Use columns 1 and 2 to populate column 3












11














I’m a Python newbie and have the following pandas dataframe - I’m trying to write code that populates the ‘signal’ column as it is below:



Days    long_entry_flag long_exit_flag  signal
1 FALSE TRUE
2 FALSE FALSE
3 TRUE FALSE 1
4 TRUE FALSE 1
5 FALSE FALSE 1
6 TRUE FALSE 1
7 TRUE FALSE 1
8 FALSE TRUE
9 FALSE TRUE
10 TRUE FALSE 1
11 TRUE FALSE 1
12 TRUE FALSE 1
13 FALSE FALSE 1
14 FALSE TRUE
15 FALSE FALSE
16 FALSE TRUE
17 TRUE FALSE 1
18 TRUE FALSE 1
19 FALSE FALSE 1
20 FALSE FALSE 1
21 FALSE TRUE
22 FALSE FALSE
23 FALSE FALSE


My pseudo-code version would take the following steps




  1. Look down the [‘long_entry_flag’] column until entry condition is True (day 3 initially)

  2. Then we enter ‘1’ into [‘signal’] column every day until exit condition is True [‘long_exit_flag’]==True on day 8

  3. Then we look back to [‘long_entry_flag’] column to wait for the next entry condition (occurs on day 10)

  4. And again we enter ‘1’ into [‘signal’] column every day until exit condition is True (day 14)

  5. etc


Welcome ideas about ways to populate the ‘signal’ column rapidly if possible (using vectorisation?) - this is a subset of a large dataframe with tens of thousands of rows, and it is one of many dataframes being analysed in sequence.



Many thanks in advance!










share|improve this question





























    11














    I’m a Python newbie and have the following pandas dataframe - I’m trying to write code that populates the ‘signal’ column as it is below:



    Days    long_entry_flag long_exit_flag  signal
    1 FALSE TRUE
    2 FALSE FALSE
    3 TRUE FALSE 1
    4 TRUE FALSE 1
    5 FALSE FALSE 1
    6 TRUE FALSE 1
    7 TRUE FALSE 1
    8 FALSE TRUE
    9 FALSE TRUE
    10 TRUE FALSE 1
    11 TRUE FALSE 1
    12 TRUE FALSE 1
    13 FALSE FALSE 1
    14 FALSE TRUE
    15 FALSE FALSE
    16 FALSE TRUE
    17 TRUE FALSE 1
    18 TRUE FALSE 1
    19 FALSE FALSE 1
    20 FALSE FALSE 1
    21 FALSE TRUE
    22 FALSE FALSE
    23 FALSE FALSE


    My pseudo-code version would take the following steps




    1. Look down the [‘long_entry_flag’] column until entry condition is True (day 3 initially)

    2. Then we enter ‘1’ into [‘signal’] column every day until exit condition is True [‘long_exit_flag’]==True on day 8

    3. Then we look back to [‘long_entry_flag’] column to wait for the next entry condition (occurs on day 10)

    4. And again we enter ‘1’ into [‘signal’] column every day until exit condition is True (day 14)

    5. etc


    Welcome ideas about ways to populate the ‘signal’ column rapidly if possible (using vectorisation?) - this is a subset of a large dataframe with tens of thousands of rows, and it is one of many dataframes being analysed in sequence.



    Many thanks in advance!










    share|improve this question



























      11












      11








      11







      I’m a Python newbie and have the following pandas dataframe - I’m trying to write code that populates the ‘signal’ column as it is below:



      Days    long_entry_flag long_exit_flag  signal
      1 FALSE TRUE
      2 FALSE FALSE
      3 TRUE FALSE 1
      4 TRUE FALSE 1
      5 FALSE FALSE 1
      6 TRUE FALSE 1
      7 TRUE FALSE 1
      8 FALSE TRUE
      9 FALSE TRUE
      10 TRUE FALSE 1
      11 TRUE FALSE 1
      12 TRUE FALSE 1
      13 FALSE FALSE 1
      14 FALSE TRUE
      15 FALSE FALSE
      16 FALSE TRUE
      17 TRUE FALSE 1
      18 TRUE FALSE 1
      19 FALSE FALSE 1
      20 FALSE FALSE 1
      21 FALSE TRUE
      22 FALSE FALSE
      23 FALSE FALSE


      My pseudo-code version would take the following steps




      1. Look down the [‘long_entry_flag’] column until entry condition is True (day 3 initially)

      2. Then we enter ‘1’ into [‘signal’] column every day until exit condition is True [‘long_exit_flag’]==True on day 8

      3. Then we look back to [‘long_entry_flag’] column to wait for the next entry condition (occurs on day 10)

      4. And again we enter ‘1’ into [‘signal’] column every day until exit condition is True (day 14)

      5. etc


      Welcome ideas about ways to populate the ‘signal’ column rapidly if possible (using vectorisation?) - this is a subset of a large dataframe with tens of thousands of rows, and it is one of many dataframes being analysed in sequence.



