My Python 3.6 script to detect stamp card redeem fraud and prepare a csv report











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have a requirement to write a Python 3.6 script which should be able to detect following case within a time period and be able to create a text file report that lists the condition violated and transaction that caused the violation:




  • Redeeming over 3 time on same stamp card within 10 mins


The required table in database for storing user and stamp card details has following structure-



table structure



Here the 'to_sate' column with values 2,3 and 4 means a card is redeemed.



Now, I have written following script to fulfill above requirement and it is working as expected. In my local environment it is taking 2.7 minutes to complete the process for 36000 records-



def insert_data(csv_import_path, csv_export_path):
import time
from multiprocessing import Pool
import multiprocessing
import pandas as pd
import pymysql
# Connect to the database
engine = pymysql.connect(host='localhost',
user='admin',
password='MY_PASSWORD',
db='MY_DB',
charset='utf8mb4',
cursorclass=pymysql.cursors.DictCursor)
df = pd.read_sql(
"SELECT stamps_record_id, user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time, merchant_id, merchant_store_id FROM rmsdb.user_stamping_records where to_state in (2,3,4) order by stamp_card_id",
engine)
df.to_csv(csv_import_path)
df = pd.read_csv(csv_import_path, index_col=["stamps_record_id"])
unique_users = df.user_id.unique()
df["stamp_time"] = pd.to_datetime(df["stamp_time"])
num_processes = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
s_time = time.time()
with Pool(num_processes) as p:
final_df = pd.DataFrame()
for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
user = unique_users[i]
new_df = df[df.user_id == user]
sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
for i in sid:
fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]
# len(fdf) can be user given value
if len(fdf) > 3:
for i in range(0, len(fdf)):
g = (fdf.iloc[i:i + 3])
if len(g) >= 3:
x = (g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values).astype("timedelta64[s]")
if x[0].astype(int) < 600:
final_df = final_df.append(g)

e_time = time.time() - s_time
# final_df.drop_duplicates(keep="first").to_csv("C:\Users\rahul.khanna\Desktop\user_stamping_records_frauds.csv", index=False)
final_df.drop_duplicates(keep="first").to_csv(csv_export_path, index=False)

print("Total Time taken is: " + str(e_time / 60) + " minutes.")

if __name__ == '__main__':
insert_data("C:\Users\hitman\Desktop\user_stamping_records_import.csv", "C:\Users\hitman\Desktop\user_stamping_records_frauds.csv")


I have converted the df to dictionary for a sample-



34198: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34199: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34200: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34201: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34202: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34203: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34204: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34205: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34206: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34207: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34208: '2018-10-13 16:48:03'


Before moving my script to production, I need your suggestion for any improvement in my code.



Can anyone please have a look on my code and let me know any improvement in it?



Let me know also if I forgot to include any required information here.










share|improve this question




























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    I have a requirement to write a Python 3.6 script which should be able to detect following case within a time period and be able to create a text file report that lists the condition violated and transaction that caused the violation:




    • Redeeming over 3 time on same stamp card within 10 mins


    The required table in database for storing user and stamp card details has following structure-



    table structure



    Here the 'to_sate' column with values 2,3 and 4 means a card is redeemed.



    Now, I have written following script to fulfill above requirement and it is working as expected. In my local environment it is taking 2.7 minutes to complete the process for 36000 records-



    def insert_data(csv_import_path, csv_export_path):
    import time
    from multiprocessing import Pool
    import multiprocessing
    import pandas as pd
    import pymysql
    # Connect to the database
    engine = pymysql.connect(host='localhost',
    user='admin',
    password='MY_PASSWORD',
    db='MY_DB',
    charset='utf8mb4',
    cursorclass=pymysql.cursors.DictCursor)
    df = pd.read_sql(
    "SELECT stamps_record_id, user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time, merchant_id, merchant_store_id FROM rmsdb.user_stamping_records where to_state in (2,3,4) order by stamp_card_id",
    engine)
    df.to_csv(csv_import_path)
    df = pd.read_csv(csv_import_path, index_col=["stamps_record_id"])
    unique_users = df.user_id.unique()
    df["stamp_time"] = pd.to_datetime(df["stamp_time"])
    num_processes = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
    s_time = time.time()
    with Pool(num_processes) as p:
    final_df = pd.DataFrame()
    for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
    user = unique_users[i]
    new_df = df[df.user_id == user]
    sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
    for i in sid:
    fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]
    # len(fdf) can be user given value
    if len(fdf) > 3:
    for i in range(0, len(fdf)):
    g = (fdf.iloc[i:i + 3])
    if len(g) >= 3:
    x = (g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values).astype("timedelta64[s]")
    if x[0].astype(int) < 600:
    final_df = final_df.append(g)

