本文列出了两种 NumPy 性能方法 - 一种是完全矢量化方法,另一种是一个循环。
方法#1
def numpy_triu1(df):
a = df.values
r,c = np.triu_indices(a.shape[1],1)
cols = df.columns
nm = [cols[i]+"_"+cols[j] for i,j in zip(r,c)]
return pd.DataFrame(a[:,r] - a[:,c], columns=nm)
示例运行 -
In [72]: df
Out[72]:
A B C D
0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
1 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
2 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
In [78]: numpy_triu(df)
Out[78]:
A_B A_C A_D B_C B_D C_D
0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -1.0 -2.0 -1.0
1 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -1.0 -2.0 -1.0
2 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -1.0 -2.0 -1.0
方法 #2
如果我们可以将数组作为输出或没有专门的列名的数据框,这里是另一个 -
def pairwise_col_diffs(a): # a would df.values
n = a.shape[1]
N = n*(n-1)//2
idx = np.concatenate(( [0], np.arange(n-1,0,-1).cumsum() ))
start, stop = idx[:-1], idx[1:]
out = np.empty((a.shape[0],N),dtype=a.dtype)
for j,i in enumerate(range(n-1)):
out[:, start[j]:stop[j]] = a[:,i,None] - a[:,i+1:]
return out
运行时测试
由于 OP 已经提到多维数组输出也适用于他们,这里是其他作者提供的基于数组的方法 -
# @Allen's soln
def Allen(arr):
n = arr.shape[1]
idx = np.asarray(list(itertools.combinations(range(n),2))).T
return arr[:,idx[0]]-arr[:,idx[1]]
# @DYZ's soln
def DYZ(arr):
result = np.concatenate([(arr.T - arr.T[x])[x+1:] \
for x in range(arr.shape[1])]).T
return result
@Gerges Dib 帖子中基于pandas 的解决方案未包含在内,因为与其他解决方案相比,它的运行速度非常慢。
时间安排 -
我们将使用三种数据集大小 - 100、500 和 1000:
In [118]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(0,9,(3,100)))
...: a = df.values
...:
In [119]: %timeit DYZ(a)
...: %timeit Allen(a)
...: %timeit pairwise_col_diffs(a)
...:
1000 loops, best of 3: 258 µs per loop
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.48 ms per loop
1000 loops, best of 3: 284 µs per loop
In [121]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(0,9,(3,500)))
...: a = df.values
...:
In [122]: %timeit DYZ(a)
...: %timeit Allen(a)
...: %timeit pairwise_col_diffs(a)
...:
100 loops, best of 3: 2.56 ms per loop
10 loops, best of 3: 39.9 ms per loop
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.82 ms per loop
In [123]: df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(0,9,(3,1000)))
...: a = df.values
...:
In [124]: %timeit DYZ(a)
...: %timeit Allen(a)
...: %timeit pairwise_col_diffs(a)
...:
100 loops, best of 3: 8.61 ms per loop
10 loops, best of 3: 167 ms per loop
100 loops, best of 3: 5.09 ms per loop