      Many thanks in advance!










      share|improve this question















      I’m a Python newbie and have the following pandas dataframe - I’m trying to write code that populates the ‘signal’ column as it is below:



      Days    long_entry_flag long_exit_flag  signal
      1 FALSE TRUE
      2 FALSE FALSE
      3 TRUE FALSE 1
      4 TRUE FALSE 1
      5 FALSE FALSE 1
      6 TRUE FALSE 1
      7 TRUE FALSE 1
      8 FALSE TRUE
      9 FALSE TRUE
      10 TRUE FALSE 1
      11 TRUE FALSE 1
      12 TRUE FALSE 1
      13 FALSE FALSE 1
      14 FALSE TRUE
      15 FALSE FALSE
      16 FALSE TRUE
      17 TRUE FALSE 1
      18 TRUE FALSE 1
      19 FALSE FALSE 1
      20 FALSE FALSE 1
      21 FALSE TRUE
      22 FALSE FALSE
      23 FALSE FALSE


      My pseudo-code version would take the following steps




      1. Look down the [‘long_entry_flag’] column until entry condition is True (day 3 initially)

      2. Then we enter ‘1’ into [‘signal’] column every day until exit condition is True [‘long_exit_flag’]==True on day 8

      3. Then we look back to [‘long_entry_flag’] column to wait for the next entry condition (occurs on day 10)

      4. And again we enter ‘1’ into [‘signal’] column every day until exit condition is True (day 14)

      5. etc


      Welcome ideas about ways to populate the ‘signal’ column rapidly if possible (using vectorisation?) - this is a subset of a large dataframe with tens of thousands of rows, and it is one of many dataframes being analysed in sequence.



      Many thanks in advance!







      python pandas






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 12 at 2:58

























      asked Dec 11 at 10:07









      Baz

      837




      837
























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7














          You can do



          # Assuming we're starting from the "outside"
          inside = False
          for ix, row in df.iterrows():
          inside = (not row['long_exit_flag']
          if inside
          else row['long_entry_flag']
          and not row['long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case
          df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan


          which is going to give you exactly the output you posted.





          Being inspired by @jezrael's answer, I created a slightly more performant version of the above while still trying to keep it as neat as I could:



          # Same assumption of starting from the "outside"
          df.at[0, 'signal'] = df.at[0, 'long_entry_flag']
          for ix in df.index[1:]:
          df.at[ix, 'signal'] = (not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']
          if df.at[ix - 1, 'signal']
          else df.at[ix, 'long_entry_flag']
          and not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case

          # Adjust to match the requested output exactly
          df['signal'] = df['signal'].replace([True, False], [1, np.nan])





          share|improve this answer























          • I appreciate this @jezrael but another disadvantage of my solution is that it requires a state. If you have an idea on how to make it stateless, preserve the state using apply (currying?) or do it in a vectorized way I'll be the first to upvote.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 11 at 12:12










          • @ayorgo - added solution.
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 12:50










          • @ayorgo, apologies for the late edit but your elegant solution works perfectly unless there are two FALSE days in a row at the same time when there is nothing in signal column - see additional lines on days 22-23 - in this situation your code produces '1' in the signal column on day 23 and it shouldn't - is there a simple fix that I'm missing? Or would this now be a new question?
            – Baz
            Dec 12 at 5:17












          • @Baz, hmm, strange. Works on my machine. I mean both of the solutions above produce NaN at day 23.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 12 at 7:59












          • However, it works as I wouldn't expect it to when both signals are True which I just fixed.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 12 at 9:25



















          5














          For improve performance use Numba solution:



          arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values

          @jit
          def f(A):
          inside = False
          out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
          for i in range(len(arr)):
          inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
          if not inside:
          out[i] = np.nan
          return out

          df['signal'] = f(arr)


          Performance:



          #[21000 rows x 5 columns]
          df = pd.concat([df] * 1000, ignore_index=True)

          In [189]: %%timeit
          ...: inside = False
          ...: for ix, row in df.iterrows():
          ...: inside = not row['long_exit_flag'] if inside else row['long_entry_flag']
          ...: df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan
          ...:
          1.58 s ± 9.45 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)

          In [190]: %%timeit
          ...: arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values
          ...:
          ...: @jit
          ...: def f(A):
          ...: inside = False
          ...: out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
          ...: for i in range(len(arr)):
          ...: inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
          ...: if not inside:
          ...: out[i] = np.nan
          ...: return out
          ...:
          ...: df['signal'] = f(arr)
          ...:
          171 ms ± 2.86 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

          In [200]: %%timeit
          ...: df['d'] = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'],df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'],np.nan)
          ...:
          ...: df['new_select']= np.where(df['d']==0, np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan), df['d'])
          ...:
          2.4 ms ± 561 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