    e_time = time.time() - s_time
    # final_df.drop_duplicates(keep="first").to_csv("C:\Users\rahul.khanna\Desktop\user_stamping_records_frauds.csv", index=False)
    final_df.drop_duplicates(keep="first").to_csv(csv_export_path, index=False)

    print("Total Time taken is: " + str(e_time / 60) + " minutes.")

    if __name__ == '__main__':
    insert_data("C:\Users\hitman\Desktop\user_stamping_records_import.csv", "C:\Users\hitman\Desktop\user_stamping_records_frauds.csv")


    I have converted the df to dictionary for a sample-



    34198: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34199: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34200: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34201: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34202: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34203: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34204: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34205: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34206: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34207: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34208: '2018-10-13 16:48:03'


    Before moving my script to production, I need your suggestion for any improvement in my code.



    Can anyone please have a look on my code and let me know any improvement in it?



    Let me know also if I forgot to include any required information here.










    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      I have a requirement to write a Python 3.6 script which should be able to detect following case within a time period and be able to create a text file report that lists the condition violated and transaction that caused the violation:




      • Redeeming over 3 time on same stamp card within 10 mins


      The required table in database for storing user and stamp card details has following structure-



      table structure



      Here the 'to_sate' column with values 2,3 and 4 means a card is redeemed.



      Now, I have written following script to fulfill above requirement and it is working as expected. In my local environment it is taking 2.7 minutes to complete the process for 36000 records-



      def insert_data(csv_import_path, csv_export_path):
      import time
      from multiprocessing import Pool
      import multiprocessing
      import pandas as pd
      import pymysql
      # Connect to the database
      engine = pymysql.connect(host='localhost',
      user='admin',
      password='MY_PASSWORD',
      db='MY_DB',
      charset='utf8mb4',
      cursorclass=pymysql.cursors.DictCursor)
      df = pd.read_sql(
      "SELECT stamps_record_id, user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time, merchant_id, merchant_store_id FROM rmsdb.user_stamping_records where to_state in (2,3,4) order by stamp_card_id",
      engine)
      df.to_csv(csv_import_path)
      df = pd.read_csv(csv_import_path, index_col=["stamps_record_id"])
      unique_users = df.user_id.unique()
      df["stamp_time"] = pd.to_datetime(df["stamp_time"])
      num_processes = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
      s_time = time.time()
      with Pool(num_processes) as p:
      final_df = pd.DataFrame()
      for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
      user = unique_users[i]
      new_df = df[df.user_id == user]
      sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
      for i in sid:
      fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]
      # len(fdf) can be user given value
      if len(fdf) > 3:
      for i in range(0, len(fdf)):
      g = (fdf.iloc[i:i + 3])
      if len(g) >= 3:
      x = (g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values).astype("timedelta64[s]")
      if x[0].astype(int) < 600:
      final_df = final_df.append(g)

      e_time = time.time() - s_time
      # final_df.drop_duplicates(keep="first").to_csv("C:\Users\rahul.khanna\Desktop\user_stamping_records_frauds.csv", index=False)
      final_df.drop_duplicates(keep="first").to_csv(csv_export_path, index=False)

      print("Total Time taken is: " + str(e_time / 60) + " minutes.")

      if __name__ == '__main__':
      insert_data("C:\Users\hitman\Desktop\user_stamping_records_import.csv", "C:\Users\hitman\Desktop\user_stamping_records_frauds.csv")


      I have converted the df to dictionary for a sample-



      34198: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34199: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34200: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34201: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34202: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34203: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34204: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34205: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34206: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34207: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34208: '2018-10-13 16:48:03'


      Before moving my script to production, I need your suggestion for any improvement in my code.



      Can anyone please have a look on my code and let me know any improvement in it?



