db-benchmark
FromFile.jl
Our great sponsors
db-benchmark | FromFile.jl | |
---|---|---|
91 | 6 | |
319 | 131 | |
0.9% | - | |
0.0 | 1.5 | |
10 months ago | almost 1 year ago | |
R | Julia | |
Mozilla Public License 2.0 | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
db-benchmark
- Database-Like Ops Benchmark
-
Polars
Real-world performance is complicated since data science covers a lot of use cases.
If you're just reading a small CSV to do analysis on it, then there will be no human-perceptible difference between Polars and Pandas. If you're reading a larger CSV with 100k rows, there still won't be much of a perceptible difference.
Per this (old) benchmark, there are differences once you get into 500MB+ territory: https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/
-
DuckDB performance improvements with the latest release
I do think it was important for duckdb to put out a new version of the results as the earlier version of that benchmark [1] went dormant with a very old version of duckdb with very bad performance, especially against polars.
[1] https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/
-
Show HN: SimSIMD vs. SciPy: How AVX-512 and SVE make SIMD cleaner and ML faster
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33270638 :
> Apache Ballista and Polars do Apache Arrow and SIMD.
> The Polars homepage links to the "Database-like ops benchmark" of {Polars, data.table, DataFrames.jl, ClickHouse, cuDF, spark, (py)datatable, dplyr, pandas, dask, Arrow, DuckDB, Modin,} but not yet PostgresML? https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/ *
LLM -> Vector database: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_database
/? inurl:awesome site:github.com "vector database"
-
Pandas vs. Julia โ cheat sheet and comparison
I agree with your conclusion but want to add that switching from Julia may not make sense either.
According to these benchmarks: https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/, DF.jl is the fastest library for some things, data.table for others, polars for others. Which is fastest depends on the query and whether it takes advantage of the features/properties of each.
For what it's worth, data.table is my favourite to use and I believe it has the nicest ergonomics of the three I spoke about.
-
Any faster Python alternatives?
Same. Numba does wonders for me in most scenarios. Yesterday I've discovered pola-rs and looks like I will add it to the stack. It's API is similar to pandas. Have a look at the benchmarks of cuDF, spark, dask, pandas compared to it: Benchmarks
-
Pandas 2.0 (with pyarrow) vs Pandas 1.3 - Performance comparison
The syntax has similarities with dplyr in terms of the way you chain operations, and itโs around an order of magnitude faster than pandas and dplyr (thereโs a nice benchmark here). Itโs also more memory-efficient and can handle larger-than-memory datasets via streaming if needed.
-
Pandas v2.0 Released
If interested in benchmarks comparing different dataframe implementations, here is one:
https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/
- Database-like ops benchmark
-
Python "programmers" when I show them how much faster their naive code runs when translated to C++ (this is a joke, I love python)
Bad examples. Both numpy and pandas are notoriously un-optimized packages, losing handily to pretty much all their competitors (R, Julia, kdb+, vaex, polars). See https://h2oai.github.io/db-benchmark/ for a partial comparison.
FromFile.jl
-
A Programming language ideal for Scientific Sustainability and Reproducibility?
On include-- you might like FromFile.jl as an alternative.
- Modules in Julia
-
How to import an own module from the current directory?
For this and other oddities with Julia's include/import system (and especially as you're coming from Python), I'd recommend FromFile as a readable way to approach things.
-
Why not Julia?
You might like FromFile.jl.
-
Problems with nested `include`s and solutions?
However, if you prefer a Python-like experience, checkout FromFile.jl
-
Julia 1.6: what has changed since Julia 1.0?
I'm not using modules. I usually start with one file with a demo or similarly named function that is called if the file is called as an entry point (like if __name__ == '__main__', except Julia makes it even worse).
I tend to refactor code out of there to separate files, and then somehow import it. An ugly way is include, and I've tried Revise.jl with includet.
But I think the least ugly approach is the @from macro from here: https://github.com/Roger-luo/FromFile.jl Judging from some opinion in bug trackers, this is probably gonna get totally shunned by core devs and they'll keep on bikeshedding about the import stuff forever.
With this setup I have about 400 lines of code in three files. It compiles for 15 seconds. After every single change, and actually without any changes too.
I think performance wise this should be equivalent to using modules, but saving some pointless ceremony.
What are some alternatives?
polars - Dataframes powered by a multithreaded, vectorized query engine, written in Rust
julia - The Julia Programming Language
arrow-datafusion - Apache DataFusion SQL Query Engine
DaemonMode.jl - Client-Daemon workflow to run faster scripts in Julia
Apache Arrow - Apache Arrow is a multi-language toolbox for accelerated data interchange and in-memory processing
JET.jl - An experimental code analyzer for Julia. No need for additional type annotations.
databend - ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฎ, ๐๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ & ๐๐. Modern alternative to Snowflake. Cost-effective and simple for massive-scale analytics. https://databend.com
DataFramesMeta.jl - Metaprogramming tools for DataFrames
SymbolicRegression.jl - Distributed High-Performance Symbolic Regression in Julia
sktime - A unified framework for machine learning with time series
TwoBasedIndexing.jl - Two-based indexing