          You can also use numpy for shifting, also @Dark code is simplify:



          In [222]: %%timeit
          ...: d = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'].values, df['long_entry_flag'].values | df['long_exit_flag'].values, np.nan)
          ...: shifted = np.insert(d[:-1], 0, np.nan)
          ...: m = (shifted==0) | (shifted==1)
          ...: df['signal1']= np.select([d!=0, m], [d, 1], np.nan)
          ...:
          590 µs ± 35.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


          EDIT:



          You can also check Does iterrows have performance issues? for general order of precedence for performance of various operations in pandas.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            Ah, alright. I forgot one can simply iterate over index. Always looking for the neatest thing. Thanks.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 11 at 12:57










          • @jezrael do check the timings against my approach : )
            – Dark
            Dec 11 at 13:19



















          3














          Here's an approach with complete boolean operations which is a vectorized approach and will be fast.



          Step 1 :
          If long_exit_flag is True return Np.nan else apply or between long_entry_flag and long_exit_flag



          df['d'] = np.where(df['long_exit_flag'], np.nan, df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'])


          Step 2 : Now its the state where the both the columns are false. We need to ignore it and replace the values with the previous state. Which can be done using where and select



          df['new_signal']= np.where(df['d']==0, 
          np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan),
          df['d'])

          Days long_entry_flag long_exit_flag signal d new_signal
          0 1 False True NaN NaN NaN
          1 2 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
          2 3 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          3 4 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          4 5 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
          5 6 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          6 7 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          7 8 False True NaN NaN NaN
          8 9 False True NaN NaN NaN
          9 10 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          10 11 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          11 12 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          12 13 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
          13 14 False True NaN NaN NaN
          14 15 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
          15 16 False True NaN NaN NaN
          16 17 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          17 18 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
          18 19 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
          19 20 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
          20 21 False True NaN NaN NaN





          share|improve this answer



















          • 1




            Nice solution, I try numpy fy it - check edited my answer with new timings.
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 13:46












          • I already upvoted sir. There might be a case which this solution might still not cover. Still curious.
            – Dark
            Dec 11 at 13:48












          • I know it and already upvote too. Good luck!
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 13:48



















          0














          #let the long_exit_flag equal to 0 when the exit is TRUE
          df['long_exit_flag_r']=~df.long_exit_flag_r
          df.temp=''

          for i in range(1,len(df.index)):
          df.temp[i]=(df.signal[i-1]+df.long_entry_flag[i])*df.long_exit_flag_r


          if the temp is positive then the signal should be 1, if the temp is negative then the signal should be empty. (I kinda get stuck here)






          share|improve this answer























            Your Answer






            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            });
            });
            }, "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "1"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53721733%2fuse-columns-1-and-2-to-populate-column-3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            7














            You can do



            # Assuming we're starting from the "outside"
            inside = False
            for ix, row in df.iterrows():
            inside = (not row['long_exit_flag']
            if inside
            else row['long_entry_flag']
            and not row['long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case
            df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan


            which is going to give you exactly the output you posted.





            Being inspired by @jezrael's answer, I created a slightly more performant version of the above while still trying to keep it as neat as I could:



            # Same assumption of starting from the "outside"
            df.at[0, 'signal'] = df.at[0, 'long_entry_flag']
            for ix in df.index[1:]:
            df.at[ix, 'signal'] = (not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']
            if df.at[ix - 1, 'signal']
            else df.at[ix, 'long_entry_flag']
            and not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case

            # Adjust to match the requested output exactly
            df['signal'] = df['signal'].replace([True, False], [1, np.nan])





            share|improve this answer























            • I appreciate this @jezrael but another disadvantage of my solution is that it requires a state. If you have an idea on how to make it stateless, preserve the state using apply (currying?) or do it in a vectorized way I'll be the first to upvote.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 11 at 12:12










            • @ayorgo - added solution.
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 12:50










            • @ayorgo, apologies for the late edit but your elegant solution works perfectly unless there are two FALSE days in a row at the same time when there is nothing in signal column - see additional lines on days 22-23 - in this situation your code produces '1' in the signal column on day 23 and it shouldn't - is there a simple fix that I'm missing? Or would this now be a new question?
              – Baz
              Dec 12 at 5:17












            • @Baz, hmm, strange. Works on my machine. I mean both of the solutions above produce NaN at day 23.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 12 at 7:59












            • However, it works as I wouldn't expect it to when both signals are True which I just fixed.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 12 at 9:25
















            7














            You can do



            # Assuming we're starting from the "outside"
            inside = False
            for ix, row in df.iterrows():
            inside = (not row['long_exit_flag']
            if inside
            else row['long_entry_flag']
            and not row['long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case
            df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan


            which is going to give you exactly the output you posted.