      Let me know also if I forgot to include any required information here.










      share|improve this question















      I have a requirement to write a Python 3.6 script which should be able to detect following case within a time period and be able to create a text file report that lists the condition violated and transaction that caused the violation:




      • Redeeming over 3 time on same stamp card within 10 mins


      The required table in database for storing user and stamp card details has following structure-



      table structure



      Here the 'to_sate' column with values 2,3 and 4 means a card is redeemed.



      Now, I have written following script to fulfill above requirement and it is working as expected. In my local environment it is taking 2.7 minutes to complete the process for 36000 records-



      def insert_data(csv_import_path, csv_export_path):
      import time
      from multiprocessing import Pool
      import multiprocessing
      import pandas as pd
      import pymysql
      # Connect to the database
      engine = pymysql.connect(host='localhost',
      user='admin',
      password='MY_PASSWORD',
      db='MY_DB',
      charset='utf8mb4',
      cursorclass=pymysql.cursors.DictCursor)
      df = pd.read_sql(
      "SELECT stamps_record_id, user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time, merchant_id, merchant_store_id FROM rmsdb.user_stamping_records where to_state in (2,3,4) order by stamp_card_id",
      engine)
      df.to_csv(csv_import_path)
      df = pd.read_csv(csv_import_path, index_col=["stamps_record_id"])
      unique_users = df.user_id.unique()
      df["stamp_time"] = pd.to_datetime(df["stamp_time"])
      num_processes = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
      s_time = time.time()
      with Pool(num_processes) as p:
      final_df = pd.DataFrame()
      for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
      user = unique_users[i]
      new_df = df[df.user_id == user]
      sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
      for i in sid:
      fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]
      # len(fdf) can be user given value
      if len(fdf) > 3:
      for i in range(0, len(fdf)):
      g = (fdf.iloc[i:i + 3])
      if len(g) >= 3:
      x = (g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values).astype("timedelta64[s]")
      if x[0].astype(int) < 600:
      final_df = final_df.append(g)

      e_time = time.time() - s_time
      # final_df.drop_duplicates(keep="first").to_csv("C:\Users\rahul.khanna\Desktop\user_stamping_records_frauds.csv", index=False)
      final_df.drop_duplicates(keep="first").to_csv(csv_export_path, index=False)

      print("Total Time taken is: " + str(e_time / 60) + " minutes.")

      if __name__ == '__main__':
      insert_data("C:\Users\hitman\Desktop\user_stamping_records_import.csv", "C:\Users\hitman\Desktop\user_stamping_records_frauds.csv")


      I have converted the df to dictionary for a sample-



      34198: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34199: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34200: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34201: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34202: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34203: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34204: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34205: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34206: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34207: '2018-10-13 16:48:03', 34208: '2018-10-13 16:48:03'


      Before moving my script to production, I need your suggestion for any improvement in my code.



      Can anyone please have a look on my code and let me know any improvement in it?



      Let me know also if I forgot to include any required information here.







      python performance python-3.x mysql pandas






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 2 at 19:03









      200_success

      127k15149412




      127k15149412










      asked Dec 2 at 15:08









      Hitman

      112




      112






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted











          1. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming "over 3 time" but what the code actually detects is 3 times or more. Which is right?



          2. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming:




            on same stamp card within 10 mins




            But what the code actually detects is redeeming:




            on same stamp card by the same user within 10 mins




            Which of these is right? It seems to me that the description in the post would be better, because otherwise someone could avoid detection by switching to a new user account after redeeming twice. (Maybe the software ensures that each stamp card is redeemable only by one user, but in that case why check the user at all?)




          3. The code assumes that the database will return records for each same stamp card id in increasing stamp time order, otherwise this won't work:



            g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values


            But the SQL query only orders them by stamp card id, not by stamp time. Perhaps it happens to be the case at the moment that records are added to the table in stamp time order. But it is a bad idea to depend on this, because a change to the way the database is updated could break this assumption. It would be more robust to be explicit and write:



            ORDER BY stamp_card_id, stamp_time



          4. Here's what I suspect is the main performance problem:



            for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
            user = unique_users[i]
            new_df = df[df.user_id == user]


            The expression df[df.user_id == user] looks innocent, but actually it has to loop over all the records in the dataframe twice: once to test user_id == user, and a second time to select the matching records. And this has to be done for every user. So if there are 36,000 records and (say) 10,000 unique users, then the user_id == user test gets run 360,000,000 times!



