Skip to main content

R Tip: Use drop = FALSE with data.frames

(This article was first published on R – Win-Vector Blog, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers)

Another R tip. Get in the habit of using drop = FALSE when indexing (using [ , ] on) data.frames.

NewImage

Prince Rupert’s drops (img: Wikimedia Commons)

In R, single column data.frames are often converted to vectors when manipulated. For example:

d <- data.frame(x = seq_len(3))
print(d)
#>   x
#> 1 1
#> 2 2
#> 3 3
# not a data frame!
d[order(-d$x), ]
#> [1] 3 2 1

We were merely trying to re-order the rows and the result was converted to a vector. This happened because the rules for [ , ] change if there is only one result column. This happens even if the there had been only one input column. Another example is: d[,] is also vector in this case.

The issue is: if we are writing re-usable code we are often programming before we know complete contents of a variable or argument. For a data.frame named “g” supplied as an argument: g[vec, ] can be a data.frame or a vector (or even possibly a list). However we do know if g is a data.frame then g[vec, , drop = FALSE] is also a data.frame (assuming vec is a vector of valid row indices or a logical vector, note: NA induces some special cases).

We care as vectors and data.frames have different semantics, so are not fully substitutable in later code.

The fix is to include drop = FALSE as a third argument to [ , ].

# is a data frame.
d[order(-d$x), , drop = FALSE]
#>   x
#> 3 3
#> 2 2
#> 1 1

To pull out a column I suggest using one of the many good extraction notations (all using the fact a data.frame is officially a list of columns):

d[["x"]]
#> [1] 1 2 3

d$x
#> [1] 1 2 3

d[[1]]
#> [1] 1 2 3

My overall advice is: get in the habit of including drop = FALSE when working with [ , ] and data.frames. I say do this even when it is obvious that the result does in fact have more than one column.

For example write “mtcars[, c("mpg", "cyl"), drop = FALSE]” instead of “mtcars[, c("mpg", "cyl")]“. It is clear that for data.frames both forms should work the same (either selecting a data frame with two columns, or throwing an error if we have mentioned a non existent column). But longer drop = FALSE form is safer (go further towards ensuring type stable code) and more importantly documents intent (that you wanted a data.frame result).

One can also try base::subset(), as it has non-dropping defaults.

To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: R – Win-Vector Blog.

R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials on topics such as: Data science, Big Data, R jobs, visualization (ggplot2, Boxplots, maps, animation), programming (RStudio, Sweave, LaTeX, SQL, Eclipse, git, hadoop, Web Scraping) statistics (regression, PCA, time series, trading) and more...


from R-bloggers http://ift.tt/2EYloz6
via IFTTT

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Explaining models with Triplot, part 1

[This article was first published on R in ResponsibleML on Medium , and kindly contributed to R-bloggers ]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here ) Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't. Explaining models with triplot, part 1 tl;dr Explaining black box models built on correlated features may prove difficult and provide misleading results. R package triplot , part of the DrWhy.AI project, is aiming at facilitating the process of explaining the importance of the whole group of variables, thus solving the problem of correlated features. Calculating the importance of explanatory variables is one of the main tasks of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). There are a lot of tools at our disposal that helps us with that, like Feature Importance or Shapley values, to name a few. All these methods calculate individual feature importance for each variable separately. The problem arises when features used ...

The con behind every wedding

With her marriage on the rocks, one writer struggles to reconcile her cynicism about happily-ever-after as her own children rush to tie the knot A lavish wedding, a couple in love; romance was in the air, as it should be when two people are getting married. But on the top table, the mothers of the happy pair were bonding over their imminent plans for … divorce. That story was told to me by the mother of the bride. The wedding in question was two summers ago: she is now divorced, and the bridegroom’s parents are separated. “We couldn’t but be aware of the crushing irony of the situation,” said my friend. “There we were, celebrating our children’s marriage, while plotting our own escapes from relationships that had long ago gone sour, and had probably been held together by our children. Now they were off to start their lives together, we could be off, too – on our own, or in search of new partners.” Continue reading... The Guardian http://ift.tt/2xZTguV October 07, 2017 at 09:00AM