This is a status update on some enhancements for pandas. The goal of the work is to store things that are sufficiently array-like in a pandas DataFrame, even if they aren’t a regular NumPy array. Pandas already does this in a few places for some blessed types (like Categorical); we’d like to open that up to anybody.

A couple months ago, a client came to Anaconda with a problem: they have a bunch of IP Address data that they’d like to work with in pandas. They didn’t just want to make a NumPy array of IP addresses for a few reasons:

  1. IPv6 addresses are 128 bits, so they can’t use a specialized NumPy dtype. It would have to be an object array, which will be slow for their large datasets.
  2. IP Addresses have special structure. They’d like to use this structure for special methods like is_reserved.
  3. It’s much better to put the knowledge of types in the library, rather than relying on analysts to know that this column of objects or strings is actually this other special type.

I wrote up a proposal to gauge interest from the community for adding an IP Address dtype to pandas. The general sentiment was that an IP addresses were too specialized for inclusion pandas (which matched my own feelings). But, the community was interested in allowing 3rd party libraries to define their own types and having pandas “do the right thing” when it encounters them.

Pandas Internals

While not technically true, you could reasonably describe a DataFrame as a dictionary of NumPy arrays. There are a few complications that invalidate that caricature , but the one I want to focus on is pandas’ extension dtypes.

Pandas has extended NumPy’s type system in a few cases. For the most part, this involves tricking pandas.DataFrame and pandas.Series into thinking that the object passed to it is a single array, when in fact it’s multiple arrays, or an array plus a bit of extra metadata.

  1. datetime64[ns] with a timezone. A regular numpy.datetime64[ns] array (which is really just an array of integers) plus some metadata for the timezone.
  2. Period: An array of integer ordinals and some metadata about the frequency.
  3. Categorical: two arrays: one with the unique set of categories and a second array of codes, the positions in categories.
  4. Interval: Two arrays, one for the left-hand endpoints and one for the right-hand endpoints.

So our definition of a pandas.DataFrame is now “A dictionary of NumPy arrays, or one of pandas’ extension types.” Internal to pandas, we have checks for “is this thing an extension dtype? If so take this special path.” To the user, it looks like a Categorical is just a regular column, but internally, it’s a bit messier.

Anyway, the upshot of my proposal was to make changes to pandas' internals to support 3rd-party objects going down that “is this an extension dtype” path.

Pandas’ Array Interface

To support external libraries defining extension array types, we defined an interface.

In pandas-19268 we laid out exactly what pandas considers sufficiently “array-like” for an extension array type. When pandas comes across one of these array-like objects, it avoids the previous behavior of just storing the data in a NumPy array of objects. The interface includes things like

  • What type of scalars do you hold?
  • How do I convert you to a NumPy array?
  • __getitem__

Most things should be pretty straightforward to implement. In the test suit, we have a 60-line implementation for storing decimal.Decimal objects in a Series.

It’s important to emphasize that pandas’ ExtensionArray is not another array implementation. It’s just an agreement between pandas and your library that your array-like object (which may be a NumPy array, many NumPy arrays, an Arrow array, a list, anything really) that satisfies the proper semantics for storage inside a Series or DataFrame.

With those changes, I’ve been able to prototype a small library (named… cyberpandas) for storing arrays of IP Addresses. It defines IPAddress, an array-like container for IP Addresses. For this blogpost, the only relevant implementation detail is that IP Addresses are stored as a NumPy structured array with two uint64 fields. So we’re making pandas treat this 2-D array as a single array, like how Interval works. Here’s a taste:

As a taste for what’s possible, here’s a preview of our IP Address library, cyberpandas.

In [1]: import cyberpandas

In [2]: import pandas as pd

In [3]: ips = cyberpandas.IPAddress([
   ...:     '',
   ...:     '',
   ...:     '2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334',
   ...: ])

In [4]: ips
Out[4]: IPAddress(['', '', '2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334'])

In [5]:
array([(                  0,               0),
       (                  0,      3232235777),
       (2306139570357600256, 151930230829876)],
      dtype=[('hi', '>u8'), ('lo', '>u8')])

ips satisfies pandas’ ExtensionArray interface, so it can be stored inside pandas’ containers.

In [6]: ser = pd.Series(ips)

In [7]: ser
2    2001:db8:85a3::8a2e:370:7334
dtype: ip

Note the dtype in that output. That’s a custom dtype (like category) defined outside pandas.

We register a custom accessor with pandas claiming the .ip namespace (just like pandas uses .str or .dt or .cat):

In [8]: ser.ip.isna
0     True
1    False
2    False
dtype: bool

In [9]: ser.ip.is_ipv6
0    False
1    False
2     True
dtype: bool

I’m extremely interested in seeing what the community builds on top of this interface. Joris has already tested out the Cythonized geopandas extension, which stores a NumPy array of pointers to geometry objects, and things seem great. I could see someone (perhaps you, dear reader?) building a JSONArray array type for working with nested data. That combined with custom .json accessor, perhaps with a jq-like query language should make for a powerful combination.

I’m also happy to have to say “Closed, out of scope; sorry.” less often. Now it can be “Closed, out of scope; do it outside of pandas.” :)

Open Source Success Story

It’s worth taking a moment to realize that this was a great example of open source at its best.

  1. A company had a need for a tool. They didn’t have the expertise or desire to build and maintain it internally, so they approached Anaconda (a for-profit company with a great OSS tradition) to do it for them.
  2. A proposal was made and rejected by the pandas community. You can’t just “buy” features in pandas if it conflicts too strongly with the long-term goals for the project.
  3. A more general solution was found, with minimal changes to pandas itself, allowing anyone to do this type of extension outside of pandas.
  4. We built the cyberpandas, which to users will feel like a first-class array type in pandas.

Thanks to the tireless reviews from the other pandas contributors, especially Jeff Reback, Joris van den Bossche, and Stephen Hoyer. Look forward to these changes in the next major pandas release.