901

I have the following DataFrame:

 Col1 Col2 Col3 Type 0 1 2 3 1 1 4 5 6 1 ... 20 7 8 9 2 21 10 11 12 2 ... 45 13 14 15 3 46 16 17 18 3 ... 

The DataFrame is read from a CSV file. All rows which have Type 1 are on top, followed by the rows with Type 2, followed by the rows with Type 3, etc.

I would like to shuffle the order of the DataFrame's rows so that all Type's are mixed. A possible result could be:

 Col1 Col2 Col3 Type 0 7 8 9 2 1 13 14 15 3 ... 20 1 2 3 1 21 10 11 12 2 ... 45 4 5 6 1 46 16 17 18 3 ... 

How can I achieve this?

15 Answers 15

1618

The idiomatic way to do this with Pandas is to use the .sample method of your data frame to sample all rows without replacement:

df.sample(frac=1) 

The frac keyword argument specifies the fraction of rows to return in the random sample, so frac=1 means to return all rows (in random order).


Note: If you wish to shuffle your dataframe in-place and reset the index, you could do e.g.

df = df.sample(frac=1).reset_index(drop=True) 

Here, specifying drop=True prevents .reset_index from creating a column containing the old index entries.

Follow-up note: Although it may not look like the above operation is in-place, python/pandas is smart enough not to do another malloc for the shuffled object. That is, even though the reference object has changed (by which I mean id(df_old) is not the same as id(df_new)), the underlying C object is still the same. To show that this is indeed the case, you could run a simple memory profiler:

$ python3 -m memory_profiler .\test.py Filename: .\test.py Line # Mem usage Increment Line Contents ================================================ 5 68.5 MiB 68.5 MiB @profile 6 def shuffle(): 7 847.8 MiB 779.3 MiB df = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randn(100, 1000000)) 8 847.9 MiB 0.1 MiB df = df.sample(frac=1).reset_index(drop=True) 
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

19 Comments

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to show in my first comment, you have to assign the necessary memory twice, which is quite far from doing it in place.
@m-dz Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you don't do .copy() you're still referencing the same underlying object.
no, it doesn't copy the DataFrame, just look at this line: github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/blob/v0.23.0/pandas/core/…
@m-dz I ran a memory profiler on it. See "follow-up note" in the updated answer.
@PV8 Yes you can.
|
377

You can simply use sklearn for this

from sklearn.utils import shuffle df = shuffle(df) 

3 Comments

This is nice, but you may need to reset your indexes after shuffling: df.reset_index(inplace=True, drop=True)
in what case would you need to reset your indexes? Would resetting the index trigger a copy/memory allocation?
Pandas is already a huge library. There's really no need to import another huge library just in order to shuffle some rows. What's next? Importing jquery and Apache Commons?
90

You can shuffle the rows of a data frame by indexing with a shuffled index. For this, you can eg use np.random.permutation (but np.random.choice is also a possibility):

In [12]: df = pd.read_csv(StringIO(s), sep="\s+") In [13]: df Out[13]: Col1 Col2 Col3 Type 0 1 2 3 1 1 4 5 6 1 20 7 8 9 2 21 10 11 12 2 45 13 14 15 3 46 16 17 18 3 In [14]: df.iloc[np.random.permutation(len(df))] Out[14]: Col1 Col2 Col3 Type 46 16 17 18 3 45 13 14 15 3 20 7 8 9 2 0 1 2 3 1 1 4 5 6 1 21 10 11 12 2 

If you want to keep the index numbered from 1, 2, .., n as in your example, you can simply reset the index: df_shuffled.reset_index(drop=True)

Comments

69

TL;DR: np.random.shuffle(ndarray) can do the job.
So, in your case

np.random.shuffle(DataFrame.values) 

DataFrame, under the hood, uses NumPy ndarray as a data holder. (You can check from DataFrame source code)

So if you use np.random.shuffle(), it would shuffle the array along the first axis of a multi-dimensional array. But the index of the DataFrame remains unshuffled.

