Filtering performance

🤗Datasets
1

Hi All,

I’m trying to filter a dataset that has about 1 million rows and about a dozen columns (some of those are Array2D, so the arrow files is ~100GB, but I don’t think that’s very relevant).
The column I’m filtering on is made up of 100-300 character long strings, and I have a set of strings that I want to exclude.

Each of the follwing takes about 1min 30s to execute:

a = dataset.filter(lambda x: not x in exclude, input_columns=['column'])
a = dataset.filter(lambda x: not x in exclude, input_columns=['column'],  batch_size=None)
a = dataset.filter(lambda xs: [x not in exclude for x in xs], input_columns=['column'], batched=True)
a = dataset.filter(lambda xs: [x not in exclude for x in xs], input_columns=['column'], batch_size=None, batched=True)

But this only takes 1.85s:

a = dataset['column']
b = [i for i, x in enumerate(a) if x not in exclude]
c = dataset.select(b)

Is this expected, or am I doing something wrong with the dataset?
(The other option solves the problem for me, I’m more interested as to why such a difference)

2 Likes
2

Hi! Which version of datasets are you using? We’ve made some improvements in the latest release (2.8.0) to optimize decoding, so use this version for the best performance.

Also, unlike select (creates an indices mapping), filter writes a new dataset to disk/memory, which can take some time for larger datasets (some benefits are faster indexing, etc.)

3

I’m on 2.7.1, I’ll try upgrading. But writing the new dataset to probably explains the difference, as there is close to 100GB to be written out, eve after the filtering

4

That’s not true - filter does add an indices mapping. We should update the docstring