I am working on a data set of more than 22,000 records, and when I tried it with the apriori model, it's taking way too much time even for small number of records like 20. Is there a problem in my code or Is there a faster way to convert the asscocians into a list quickly? The code I used is below.
for i in range(0, 20):
transactions.append([str(dataset.values[i,j]) for j in range(0, 543)])
from apyori import apriori
associations = apriori(transactions, min_support=0.004, min_confidence=0.3, min_lift=3, min_length=2)
result = list(associations)
It's difficult to assess without your data, but the complexity of Apriori is based on a number of factors, including your support threshold, number of transactions, number of items, average/max transaction length, etc.
In cases where even a small number of transactions is taking a long time to run it's often a matter of too low of a minimum support. When support is very low (near 0) the algorithm is effectively still brute forcing, since it has to look at all possible combinations of items, of every length. This is the equivalent of a mathematical power set, which is exponential. For just 41 items you're actually trying 2^41 -1 possible combinations, which is just over 1.1 TRILLION possibilities.
I recommend starting with a "high" min_support at first (e.g. 0.20) and then working your way down slowly. It's easier to test things that take seconds at first than ones that'll take a long time.
Other important note: There is no min_length parameter in Apyori. I'm not sure where everyone's getting that from (you're not alone in thinking there is one), unless it's this one random blog post I found. The parameters are as follows (straight from the code):
Keyword arguments:
min_support -- The minimum support of relations (float).
min_confidence -- The minimum confidence of relations (float).
min_lift -- The minimum lift of relations (float).
max_length -- The maximum length of the relation (integer).
For what it's worth, I wrote unofficial docs for Apyori that can be found here.
Related
I am using neo4j to calculate some statistics on a data set. For that I am often using sum on a floating point value. I am getting different results depending on the circumstances. For example, a query that does this:
...
WITH foo
ORDER BY foo.fooId
RETURN SUM(foo.Weight)
Returns different result than the query that simply does the sum:
...
RETURN SUM(foo.Weight)
The differences are miniscule (293.07724195098984 vs 293.07724195099007). But it is enough to make simple equality checks fail. Another example would be a different instance of the database, loaded with the same data using the same loading process can produce the same issue (the dbs might not be 1:1, the load order of some relations might be different). I took the raw values that neo4j sums (by simply removing the SUM()) and verified that they are the same in all cases (different dbs and ordered/not ordered).
What are my options here? I don't mind losing some precision (I already tried to cut down the precision from 15 to 12 decimal places but that did not seem to work), but I need the results to match up.
Because of rounding errors, floats are not associative. (a+b)+c!=a+(b+c).
The result of every operation is rounded to fit the floats coding constraints and (a+b)+c is implemented as round(round(a+b) +c) while a+(b+c) as round(a+round(b+c)).
As an obvious illustration, consider the operation (2^-100 + 1 -1). If interpreted as a (2^-100 + 1)-1, it will return 0, as 1+2^-100 would require a precision too large for floats or double coding in IEEE754 and can only be coded as 1.0. While (2^-100 +(1-1)) correctly returns 2^-100 that can be coded by either floats or doubles.
This is a trivial example, but these rounding errors may exist after every operation and explain why floating point operations are not associative.
Databases generally do not return data in a garanteed order and depending on the actual order, operations will be done differently and that explains the behaviour that you have.
In general, for this reason, it not a good idea to do equality comparison on floats. Generally, it is advised to replace a==b by abs(a-b) is "sufficiently" small.
"sufficiently" may depend on your algorithm. float are equivalent to ~6-7 decimals and doubles to 15-16 decimals (and I think that it is what is used on your DB). Depending on the number of computations, you may have the last 1--3 decimals affected.
The best is probably to use
abs(a-b)<relative-error*max(abs(a),abs(b))
where relative-error must be adjusted to your problem. Probably something around 10^-13 can be correct, but you must experiment, as rounding errors depends on the number of computations, on the dispersion of the values and on what you may consider as "equal" for you problem.
Look at this site for a discussion on comparison methods. And read What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic by David Goldberg that discusses, among others, these problems.
I have a high throughput system. I found out that since many events has the same timestamp, influx had overwritten many events.
Therefore I tried moving from milliseconds to nanoseconds, but since I am using JAVA, I couldn't get the real clock based nanoseconds.
I came up with this solution:
I created a new tag called "descriptor" which for each event I insert a random number between 1-1000. These values are fixed and the probability for the same timestamp with the same random descriptor value is very low. This fixes my problem and I can see all the events.
My question is wether it is OK to use these 1000 values - since this is a tag and I understand it can mess up my index and my performance?