Though, there are some points to consider.

  • function returns none. In case you want to keep a copy of the original object, you have to do so before you pass to the function.
  • sklearn.utils.shuffle(), as user tj89 suggested, can designate random_state along with another option to control output. You may want that for dev purposes.
  • sklearn.utils.shuffle() is faster. But WILL SHUFFLE the axis info(index, column) of the DataFrame along with the ndarray it contains.

Benchmark result

between sklearn.utils.shuffle() and np.random.shuffle().

ndarray

nd = sklearn.utils.shuffle(nd) 

0.10793248389381915 sec. 8x faster

np.random.shuffle(nd) 

0.8897626010002568 sec

DataFrame

df = sklearn.utils.shuffle(df) 

0.3183923360193148 sec. 3x faster

np.random.shuffle(df.values) 

0.9357550159329548 sec

Conclusion: If it is okay to axis info(index, column) to be shuffled along with ndarray, use sklearn.utils.shuffle(). Otherwise, use np.random.shuffle()

used code

import timeit setup = ''' import numpy as np import pandas as pd import sklearn nd = np.random.random((1000, 100)) df = pd.DataFrame(nd) ''' timeit.timeit('nd = sklearn.utils.shuffle(nd)', setup=setup, number=1000) timeit.timeit('np.random.shuffle(nd)', setup=setup, number=1000) timeit.timeit('df = sklearn.utils.shuffle(df)', setup=setup, number=1000) timeit.timeit('np.random.shuffle(df.values)', setup=setup, number=1000) 

3 Comments

Doesn't df = df.sample(frac=1) do the exact same thing as df = sklearn.utils.shuffle(df)? According to my measurements df = df.sample(frac=1) is faster and seems to perform the exact same action. They also both allocate new memory. np.random.shuffle(df.values) is the slowest, but does not allocate new memory.
In terms of shuffling the axis along with the data, it's seems like it can do the same. And yes, it seems like df.sample(frac=1) is about 20% faster than sklearn.utils.shuffle(df), using the same code above. Or you could do sklearn.utils.shuffle(ndarray) to get different result.
...and it's really not okay for to index to be shuffled, as it can lead to hard to trace problems with some functions, that either reset index or rely on assumptions about max index on the basis of rows count. This happened to for instance with h2o_model.predict(), which resets index on returned predictions Frame.
27

(I don't have enough reputation to comment this on the top post, so I hope someone else can do that for me.) There was a concern raised that the first method:

df.sample(frac=1) 

It makes a deep copy or just changed the dataframe. I ran the following code:

print(hex(id(df))) print(hex(id(df.sample(frac=1)))) print(hex(id(df.sample(frac=1).reset_index(drop=True)))) 

and my results were:

0x1f8a784d400 0x1f8b9d65e10 0x1f8b9d65b70 

which means the method is not returning the same object, as was suggested in the last comment. So this method does indeed make a shuffled copy.

2 Comments

Please have a look at the Follow-up note of the original answer. There you'll see that even though the references have changed (different ids), the underlying object is not copied. In other words, the operation is effectively in-memory (although admittedly it's not obvious).
I would expect that the underlying ndarray is the same but the iterator is different (and random) hence minimal change in the memory consumption although a change in the elements' order.
26

Following could be one of ways:

dataframe = dataframe.sample(frac=1, random_state=42).reset_index(drop=True) 

where

frac=1 means all rows of a data frame

random_state=42 means keeping the same order in each execution

reset_index(drop=True) means reinitialize index for randomized dataframe

Comments

21

What is also useful, if you use it for Machine_learning and want to separate always the same data, you could use:

df.sample(n=len(df), random_state=42) 

This makes sure, that you keep your random choice always replicable

1 Comment

with frac=1 you dont need n=len(df)
6

Here is another way to do this:

df_shuffled = df.reindex(np.random.permutation(df.index)) 

