I'm working on a structure with 12 fields, each consisting of a 1350x1 double.
I want to delete all rows of all fields, given a condition regarding one of those fields, and come up with a new structure, still 12 field but of only 1150 rows.
I don't mind the change of index, since one of these fields is a "Time" field to index the others.
To clarify, my structure is called sens, and the fields are sens(1).Time, sens(1).Temp, sens(1).Humidity and so on.
I want to find a value in sens(1).Time, define it as threshold value, and delete all rows smaller than this value, in all fields.
I know it's possible by going through all field names, but been looking for a faster way as the names of the fields and/or the structure vary.
Thank you.
Check the structfun function from matlab and that should solve your problem.
You have some examples that can help you with what you want, but in sum it should look something like this:
% A is your struct
% cond is the indexes of the rows you want to keep
A_clean= structfun(#(x) x(cond), A, 'UniformOutput', false)
Related
I have some panel data in polars. The dataframe is sorted by its id column and then its date column (basically it's a bunch of time series concatenated together).
I've seen that polars has a .set_sorted method for working with expressions. I can of course set pl.col("id").set_sorted() but I want it to be aware that it's actually sorted in both id and date columns. In pandas I know the Index has an .is_monotonic_increasing property that is aware of whether all the columns of the Index are sorted but is there a way to do something similar with polars?
Have you tried
df.get_column('id').is_sorted()
and
df.get_column('date').is_sorted()
to see if they're each already known to be sorted?
For instance if I do:
df=pl.DataFrame({'a':[1,1,2,2], 'b':[1,2,3,4]})
df.get_column('a').is_sorted()
df.get_column('b').is_sorted()
Then I get 2 Trues even though I haven't ever told it that the columns are sorted.
In general, I don't think you want to be manually setting columns as sorted. Just sort them and it'll keep track of the fact that they're sorted.
If you do:
df=pl.DataFrame({'a':[1,2,1,2], 'b':[1,3,2,4]})
df.get_column('a').is_sorted()
df.get_column('b').is_sorted()
then you get False twice, as you'd hope. If you then do df=df.sort(['a','b']) and follow it up by checking the sortedness of a and b again then you see that it knows they're sorted
I have two tables in which I have data coming from two different sources. One of the field of each table contains the title of a movie, but for some reason out of my control, the titles are not always exactly the same.
So I use the ts_vector to get rid of all the minor differences (stop words, plurals and so on).
See an example here: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!17/5ccbc/3
My problem is how to compare the two ts_vector without taking into account the numberic values, but just the text content. If I compare directly the two fields, I only get the exact match between values, including position of each word. The only solution I have found is using the strip() function, that remove positions and weights from tsvector, leaving only the text content.
I was wondering if there is a fastest way to compare ts_vectors.
You could create in index on the stripped vector:
create index on tbl1 (strip(ts_title));
create index on tbl2 (strip(ts_title));
But given that your query has to fetch every row of each table, it is unlikely this would serve much of a point. Doing a merge join between the precomputed stripped vectors could be faster, but probably not once you include the overhead of building and maintaining the indexes. If the real WHERE clause is more restrictive (selecting only a few rows from one or the other of the tables) then please share the real query.
I would like to transpose table a to table b without knowing exactly how many procedures there are. Is there a way to include a loop inside a query?
Thank you in advance!
So far I am just checking what the maximum amount of 'procedures' are, I put all the procedures in an array, and then query all elements from this array. However I would like a query that always works without first defining the maximum amount of procedures.
I have this kind of data:
I need to transpose this data into something like this using Talend:
Help would be much appreciated.
dbh's suggestion should work indeed, but I did not try it.
However, I have another solution which doesn't require to change input format and is not too complicated to implement. Indeed the job has only 2 transformation components (tDenormalize and tMap).
The job looks like the following:
Explanation :
Your input is read from a CSV file (could be a database or any other kind of input)
tDenormalize component will Denormalize your column value (column 2), based on value on id column (column 1), separating fields with a specific delimiter (";" in my case), resulting as shown in 2 rows.
tMap : split the aggregated column into multiple columns, by using java's String.split() method and spreading the resulting array into multiple columns. The tMap should like like this:
Since Talend doesn't accept to store Array objects, make sure to store the splitted String in Object format. Then, cast that object into Array on the right side of the Map.
That approach should give you the expected result.
IMPORTANT:
tNormalize might shuffle the rows, meaning for bigger input, you might encounter unsorted output. Make sure to sort it if needed or use tDenormalizeSortedRow instead.
tNormalize is similar to an aggregation component meaning it scans the whole input before processing, which results into possible performance issues with particularly big inputs (tens of millions of records).
Your input is probably wrong (you have 5 entries with 1 as id, and 6 entries with 2 as id). 6 columns are expected meaning you should always have 6 lines per id. If not, then you should implement dbh's solution, and you probably HAVE TO add a column with a key.
You can use Talend's tPivotToColumnsDelimited component to achieve this. You will most likely need an additional column in your data to represent the field name.
Like "Identifier, field name, value "
Then you can use this component to pivot the data and write a file as output. If you need to process the data further, read the resulting file with tFileInoutDelimited .
See docs and an example at
https://help.talend.com/display/TalendOpenStudioComponentsReferenceGuide521EN/13.43+tPivotToColumnsDelimited
I have a table with 100+ values corresponding to each row, so I'm exploring different ways to store them.
Without any indexes, would I lose anything if I store these 100 values in an integer[] column in postgresql? As compared to storing them in separate columns.
Plus, since we can add indexes to array elemnets,
CREATE INDEX test_index on test ((foo[1]));
Would there be a performance difference queries using such an index as compared to regular index on a column?
As far as I've read, this performance difference would come into picture in arrays with variable length elements; but I'm not sure about fixed length ones.
Don't go for the lazy way.
If you need to store 100 and more values as array, it is ok, if it has sense has array for your application, your data.
If you need to query for a specific element of the array, then this design is not good, regardless of performances, and you must use columns. This will help you in the moment you must delete a "column" in the middle or redesign it.
Anyway, as wrote by Frank in comments, if values are all same type, consider to model them to another table (if also the meaning is the same).