            Being inspired by @jezrael's answer, I created a slightly more performant version of the above while still trying to keep it as neat as I could:



            # Same assumption of starting from the "outside"
            df.at[0, 'signal'] = df.at[0, 'long_entry_flag']
            for ix in df.index[1:]:
            df.at[ix, 'signal'] = (not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']
            if df.at[ix - 1, 'signal']
            else df.at[ix, 'long_entry_flag']
            and not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case

            # Adjust to match the requested output exactly
            df['signal'] = df['signal'].replace([True, False], [1, np.nan])





            share|improve this answer























            • I appreciate this @jezrael but another disadvantage of my solution is that it requires a state. If you have an idea on how to make it stateless, preserve the state using apply (currying?) or do it in a vectorized way I'll be the first to upvote.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 11 at 12:12










            • @ayorgo - added solution.
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 12:50










            • @ayorgo, apologies for the late edit but your elegant solution works perfectly unless there are two FALSE days in a row at the same time when there is nothing in signal column - see additional lines on days 22-23 - in this situation your code produces '1' in the signal column on day 23 and it shouldn't - is there a simple fix that I'm missing? Or would this now be a new question?
              – Baz
              Dec 12 at 5:17












            • @Baz, hmm, strange. Works on my machine. I mean both of the solutions above produce NaN at day 23.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 12 at 7:59












            • However, it works as I wouldn't expect it to when both signals are True which I just fixed.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 12 at 9:25














            7












            7








            7






            You can do



            # Assuming we're starting from the "outside"
            inside = False
            for ix, row in df.iterrows():
            inside = (not row['long_exit_flag']
            if inside
            else row['long_entry_flag']
            and not row['long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case
            df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan


            which is going to give you exactly the output you posted.





            Being inspired by @jezrael's answer, I created a slightly more performant version of the above while still trying to keep it as neat as I could:



            # Same assumption of starting from the "outside"
            df.at[0, 'signal'] = df.at[0, 'long_entry_flag']
            for ix in df.index[1:]:
            df.at[ix, 'signal'] = (not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']
            if df.at[ix - 1, 'signal']
            else df.at[ix, 'long_entry_flag']
            and not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case

            # Adjust to match the requested output exactly
            df['signal'] = df['signal'].replace([True, False], [1, np.nan])





            share|improve this answer














            You can do



            # Assuming we're starting from the "outside"
            inside = False
            for ix, row in df.iterrows():
            inside = (not row['long_exit_flag']
            if inside
            else row['long_entry_flag']
            and not row['long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case
            df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan


            which is going to give you exactly the output you posted.





            Being inspired by @jezrael's answer, I created a slightly more performant version of the above while still trying to keep it as neat as I could:



            # Same assumption of starting from the "outside"
            df.at[0, 'signal'] = df.at[0, 'long_entry_flag']
            for ix in df.index[1:]:
            df.at[ix, 'signal'] = (not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']
            if df.at[ix - 1, 'signal']
            else df.at[ix, 'long_entry_flag']
            and not df.at[ix, 'long_exit_flag']) # [True, True] case

            # Adjust to match the requested output exactly
            df['signal'] = df['signal'].replace([True, False], [1, np.nan])






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Dec 12 at 10:48

























            answered Dec 11 at 11:13









            ayorgo

            1,110414




            1,110414












            • I appreciate this @jezrael but another disadvantage of my solution is that it requires a state. If you have an idea on how to make it stateless, preserve the state using apply (currying?) or do it in a vectorized way I'll be the first to upvote.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 11 at 12:12










            • @ayorgo - added solution.
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 12:50










            • @ayorgo, apologies for the late edit but your elegant solution works perfectly unless there are two FALSE days in a row at the same time when there is nothing in signal column - see additional lines on days 22-23 - in this situation your code produces '1' in the signal column on day 23 and it shouldn't - is there a simple fix that I'm missing? Or would this now be a new question?
              – Baz
              Dec 12 at 5:17












            • @Baz, hmm, strange. Works on my machine. I mean both of the solutions above produce NaN at day 23.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 12 at 7:59












            • However, it works as I wouldn't expect it to when both signals are True which I just fixed.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 12 at 9:25


















            • I appreciate this @jezrael but another disadvantage of my solution is that it requires a state. If you have an idea on how to make it stateless, preserve the state using apply (currying?) or do it in a vectorized way I'll be the first to upvote.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 11 at 12:12










            • @ayorgo - added solution.
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 12:50










            • @ayorgo, apologies for the late edit but your elegant solution works perfectly unless there are two FALSE days in a row at the same time when there is nothing in signal column - see additional lines on days 22-23 - in this situation your code produces '1' in the signal column on day 23 and it shouldn't - is there a simple fix that I'm missing? Or would this now be a new question?
              – Baz
              Dec 12 at 5:17