Regards, Ido
As the random "descriptors" are completely uncorrelated to other event tags, in the worst case this could increase your series cardinality by 3 orders of magnitude. This is because each existing series (s) will potentially split into up to 1000 unique series (s,1),(s,2),...,(s,1000).
How much of a problem this is will depend on your existing series cardinality. Increasing from 10 to 10,000 is probably no big deal. Increasing from 100,000 to 100,000,000 is more likely to be an issue. You would need to experiment and profile to see.
An alternative approach might be to encode the "descriptor" in the microsecond and/or nanosecond component(s) of the timestamp (as you're not using them anyway) to make them unique.
I'm building an app using database.
I have a words table and everytime user types something, this app will record and update word the database.
And the frequency field will be auto increase after user enter one matched word.
But the trouble is user type day by day and i afraid the search performance will be reduce after times and also the Int field will reach to the limit (max limit Int) someday.
So, i limit the database to around less than 50.000 records.
I delete less-used records after a certain time.
But i don't know how to deal with frequency Int field of each word?
How to know exactly frequency usage of each word without increasing the field forever?
I recommend that you use a logarithmic scale for the frequency values. That's what is often done in situations like this. See Wikipedia to learn about logarithmic scales.
For example, if you have a word MAN that has a frequency of 15, the value you store in the database would be log(15) ~= 1.17609125906.
If you then find 4 new occurrences of MAN, then you want to add 4 to the field. You cannot add the log values directly because log(x)+log(y)=log(x*y). (See the Logarithm Rules section of this article for more information on log rules.)
Instead -- assuming you use a base 10 logarithm, you would use this formula:
SET frequency = log(10^frequency+4)
Depending on the length of your words, the few bytes for the frequency don't matter. With an unsigned four bytes integer, you can count up to more than two billion, which is way above the number of words what the user can type in in their whole lifespan.
So may want to go for two or three bytes, but the savings may be negligible.
Anyway, there are the following approaches for preventing overflow:
You can detect it, and then undo the operations, scale everything down by some factor of two, and then redo.
You can periodically check all your numbers and do the scaling when approaching the limit.
You can do a probabilistic update like below.
Probabilistic update
Instead of simply incrementing the frequency every time by one, you do it only with a probability which gets lower and lower as the counter grows. For example, you can do the increment with a probability of 1.0 / (oldValue + 1) or 2 ** -oldValue. The latter leads to a logarithmic growth, but, unlike the idea in the other answer, it works.
There are obviously some disadvantages due to the randomness and precision loss, but when all you care about is the relative frequency, it should be good enough.
My platform here is Ruby - a webapp using Rails 3.2 in particular.
I'm trying to match objects (people) based on their ratings for certain items. People may rate all, some, or none of the same items as other people. Ratings are integers between 0 and 5. The number of items available to rate, and the number of users, can both be considered to be non-trivial.
A quick illustration -
The brute-force approach is to iterate through all people, calculating differences for each item. In Ruby-flavoured pseudo-code -
MATCHES = {}
for each (PERSON in (people except USER)) do
for each (RATING that PERSON has made) do
if (USER has rated the item that RATING refers to) do
MATCHES[PERSON's id] += difference between PERSON's rating and USER's rating
end
end
end
lowest values in MATCHES are the best matches for USER
The problem here being that as the number of items, ratings, and people increase, this code will take a very significant time to run, and ignoring caching for now, this is code that has to run a lot, since this matching is the primary function of my app.
I'm open to cleverer algorithms and cleverer databases to achieve this, but doing it algorithmically and as such allowing me to keep everything in MySQL or PostgreSQL would make my life a lot easier. The only thing I'd say is that the data does need to persist.
If any more detail would help, please feel free to ask. Any assistance greatly appreciated!
Check out the KD-Tree. It's specifically designed to speed up neighbour-finding in N-Dimensional spaces, like your rating system (Person 1 is 3 units along the X axis, 4 units along the Y axis, and so on).
You'll likely have to do this in an actual programming language. There are spatial indexes for some DBs, but they're usually designed for geographic work, like PostGIS (which uses GiST indexing), and only support two or three dimensions.
That said, I did find this tantalizing blog post on PostGIS. I was then unable to find any other references to this, but maybe your luck will be better than mine...
Hope that helps!
Technically your task is matching long strings made out of characters of a 5 letter alphabet. This kind of stuff is researched extensively in the area of computational biology. (Typically with 4 letter alphabets). If you do not know the book http://www.amazon.com/Algorithms-Strings-Trees-Sequences-Computational/dp/0521585198 then you might want to get hold of a copy. IMHO this is THE standard book on fuzzy matching / scoring of sequences.