            Instead of iterating over the unique users and then finding the records for each user, use Panda's groupby method to efficiently group the records by user.



            But looking at my point §2 above, is this step really necessary? Perhaps what we really need to do is to ignore the users altogether and go straight to the stamp card ids.




          5. The same anti-pattern occurs in the stamp card processing code:



            sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
            for i in sid:
            fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]


            This needs to become:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['stamp_card_id']):


            If you really do care about the users as well as the stamp cards, then you should order the query results by both:



            ORDER BY user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time


            and group by both:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['user_id', 'stamp_card_id']):



          6. The code creates a multiprocessing pool, but does not use it! You have to call the pool's methods, for example multiprocessing.Pool.apply, to take advantage of the pool—it doesn't work by magic.



            But actually I suspect that there's no need to use multiprocessing here. Once you have eliminated the quadratic runtime behaviour as discussed above, then it should run in an acceptable amount of time in a single process.








          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks for reviewing my code! Since a stamp card can be redeemed by many users therefore I included the user also.
            – Hitman
            Dec 3 at 5:44











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          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: "196"
          };
          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',
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          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%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f208881%2fmy-python-3-6-script-to-detect-stamp-card-redeem-fraud-and-prepare-a-csv-report%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted











          1. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming "over 3 time" but what the code actually detects is 3 times or more. Which is right?



          2. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming:




            on same stamp card within 10 mins




            But what the code actually detects is redeeming:




            on same stamp card by the same user within 10 mins




            Which of these is right? It seems to me that the description in the post would be better, because otherwise someone could avoid detection by switching to a new user account after redeeming twice. (Maybe the software ensures that each stamp card is redeemable only by one user, but in that case why check the user at all?)




          3. The code assumes that the database will return records for each same stamp card id in increasing stamp time order, otherwise this won't work:



            g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values


            But the SQL query only orders them by stamp card id, not by stamp time. Perhaps it happens to be the case at the moment that records are added to the table in stamp time order. But it is a bad idea to depend on this, because a change to the way the database is updated could break this assumption. It would be more robust to be explicit and write:



            ORDER BY stamp_card_id, stamp_time



          4. Here's what I suspect is the main performance problem:



            for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
            user = unique_users[i]
            new_df = df[df.user_id == user]


            The expression df[df.user_id == user] looks innocent, but actually it has to loop over all the records in the dataframe twice: once to test user_id == user, and a second time to select the matching records. And this has to be done for every user. So if there are 36,000 records and (say) 10,000 unique users, then the user_id == user test gets run 360,000,000 times!



            Instead of iterating over the unique users and then finding the records for each user, use Panda's groupby method to efficiently group the records by user.



            But looking at my point §2 above, is this step really necessary? Perhaps what we really need to do is to ignore the users altogether and go straight to the stamp card ids.




          5. The same anti-pattern occurs in the stamp card processing code:



            sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
            for i in sid:
            fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]


            This needs to become:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['stamp_card_id']):


            If you really do care about the users as well as the stamp cards, then you should order the query results by both:



            ORDER BY user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time


            and group by both:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['user_id', 'stamp_card_id']):



          6. The code creates a multiprocessing pool, but does not use it! You have to call the pool's methods, for example multiprocessing.Pool.apply, to take advantage of the pool—it doesn't work by magic.



            But actually I suspect that there's no need to use multiprocessing here. Once you have eliminated the quadratic runtime behaviour as discussed above, then it should run in an acceptable amount of time in a single process.








          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks for reviewing my code! Since a stamp card can be redeemed by many users therefore I included the user also.
            – Hitman
            Dec 3 at 5:44















          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted











          1. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming "over 3 time" but what the code actually detects is 3 times or more. Which is right?



          2. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming:




            on same stamp card within 10 mins




            But what the code actually detects is redeeming:




            on same stamp card by the same user within 10 mins




            Which of these is right? It seems to me that the description in the post would be better, because otherwise someone could avoid detection by switching to a new user account after redeeming twice. (Maybe the software ensures that each stamp card is redeemable only by one user, but in that case why check the user at all?)




