4 ms·
Anxiously waiting for pandas to get its mojo. If there is any Python library that needs it, this is it.
by nologic01 3y ago
Anxiously waiting for pandas to get its mojo. If there is any Python library that needs it, this is it.
- make3 3y agoI wish Python catches up to Julia in performance. No sense rewriting a trillion lines of code for what is a really pleasant syntax & ecosystem already. But this is a language flamewar thing, probably not a constructive comment, sorry.
- wdroz 3y agoYou can just use Polars[0] instead of Pandas and easily beat both Pandas and DataFrames.jl Pure Julia is faster than pure python, but there are non-pure python tools available in the python ecosystem for a ton of things. [0] -- https://www.pola.rs/ https://www.pola.rs/
- affinepplan 3y agoPolars definitely doesn't "easily" beat DF.jl on all tasks. Yes, I agree, on average polars is a bit faster for many of the simple workflows, but I certainly don't think that's unconditionally true. It's especially less true when you might want to do something out of the ordinary with your series --- in Julia it's trivial to just extract that as a vector and loop over it (fast!). In polars, one would have to make sure their function can be appropriately vectorized.