Is your data sparse? With rating, most of the time not every user rates every object.
Naively comparing each object to every other is O(n*n*d), where d is the number of operations. However, a key trick of all the Hadoop solutions is to transpose the matrix, and work only on the non-zero values in the columns. Assuming that your sparsity is s=0.01, this reduces the runtime to O(d*n*s*n*s), i.e. by a factor of s*s. So if your sparsity is 1 out of 100, your computation will be theoretically 10000 times faster.
Note that the resulting data will still be a O(n*n) distance matrix, so strictl speaking the problem is still quadratic.
The way to beat the quadratic factor is to use index structures. The k-d-tree has already been mentioned, but I'm not aware of a version for categorical / discrete data and missing values. Indexing such data is not very well researched AFAICT.
I need to compare a query bit sequence with a database of up to a million bit sequences. All bit sequences are 100 bits long. I need the lookup to be as fast as possible. Are there any packages out there for fast determination of the similarity between two bit sequences? --Edit-- The bit sequences are position sensitive.
I have seen a possible algorithm on Bit Twiddling Hacks but if there is a ready made package that would be better.
If the database is rather static, you may want to build a tree data structure on it.
Search the tree recursively or in multiple threads and per search keep an actual difference variable. If the actual difference becomes greater than what you would consider 'similar', abort the search.
E.g. Suppose we have the following tree:
root
0 1
0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
If you want to look for patterns similar to 011, and only want to allow 1 different bit at most, search like this (recursively or multi-threaded):
Start at the root
Take the left branch (0), this is similar, so difference is still 0
Take the left branch (0), this is different, so difference becomes 1, which is still acceptable
take the left branch (0), this is different, so difference becomes 2, which is too high. Abort looking in this branch.
take the right branch (1), this is equal, so difference remains 1, continue to search in this branch (not shown here)
Take the right branch (1), this is equal, so difference remains 0, go on
take the left branch (0), this is different, so difference becomes 1, which is still acceptable, go on.
This goes on until you have found your bit patterns.
If your bit patterns are more dynamic and being updated in your application, you will have to update the tree.
If memory is a problem, consider going to 64-bit.
If you want to look up the, let's say 50, most matching patterns, and we can assume that the input data set is rather static (or can be dynamically updated), you can repeat the initial phase of the previous comment, so:
For every bit pattern, count the bits.
Store the bit patterns in a multi_map (if you use STL, Java probably has something similar)
Then, use the following algorithm:
Make 2 collections: one for storing the found patterns, one for storing possibly good patterns (this second collection should probably be map, mapping 'distances' to patterns)
Take your own pattern and count the bits, assume this is N
Look in the multimap at index N, all these patterns will have the same sum, but not necessarily be completely identical
Compare all the patterns at index N. If they are equal store the result in the first collection. If they are not equal, store the result in the second collection/map, using the difference as key.
Look in the multimap at index N-1, all these patterns will have a distance of 1 or more
Compare all the patterns at index N-1. If they have a distance of 1, store them in the first collection. If they have a larger distance, store the result in the second collection/map, using the difference as key.
Repeat for index N+1
Now look in the second collection/map and see if there is something stored with distance 1. If it is, remove them from the second collection/map and store them in the first collection.
Repeat this for distance 2, distance 3, ... until you have enough patterns.
If the number of required patterns is not too big, and the average distance is also not too big, then the number of real compares between patterns is probably only a few %.
Unfortunately, since the patterns will be distributed using a Gaussian curve, there will still be quite some patterns to check. I didn't do a mathematical check on it, but in practice, if you don't want too many patterns out of the millions, and the average distance is not too far, you should be able to find the set of most-close patterns by checking only a few percent of the total bit patterns.
Please keep me updated of your results.
I came up with a second alternative.
For every bit pattern of the million ones count the number of bits and store the bit patterns in an STL multi_map (if you're writing in C++).
Then count the number of bits in your pattern. Suppose you have N bits set in your bit pattern.
If you now want to allow at most D differences, look up all the bit patterns in the multi_map having N-D, N-D+1, ..., N-1, N, N+1, ... N+D-1, N+D bits.
Unfortunately, the division of bit patterns in the multi_map will follow a Gaussian pattern, which means that in practice you will still have to compare quite some bit patterns.
(Originally I thought this could be solved by counting even 0's and uneven 1's but this isn't true.)
Assuming that you want to allow 1 difference, you have to look up 3 slots in the multi_map out of the 100 possible slots, leaving you with 3% of the actual bit patterns to do a full compare.