            • @Baz, hmm, strange. Works on my machine. I mean both of the solutions above produce NaN at day 23.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 12 at 7:59












            • However, it works as I wouldn't expect it to when both signals are True which I just fixed.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 12 at 9:25
















            I appreciate this @jezrael but another disadvantage of my solution is that it requires a state. If you have an idea on how to make it stateless, preserve the state using apply (currying?) or do it in a vectorized way I'll be the first to upvote.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 11 at 12:12




            I appreciate this @jezrael but another disadvantage of my solution is that it requires a state. If you have an idea on how to make it stateless, preserve the state using apply (currying?) or do it in a vectorized way I'll be the first to upvote.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 11 at 12:12












            @ayorgo - added solution.
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 12:50




            @ayorgo - added solution.
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 12:50












            @ayorgo, apologies for the late edit but your elegant solution works perfectly unless there are two FALSE days in a row at the same time when there is nothing in signal column - see additional lines on days 22-23 - in this situation your code produces '1' in the signal column on day 23 and it shouldn't - is there a simple fix that I'm missing? Or would this now be a new question?
            – Baz
            Dec 12 at 5:17






            @ayorgo, apologies for the late edit but your elegant solution works perfectly unless there are two FALSE days in a row at the same time when there is nothing in signal column - see additional lines on days 22-23 - in this situation your code produces '1' in the signal column on day 23 and it shouldn't - is there a simple fix that I'm missing? Or would this now be a new question?
            – Baz
            Dec 12 at 5:17














            @Baz, hmm, strange. Works on my machine. I mean both of the solutions above produce NaN at day 23.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 12 at 7:59






            @Baz, hmm, strange. Works on my machine. I mean both of the solutions above produce NaN at day 23.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 12 at 7:59














            However, it works as I wouldn't expect it to when both signals are True which I just fixed.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 12 at 9:25




            However, it works as I wouldn't expect it to when both signals are True which I just fixed.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 12 at 9:25













            5














            For improve performance use Numba solution:



            arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values

            @jit
            def f(A):
            inside = False
            out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
            for i in range(len(arr)):
            inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
            if not inside:
            out[i] = np.nan
            return out

            df['signal'] = f(arr)


            Performance:



            #[21000 rows x 5 columns]
            df = pd.concat([df] * 1000, ignore_index=True)

            In [189]: %%timeit
            ...: inside = False
            ...: for ix, row in df.iterrows():
            ...: inside = not row['long_exit_flag'] if inside else row['long_entry_flag']
            ...: df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan
            ...:
            1.58 s ± 9.45 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)

            In [190]: %%timeit
            ...: arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values
            ...:
            ...: @jit
            ...: def f(A):
            ...: inside = False
            ...: out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
            ...: for i in range(len(arr)):
            ...: inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
            ...: if not inside:
            ...: out[i] = np.nan
            ...: return out
            ...:
            ...: df['signal'] = f(arr)
            ...:
            171 ms ± 2.86 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

            In [200]: %%timeit
            ...: df['d'] = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'],df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'],np.nan)
            ...:
            ...: df['new_select']= np.where(df['d']==0, np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan), df['d'])
            ...:
            2.4 ms ± 561 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


            You can also use numpy for shifting, also @Dark code is simplify:



            In [222]: %%timeit
            ...: d = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'].values, df['long_entry_flag'].values | df['long_exit_flag'].values, np.nan)
            ...: shifted = np.insert(d[:-1], 0, np.nan)
            ...: m = (shifted==0) | (shifted==1)
            ...: df['signal1']= np.select([d!=0, m], [d, 1], np.nan)
            ...:
            590 µs ± 35.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


            EDIT:



            You can also check Does iterrows have performance issues? for general order of precedence for performance of various operations in pandas.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Ah, alright. I forgot one can simply iterate over index. Always looking for the neatest thing. Thanks.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 11 at 12:57










            • @jezrael do check the timings against my approach : )
              – Dark
              Dec 11 at 13:19
















            5














            For improve performance use Numba solution:



            arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values

            @jit
            def f(A):
            inside = False
            out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
            for i in range(len(arr)):
            inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
            if not inside:
            out[i] = np.nan
            return out

            df['signal'] = f(arr)


            Performance:



            #[21000 rows x 5 columns]
            df = pd.concat([df] * 1000, ignore_index=True)

            In [189]: %%timeit
            ...: inside = False
            ...: for ix, row in df.iterrows():
            ...: inside = not row['long_exit_flag'] if inside else row['long_entry_flag']
            ...: df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan
            ...:
            1.58 s ± 9.45 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)

            In [190]: %%timeit
            ...: arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values
            ...:
            ...: @jit
            ...: def f(A):
            ...: inside = False
            ...: out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
            ...: for i in range(len(arr)):
            ...: inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
            ...: if not inside:
            ...: out[i] = np.nan
            ...: return out
            ...:
            ...: df['signal'] = f(arr)
            ...:
            171 ms ± 2.86 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

