PERF: changed default value of cache parameter to True in to_datetime function #26043
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #26043 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.9% 91.89% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 175 175
Lines 52485 52485
==========================================
- Hits 48235 48230 -5
- Misses 4250 4255 +5
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #26043 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.79% 91.86% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 180 179 -1
Lines 50934 50728 -206
==========================================
- Hits 46753 46600 -153
+ Misses 4181 4128 -53
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@jreback apparently, I didn't understand enough last time about the reasons for the problems in CI builds #25990 (comment) and the problem was different (maybe in the master, from which I made my branch) Asv's result will be later. |
|
One downside of changing the default to Additionally, can you show ASVs/performance benchmarks for converting a small number of arguments? I suspect there will be a performance with a small amount of arguments and |
gfyoung
added
API Design
Performance
|
For a vision of the situation as a whole:
@mroeschke I'll see what can be done with #22305. It seems that I ran into another kind of error, has it been mentioned before? Under a small number of arguments you understand 10 - 100? |
|
What other error did you run into? And sure around 50 argument where there are no duplicate arguments to parse. |
|
not that branch, therefore I will do |
anmyachev
force-pushed
the
to_datetime_cache_true
branch
from
29530f4 to
317267c
Compare
|
@mroeschke I have provided a workaround for #22305 in #26078 PR. Can you see? |
|
First of all, asv test: class ToDatetimeCacheSmallCount(object):
params = [True, False]
param_names = ['cache']
def setup(self, cache):
N = 50
rng = date_range(start='1/1/2000', periods=N)
self.unique_date_strings = rng.strftime('%Y-%m-%d').tolist()
def time_unique_date_strings(self, cache):
to_datetime(self.unique_date_strings, cache=cache)
Also I decide perform tests with 5000 elements(to be more confident in numbers)
|
|
I do not know yet what the error is and I want first to do rebase from master |
anmyachev
force-pushed
the
to_datetime_cache_true
branch
from
317267c to
d45c434
Compare
|
When I run |
|
can you merge master and update |
anmyachev
force-pushed
the
to_datetime_cache_true
branch
from
d45c434 to
12eac47
Compare
|
What is the performance impact for the (rather typical I think) case with all unique datetimes? @anmyachev can you provide some timings for that? (or point to the benchmark result in one of your previous comments that represent that case) |
|
See also comment of @TomAugspurger on the read_csv PR: #25990 (comment) |
@jorisvandenbossche result for case with all unique datetimes (decrease in performance about 2 times):
Benchmark for asv: class ToDatetimeCacheSmallCount(object):
params = ([True, False], [50, 500, 5000, 100000])
param_names = ['cache', 'count']
def setup(self, cache, count):
rng = date_range(start='1/1/1971', periods=count)
self.unique_date_strings = rng.strftime('%Y-%m-%d').tolist()
def time_unique_date_strings(self, cache, count):
to_datetime(self.unique_date_strings, cache=cache) |
|
is this orthogonal to #26097 |
Not sure... that PR is trying to address a bug that manifests when |
anmyachev
force-pushed
the
to_datetime_cache_true
branch
from
12eac47 to
81f54c0
Compare
|
small comment, pls merge master and ping on green. |
anmyachev
force-pushed
the
to_datetime_cache_true
branch
from
5210268 to
98e18a8
Compare
|
lgtm. ping on green. |
|
Hello @anmyachev! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:
|
| kwds['cache_dates'] = do_cache | ||
| read_csv(self.data(self.StringIO_input), header=None, | ||
| parse_dates=[0], **kwds) | ||
| try: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TomAugspurger ok method of handling ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Although... I worry it would incorrectly catch a TypeError in the function? The other way might be to check pandas.__version__?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, let me see what i can do
|
patched an edge case that was showing up the asvs |
|
thanks @anmyachev |
git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff