minimal-pandas-api-for-pola
db-benchmark
minimal-pandas-api-for-pola | db-benchmark | |
---|---|---|
1 | 91 | |
- | 320 | |
- | 0.0% | |
- | 0.0 | |
- | 10 months ago | |
R | ||
- | Mozilla Public License 2.0 |
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.
minimal-pandas-api-for-pola
-
Polars: Lightning-fast DataFrame library for Rust and Python
https://github.com/austospumanto/minimal-pandas-api-for-pola...
pip install minimal-pandas-api-for-polars
I wrote a library that wraps polars DataFrame and Series objects to allow you to use them with the same syntax as with pandas DataFrame and Series objects. The goal is not to be a replacement for polars' objects and syntax, but rather to (1) Allow you to provide (wrapped) polars objects as arguments to existing functions in your codebase that expect pandas objects and (2) Allow you to continue writing code (especially EDA in notebooks) using the pandas syntax you know and (maybe) love while you're still learning the polars syntax, but with the underlying objects being all-polars. All methods of polars' objects are still available, allowing you to interweave pandas syntax and polars syntax when working with MppFrame and MppSeries objects.
Furthermore, the goal should always be to transition away from this library over time, as the LazyFrame optimizations offered by polars can never be fully taken advantage of when using pandas-based syntax (as far as I can tell). In the meantime, the code in this library has allowed me to transition my company's pandas-centric code to polars-centric code more quickly, which has led to significant speedups and memory savings even without being able to take full advantage of polars' lazy evaluation. To be clear, these gains have been observed both when working in notebooks in development and when deployed in production API backends / data pipelines.
I'm personally just adding methods to the MppFrame and MppSeries objects whenever I try to use pandas syntax and get AttributeErrors.
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 – 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 it’s around an order of magnitude faster than pandas and dplyr (there’s a nice benchmark here). It’s 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.