            In [200]: %%timeit
            ...: df['d'] = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'],df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'],np.nan)
            ...:
            ...: df['new_select']= np.where(df['d']==0, np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan), df['d'])
            ...:
            2.4 ms ± 561 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


            You can also use numpy for shifting, also @Dark code is simplify:



            In [222]: %%timeit
            ...: d = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'].values, df['long_entry_flag'].values | df['long_exit_flag'].values, np.nan)
            ...: shifted = np.insert(d[:-1], 0, np.nan)
            ...: m = (shifted==0) | (shifted==1)
            ...: df['signal1']= np.select([d!=0, m], [d, 1], np.nan)
            ...:
            590 µs ± 35.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


            EDIT:



            You can also check Does iterrows have performance issues? for general order of precedence for performance of various operations in pandas.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Ah, alright. I forgot one can simply iterate over index. Always looking for the neatest thing. Thanks.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 11 at 12:57










            • @jezrael do check the timings against my approach : )
              – Dark
              Dec 11 at 13:19














            5












            5








            5






            For improve performance use Numba solution:



            arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values

            @jit
            def f(A):
            inside = False
            out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
            for i in range(len(arr)):
            inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
            if not inside:
            out[i] = np.nan
            return out

            df['signal'] = f(arr)


            Performance:



            #[21000 rows x 5 columns]
            df = pd.concat([df] * 1000, ignore_index=True)

            In [189]: %%timeit
            ...: inside = False
            ...: for ix, row in df.iterrows():
            ...: inside = not row['long_exit_flag'] if inside else row['long_entry_flag']
            ...: df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan
            ...:
            1.58 s ± 9.45 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)

            In [190]: %%timeit
            ...: arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values
            ...:
            ...: @jit
            ...: def f(A):
            ...: inside = False
            ...: out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
            ...: for i in range(len(arr)):
            ...: inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
            ...: if not inside:
            ...: out[i] = np.nan
            ...: return out
            ...:
            ...: df['signal'] = f(arr)
            ...:
            171 ms ± 2.86 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

            In [200]: %%timeit
            ...: df['d'] = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'],df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'],np.nan)
            ...:
            ...: df['new_select']= np.where(df['d']==0, np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan), df['d'])
            ...:
            2.4 ms ± 561 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


            You can also use numpy for shifting, also @Dark code is simplify:



            In [222]: %%timeit
            ...: d = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'].values, df['long_entry_flag'].values | df['long_exit_flag'].values, np.nan)
            ...: shifted = np.insert(d[:-1], 0, np.nan)
            ...: m = (shifted==0) | (shifted==1)
            ...: df['signal1']= np.select([d!=0, m], [d, 1], np.nan)
            ...:
            590 µs ± 35.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


            EDIT:



            You can also check Does iterrows have performance issues? for general order of precedence for performance of various operations in pandas.






            share|improve this answer














            For improve performance use Numba solution:



            arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values

            @jit
            def f(A):
            inside = False
            out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
            for i in range(len(arr)):
            inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
            if not inside:
            out[i] = np.nan
            return out

            df['signal'] = f(arr)


            Performance:



            #[21000 rows x 5 columns]
            df = pd.concat([df] * 1000, ignore_index=True)

            In [189]: %%timeit
            ...: inside = False
            ...: for ix, row in df.iterrows():
            ...: inside = not row['long_exit_flag'] if inside else row['long_entry_flag']
            ...: df.at[ix, 'signal'] = 1 if inside else np.nan
            ...:
            1.58 s ± 9.45 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)

            In [190]: %%timeit
            ...: arr = df[['long_exit_flag','long_entry_flag']].values
            ...:
            ...: @jit
            ...: def f(A):
            ...: inside = False
            ...: out = np.ones(len(A), dtype=float)
            ...: for i in range(len(arr)):
            ...: inside = not A[i, 0] if inside else A[i, 1]
            ...: if not inside:
            ...: out[i] = np.nan
            ...: return out
            ...:
            ...: df['signal'] = f(arr)
            ...:
            171 ms ± 2.86 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

            In [200]: %%timeit
            ...: df['d'] = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'],df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'],np.nan)
            ...:
            ...: df['new_select']= np.where(df['d']==0, np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan), df['d'])
            ...:
            2.4 ms ± 561 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


            You can also use numpy for shifting, also @Dark code is simplify:



            In [222]: %%timeit
            ...: d = np.where(~df['long_exit_flag'].values, df['long_entry_flag'].values | df['long_exit_flag'].values, np.nan)
            ...: shifted = np.insert(d[:-1], 0, np.nan)
            ...: m = (shifted==0) | (shifted==1)
            ...: df['signal1']= np.select([d!=0, m], [d, 1], np.nan)
            ...:
            590 µs ± 35.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


