranks, obs_ids should be sorted
Expand All @@ -83,16 +97,7 @@ def loop(labels, shape):
labels = [comp_ids] + labels[nlev:]
shape = [len(obs_ids)] + shape[nlev:]

return loop(labels, shape)

def maybe_lift(lab, size): # pormote nan values
return (lab + 1, size + 1) if (lab == -1).any() else (lab, size)

labels = map(_ensure_int64, labels)
if not xnull:
labels, shape = map(list, zip(*map(maybe_lift, labels, shape)))

return loop(list(labels), list(shape))
return out
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

does out need a definition outside of the loop? e.g. is it always defined

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it is always defined here - out is assigned before the exit from the loop can happen.
And if something (though I don't know what in this case) throw an Exception - we will bypass return alltogether



def get_compressed_ids(labels, sizes):
Expand Down
17 changes: 17 additions & 0 deletions pandas/tests/frame/test_analytics.py
Expand Up @@ -1527,6 +1527,23 @@ def test_duplicated_with_misspelled_column_name(self, subset):
with pytest.raises(KeyError):
df.drop_duplicates(subset)

@pytest.mark.slow
def test_duplicated_do_not_fail_on_wide_dataframes(self):
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How long does this test take to run? May be worth a slow tag

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Given that original test case needed to hit recursion limit... it can't be super fast.
It takes a second or two on my laptop.
I'll add the slow tag

# Given the wide dataframe with a lot of columns
# with different (important!) values
data = {}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

make this a dict comprehenseion

for i in range(100):
data['col_{0:02d}'.format(i)] = np.random.randint(0, 1000, 30000)
df = pd.DataFrame(data).T
# When we request to calculate duplicates
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

don't need this comment here.
call this result=

dupes = df.duplicated()
# Then we get the bool pd.Series as a result
# and don't fail during calculation.
# Actual values doesn't matter here, though usually
# it's all False in this case
assert isinstance(dupes, pd.Series)
assert dupes.dtype == np.bool

def test_drop_duplicates_with_duplicate_column_names(self):
# GH17836
df = DataFrame([
Expand Down