5 Comments

Please, notice this changes the indices in the original df, as well as producing a copy, which you are saving into df_shuffled. But, which is more worrying, anything that does not depend in the index, for example `df_shuffled.iterrows()' will produce exactly the same order as df. In summary, use with caution!
@Jblasco This is incorrect, the original df is not changed at all. Documentation of np.random.permutation: "...If x is an array, make a copy and shuffle the elements randomly". Documentation of DataFrame.reindex: "A new object is produced unless the new index is equivalent to the current one and copy=False". So the answer is perfectly safe (albeit producing a copy).
@AndreasSchörgenhumer, thank you for pointing this out, you are partially right! I knew I had tried it, so I did some testing. Despite what the documentation of np.random.permutation says, and depending on versions of numpy, you get the effect I described or the one you mention. With numpy > 1.15.0, creating a dataframe and doing a plain np.random.permutation(df.index), the indices in the original df change. The same is not true for numpy == 1.14.6. So, more than ever, I repeat my warning: that way of doing things is dangerous because of unforeseen side effects and version dependencies.
@Jblasco You are right, thank you for the details. I was running numpy 1.14, so everything worked just fine. With numpy 1.15 there seems to be a bug somewhere. In the light of this bug, your warnings are currently indeed correct. However, as it is a bug and the documentation states other behavior, I still stick to my previous statement that the answer is safe (given that the documentation does reflect the actual behavior, which we should normally be able to rely on).
@AndreasSchörgenhumer, not quite sure if it's a bug or a feature, to be honest. Documentation guarantees a copy of an array, not a Index type... In any case, I base my recommendations/warnings on actual behaviour, not on the docs :p
6

We need DataFrame.sample replace=False in order not repeating elements and ignore_index=True if we need a RangeIndex sorted

df = df.sample(frac=1, replace=False, ignore_index=True) 

Comments

3

shuffle the pandas data frame by taking a sample array in this case index and randomize its order then set the array as an index of data frame. Now sort the data frame according to index. Here goes your shuffled dataframe

import random df = pd.DataFrame({"a":[1,2,3,4],"b":[5,6,7,8]}) index = [i for i in range(df.shape[0])] random.shuffle(index) df.set_index([index]).sort_index() 

output

 a b 0 2 6 1 1 5 2 3 7 3 4 8 

Insert you data frame in the place of mine in above code .

1 Comment

I prefer this method as it means the shuffle can be repeated if I need to reproduce my algorithm output exactly, by storing the randomised index to a variable.
2

Without numpy/sklean :) and in case you want to shuffle all values, but keep rows & columns names in place.

df_c = df.copy() df_c.iloc[:,:] = df_c.sample(frac=1,random_state=123,ignore_index=True) 

1 Comment

I like that the random_state is fixed in same 1 line.
1

Shuffle the DataFrame using sample() by passing the frac parameter. Save the shuffled DataFrame to a new variable.

new_variable = DataFrame.sample(frac=1) 

Comments

1

Here is another way:

df['rnd'] = np.random.rand(len(df)) df = df.sort_values(by='rnd', inplace=True).drop('rnd', axis=1) 

Comments

0

I propose this:

for x in df.columns: np.random.seed(42); np.random.shuffle(df[x].values) 

With my test with a column of arbitrary length strings (with dtype: object), it was 30x faster than @haku's answer, presumably because it avoids creating a copy which may be expensive.

My variant was about 3x faster than the accepted @Kris'es answer which also does not seem to avoid a copy (based on RES column in Linux top).

Comments

0

Since Pandas 1.3 you have ignore_index=True, which can be more efficient than later resetting the index:

df = df.sample(frac=1, ignore_index=True) 

2 Comments

Needs to set replace=False, otherwise there will be duplicate rows.
replace=Flase is the default

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.