            EDIT:



            You can also check Does iterrows have performance issues? for general order of precedence for performance of various operations in pandas.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Dec 11 at 13:45

























            answered Dec 11 at 12:48









            jezrael

            320k22259338




            320k22259338








            • 1




              Ah, alright. I forgot one can simply iterate over index. Always looking for the neatest thing. Thanks.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 11 at 12:57










            • @jezrael do check the timings against my approach : )
              – Dark
              Dec 11 at 13:19














            • 1




              Ah, alright. I forgot one can simply iterate over index. Always looking for the neatest thing. Thanks.
              – ayorgo
              Dec 11 at 12:57










            • @jezrael do check the timings against my approach : )
              – Dark
              Dec 11 at 13:19








            1




            1




            Ah, alright. I forgot one can simply iterate over index. Always looking for the neatest thing. Thanks.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 11 at 12:57




            Ah, alright. I forgot one can simply iterate over index. Always looking for the neatest thing. Thanks.
            – ayorgo
            Dec 11 at 12:57












            @jezrael do check the timings against my approach : )
            – Dark
            Dec 11 at 13:19




            @jezrael do check the timings against my approach : )
            – Dark
            Dec 11 at 13:19











            3














            Here's an approach with complete boolean operations which is a vectorized approach and will be fast.



            Step 1 :
            If long_exit_flag is True return Np.nan else apply or between long_entry_flag and long_exit_flag



            df['d'] = np.where(df['long_exit_flag'], np.nan, df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'])


            Step 2 : Now its the state where the both the columns are false. We need to ignore it and replace the values with the previous state. Which can be done using where and select



            df['new_signal']= np.where(df['d']==0, 
            np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan),
            df['d'])

            Days long_entry_flag long_exit_flag signal d new_signal
            0 1 False True NaN NaN NaN
            1 2 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
            2 3 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            3 4 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            4 5 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            5 6 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            6 7 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            7 8 False True NaN NaN NaN
            8 9 False True NaN NaN NaN
            9 10 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            10 11 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            11 12 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            12 13 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            13 14 False True NaN NaN NaN
            14 15 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
            15 16 False True NaN NaN NaN
            16 17 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            17 18 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            18 19 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            19 20 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            20 21 False True NaN NaN NaN





            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Nice solution, I try numpy fy it - check edited my answer with new timings.
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 13:46












            • I already upvoted sir. There might be a case which this solution might still not cover. Still curious.
              – Dark
              Dec 11 at 13:48












            • I know it and already upvote too. Good luck!
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 13:48
















            3














            Here's an approach with complete boolean operations which is a vectorized approach and will be fast.



            Step 1 :
            If long_exit_flag is True return Np.nan else apply or between long_entry_flag and long_exit_flag



            df['d'] = np.where(df['long_exit_flag'], np.nan, df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'])


            Step 2 : Now its the state where the both the columns are false. We need to ignore it and replace the values with the previous state. Which can be done using where and select



            df['new_signal']= np.where(df['d']==0, 
            np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan),
            df['d'])

            Days long_entry_flag long_exit_flag signal d new_signal
            0 1 False True NaN NaN NaN
            1 2 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
            2 3 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            3 4 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            4 5 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            5 6 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            6 7 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            7 8 False True NaN NaN NaN
            8 9 False True NaN NaN NaN
            9 10 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            10 11 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            11 12 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            12 13 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            13 14 False True NaN NaN NaN
            14 15 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
            15 16 False True NaN NaN NaN
            16 17 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            17 18 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            18 19 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            19 20 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            20 21 False True NaN NaN NaN





            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Nice solution, I try numpy fy it - check edited my answer with new timings.
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 13:46












            • I already upvoted sir. There might be a case which this solution might still not cover. Still curious.
              – Dark
              Dec 11 at 13:48












            • I know it and already upvote too. Good luck!
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 13:48














            3












            3








            3






            Here's an approach with complete boolean operations which is a vectorized approach and will be fast.



            Step 1 :
            If long_exit_flag is True return Np.nan else apply or between long_entry_flag and long_exit_flag



            df['d'] = np.where(df['long_exit_flag'], np.nan, df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'])


            Step 2 : Now its the state where the both the columns are false. We need to ignore it and replace the values with the previous state. Which can be done using where and select



            df['new_signal']= np.where(df['d']==0, 
            np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan),
            df['d'])

            Days long_entry_flag long_exit_flag signal d new_signal
            0 1 False True NaN NaN NaN
            1 2 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
            2 3 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            3 4 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            4 5 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            5 6 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            6 7 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            7 8 False True NaN NaN NaN
            8 9 False True NaN NaN NaN
            9 10 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            10 11 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            11 12 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            12 13 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            13 14 False True NaN NaN NaN
            14 15 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
            15 16 False True NaN NaN NaN
            16 17 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            17 18 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            18 19 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            19 20 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            20 21 False True NaN NaN NaN





            share|improve this answer














            Here's an approach with complete boolean operations which is a vectorized approach and will be fast.



