A great number of readers reacted very positively to Nina Zumel‘s article Using PostgreSQL in R: A quick how-to. Part of the reason is she described an incredibly powerful data science pattern: using a formerly expensive permanent system infrastructure as a simple transient tool.
In her case the tools were the data manipulation grammars SQL (Structured Query Language) and dplyr. It happened to be the case that in both cases the implementation was supplied by a backing database system (PostgreSQL), but the database was not the center of attention for very long.
In this note we will concentrate on SQL (which itself can be used to implement dplyr operators, and is available on even Hadoop scaled systems such as Hive). Our point can be summarized as: SQL isn’t the price of admission to a server, a server is the fee paid to use SQL. We will try to reduce the fee and show how to containerize PostgreSQL on Microsoft Windows (as was already done for us on Apple OSX).
The Smashing Pumpkins “Bullet with Butterfly Wings” (start 2 minutes 6s)
“Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage!”
The combination of R plus SQL offers an attractive way to work with what we call medium-scale data: data that’s perhaps too large to gracefully work with in its entirety within your favorite desktop analysis tool (whether that be R or Excel), but too small to justify the overhead of big data infrastructure. In some cases you can use a serverless SQL database that gives you the power of SQL for data manipulation, while maintaining a lightweight infrastructure.
We call this work pattern “SQL Screwdriver”: delegating data handling to a lightweight infrastructure with the power of SQL for data manipulation.
We assume for this how-to that you already have a PostgreSQL database up and running. To get PostgreSQL for Windows, OSX, or Unix use the instructions at PostgreSQL downloads. If you happen to be on a Mac, then Postgres.app provides a “serverless” (or application oriented) install option.
For the rest of this post, we give a quick how-to on using the RpostgreSQL package to interact with Postgres databases in R.
The reason we care is: by making the computer work harder (perform many calculations simultaneously) we wait less time for our experiments and can run more experiments. This is especially important when doing data science (as we often do using the R analysis platform) as we often need to repeat variations of large analyses to learn things, infer parameters, and estimate model stability.
Typically to get the computer to work a harder the analyst, programmer, or library designer must themselves work a bit hard to arrange calculations in a parallel friendly manner. In the best circumstances somebody has already done this for you:
Good parallel libraries, such as the multi-threaded BLAS/LAPACK libraries included in Revolution R Open (RRO, now Microsoft R Open) (see here).
Parallelization abstraction frameworks such as Thrust/Rth (see here).
Using R application libraries that dealt with parallelism on their own (examples include gbm, boot and our own vtreat). (Some of these libraries do not attempt parallel operation until you specify a parallel execution environment.)
In addition to having a task ready to “parallelize” you need a facility willing to work on it in a parallel manner. Examples include:
Your own machine. Even a laptop computer usually now has four our more cores. Potentially running four times faster, or equivalently waiting only one fourth the time, is big.
Graphics processing units (GPUs). Many machines have a one or more powerful graphics cards already installed. For some numerical task these cards are 10 to 100 times faster than the basic Central Processing Unit (CPU) you normally use for computation (see here).
Let’s take a break from statistics and data science to think a bit about programming language theory, and how the theory relates to the programming language used in the R analysis platform (the language is technically called “S”, but we are going to just call the whole analysis system “R”).
Our reasoning is: if you want to work as a modern data scientist you have to program (this is not optional for reasons of documentation, sharing and scientific repeatability). If you do program you are going to have to eventually think a bit about programming theory (hopefully not too early in your studies, but it will happen). Let’s use R’s powerful programming language (and implementation) to dive into some deep issues in programming language theory:
References versus values
Substitution and evaluation
Fixed point theory
To do this we will translate some common ideas from a theory called “the lambda calculus” into R (where we can actually execute them). This translation largely involves changing the word “lambda” to “function” and introducing some parenthesis (which I think greatly improve readability, part of the mystery of the lambda calculus is how unreadable its preferred notation actually is).
R has a number of very good packages for manipulating and aggregating data (plyr, sqldf, ScaleR, data.table, and more), but when it comes to accumulating results the beginning R user is often at sea. The R execution model is a bit exotic so many R users are very uncertain which methods of accumulating results are efficient and which are inefficient.
The graph was produced in Python, using the seaborn package. Seaborn calls it a “jointplot;” it’s called a “scatterhist” in Matlab, apparently. The seaborn version also shows the strength of the linear relationship between the x and y variables. Nice.
I like this plot a lot, but we’re mostly an R shop here at Win-Vector. So we asked: can we make this plot in ggplot2? Natively, ggplot2 can add rugs to a scatterplot, but doesn’t immediately offer marginals, as above.
However, you can use Dean Attali’s ggExtra package. Here’s an example using the same data as the seaborn jointplot above; you can download the dataset here.
I didn’t bother to add the internal annotation for the goodness of the linear fit, though I could.
The ggMarginal() function goes to heroic effort to line up the coordinate axes of all the graphs, and is probably the best way to do a scatterplot-plus-marginals in ggplot (you can also do it in base graphics, of course). Still, we were curious how close we could get to the seaborn version: marginal density and histograms together, along with annotations. Below is our version of the graph; we report the linear fit’s R-squared, rather than the Pearson correlation.
# our own (very beta) plot package: details later
frm = read.csv("tips.csv")
ScatterHist(frm, "total_bill", "tip",
title="Tips vs. Total Bill")
You can see that (at the moment) we’ve resorted to padding the axis labels with underbars to force the x-coordinates of the top marginal plot and the scatterplot to align; white space gets trimmed. This is profoundly unsatisfying, and less robust than the ggMarginal version. If you’re curious, the code is here. It relies on some functions in the file sharedFunctions.Rin the same repository. Our more general version will do either a linear or lowess/spline smooth, and you can also adjust the histogram and density plot parameters.
One of the advantages of functional languages (such as R) is the ability to create and return functions “on the fly.” We will discuss one good use of this capability and what to look out for when creating functions in R. Continue reading How and why to return functions in R
While skimming Professor Hadley Wickham’s Advanced R I got to thinking about nature of the square-bracket or extract operator in R. It turns out “[,]” is a bit more irregular than I remembered.
The subsetting section of Advanced R has a very good discussion on the subsetting and selection operators found in R. In particular it raises the important distinction of two simultaneously valuable but incompatible desiderata: simplification of results versus preservation of results. Continue reading R bracket is a bit irregular
As John mentioned in his last post, we have been quite interested in the recent study by Fernandez-Delgado, et.al., “Do we Need Hundreds of Classifiers to Solve Real World Classification Problems?” (the “DWN study” for short), which evaluated 179 popular implementations of common classification algorithms over 120 or so data sets, mostly from the UCI Machine Learning Repository. For fun, we decided to do a follow-up study, using their data and several classifier implementations from scikit-learn, the Python machine learning library. We were interested not just in classifier accuracy, but also in seeing if there is a “geometry” of classifiers: which classifiers produce predictions patterns that look similar to each other, and which classifiers produce predictions that are quite different? To examine these questions, we put together a Shiny app to interactively explore how the relative behavior of classifiers changes for different types of data sets.