            Step 1 :
            If long_exit_flag is True return Np.nan else apply or between long_entry_flag and long_exit_flag



            df['d'] = np.where(df['long_exit_flag'], np.nan, df['long_entry_flag'] | df['long_exit_flag'])


            Step 2 : Now its the state where the both the columns are false. We need to ignore it and replace the values with the previous state. Which can be done using where and select



            df['new_signal']= np.where(df['d']==0, 
            np.select([df['d'].shift()==0, df['d'].shift()==1],[1,1], np.nan),
            df['d'])

            Days long_entry_flag long_exit_flag signal d new_signal
            0 1 False True NaN NaN NaN
            1 2 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
            2 3 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            3 4 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            4 5 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            5 6 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            6 7 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            7 8 False True NaN NaN NaN
            8 9 False True NaN NaN NaN
            9 10 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            10 11 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            11 12 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            12 13 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            13 14 False True NaN NaN NaN
            14 15 False False NaN 0.0 NaN
            15 16 False True NaN NaN NaN
            16 17 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            17 18 True False 1.0 1.0 1.0
            18 19 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            19 20 False False 1.0 0.0 1.0
            20 21 False True NaN NaN NaN






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Dec 11 at 13:32

























            answered Dec 11 at 13:18









            Dark

            21.1k31946




            21.1k31946








            • 1




              Nice solution, I try numpy fy it - check edited my answer with new timings.
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 13:46












            • I already upvoted sir. There might be a case which this solution might still not cover. Still curious.
              – Dark
              Dec 11 at 13:48












            • I know it and already upvote too. Good luck!
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 13:48














            • 1




              Nice solution, I try numpy fy it - check edited my answer with new timings.
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 13:46












            • I already upvoted sir. There might be a case which this solution might still not cover. Still curious.
              – Dark
              Dec 11 at 13:48












            • I know it and already upvote too. Good luck!
              – jezrael
              Dec 11 at 13:48








            1




            1




            Nice solution, I try numpy fy it - check edited my answer with new timings.
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 13:46






            Nice solution, I try numpy fy it - check edited my answer with new timings.
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 13:46














            I already upvoted sir. There might be a case which this solution might still not cover. Still curious.
            – Dark
            Dec 11 at 13:48






            I already upvoted sir. There might be a case which this solution might still not cover. Still curious.
            – Dark
            Dec 11 at 13:48














            I know it and already upvote too. Good luck!
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 13:48




            I know it and already upvote too. Good luck!
            – jezrael
            Dec 11 at 13:48











            0














            #let the long_exit_flag equal to 0 when the exit is TRUE
            df['long_exit_flag_r']=~df.long_exit_flag_r
            df.temp=''

            for i in range(1,len(df.index)):
            df.temp[i]=(df.signal[i-1]+df.long_entry_flag[i])*df.long_exit_flag_r


            if the temp is positive then the signal should be 1, if the temp is negative then the signal should be empty. (I kinda get stuck here)






            share|improve this answer




























              0














              #let the long_exit_flag equal to 0 when the exit is TRUE
              df['long_exit_flag_r']=~df.long_exit_flag_r
              df.temp=''

              for i in range(1,len(df.index)):
              df.temp[i]=(df.signal[i-1]+df.long_entry_flag[i])*df.long_exit_flag_r


              if the temp is positive then the signal should be 1, if the temp is negative then the signal should be empty. (I kinda get stuck here)






              share|improve this answer


























                0












                0








                0






                #let the long_exit_flag equal to 0 when the exit is TRUE
                df['long_exit_flag_r']=~df.long_exit_flag_r
                df.temp=''

                for i in range(1,len(df.index)):
                df.temp[i]=(df.signal[i-1]+df.long_entry_flag[i])*df.long_exit_flag_r


                if the temp is positive then the signal should be 1, if the temp is negative then the signal should be empty. (I kinda get stuck here)






                share|improve this answer














                #let the long_exit_flag equal to 0 when the exit is TRUE
                df['long_exit_flag_r']=~df.long_exit_flag_r
                df.temp=''

                for i in range(1,len(df.index)):
                df.temp[i]=(df.signal[i-1]+df.long_entry_flag[i])*df.long_exit_flag_r


                if the temp is positive then the signal should be 1, if the temp is negative then the signal should be empty. (I kinda get stuck here)







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Dec 11 at 10:42

























                answered Dec 11 at 10:36









                ZhouXing98

                445




                445






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53721733%2fuse-columns-1-and-2-to-populate-column-3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

                    Alcedinidae

                    Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?