          3. The code assumes that the database will return records for each same stamp card id in increasing stamp time order, otherwise this won't work:



            g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values


            But the SQL query only orders them by stamp card id, not by stamp time. Perhaps it happens to be the case at the moment that records are added to the table in stamp time order. But it is a bad idea to depend on this, because a change to the way the database is updated could break this assumption. It would be more robust to be explicit and write:



            ORDER BY stamp_card_id, stamp_time



          4. Here's what I suspect is the main performance problem:



            for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
            user = unique_users[i]
            new_df = df[df.user_id == user]


            The expression df[df.user_id == user] looks innocent, but actually it has to loop over all the records in the dataframe twice: once to test user_id == user, and a second time to select the matching records. And this has to be done for every user. So if there are 36,000 records and (say) 10,000 unique users, then the user_id == user test gets run 360,000,000 times!



            Instead of iterating over the unique users and then finding the records for each user, use Panda's groupby method to efficiently group the records by user.



            But looking at my point §2 above, is this step really necessary? Perhaps what we really need to do is to ignore the users altogether and go straight to the stamp card ids.




          5. The same anti-pattern occurs in the stamp card processing code:



            sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
            for i in sid:
            fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]


            This needs to become:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['stamp_card_id']):


            If you really do care about the users as well as the stamp cards, then you should order the query results by both:



            ORDER BY user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time


            and group by both:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['user_id', 'stamp_card_id']):



          6. The code creates a multiprocessing pool, but does not use it! You have to call the pool's methods, for example multiprocessing.Pool.apply, to take advantage of the pool—it doesn't work by magic.



            But actually I suspect that there's no need to use multiprocessing here. Once you have eliminated the quadratic runtime behaviour as discussed above, then it should run in an acceptable amount of time in a single process.








          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks for reviewing my code! Since a stamp card can be redeemed by many users therefore I included the user also.
            – Hitman
            Dec 3 at 5:44













          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted







          1. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming "over 3 time" but what the code actually detects is 3 times or more. Which is right?



          2. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming:




            on same stamp card within 10 mins




            But what the code actually detects is redeeming:




            on same stamp card by the same user within 10 mins




            Which of these is right? It seems to me that the description in the post would be better, because otherwise someone could avoid detection by switching to a new user account after redeeming twice. (Maybe the software ensures that each stamp card is redeemable only by one user, but in that case why check the user at all?)




          3. The code assumes that the database will return records for each same stamp card id in increasing stamp time order, otherwise this won't work:



            g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values


            But the SQL query only orders them by stamp card id, not by stamp time. Perhaps it happens to be the case at the moment that records are added to the table in stamp time order. But it is a bad idea to depend on this, because a change to the way the database is updated could break this assumption. It would be more robust to be explicit and write:



            ORDER BY stamp_card_id, stamp_time



          4. Here's what I suspect is the main performance problem:



            for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
            user = unique_users[i]
            new_df = df[df.user_id == user]


            The expression df[df.user_id == user] looks innocent, but actually it has to loop over all the records in the dataframe twice: once to test user_id == user, and a second time to select the matching records. And this has to be done for every user. So if there are 36,000 records and (say) 10,000 unique users, then the user_id == user test gets run 360,000,000 times!



            Instead of iterating over the unique users and then finding the records for each user, use Panda's groupby method to efficiently group the records by user.



            But looking at my point §2 above, is this step really necessary? Perhaps what we really need to do is to ignore the users altogether and go straight to the stamp card ids.




          5. The same anti-pattern occurs in the stamp card processing code:



            sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
            for i in sid:
            fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]


            This needs to become:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['stamp_card_id']):


            If you really do care about the users as well as the stamp cards, then you should order the query results by both:



            ORDER BY user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time


            and group by both:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['user_id', 'stamp_card_id']):



          6. The code creates a multiprocessing pool, but does not use it! You have to call the pool's methods, for example multiprocessing.Pool.apply, to take advantage of the pool—it doesn't work by magic.



            But actually I suspect that there's no need to use multiprocessing here. Once you have eliminated the quadratic runtime behaviour as discussed above, then it should run in an acceptable amount of time in a single process.








          share|improve this answer















          1. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming "over 3 time" but what the code actually detects is 3 times or more. Which is right?



          2. The description of the problem in the post says that the case to be detected is redeeming:




            on same stamp card within 10 mins




            But what the code actually detects is redeeming:




            on same stamp card by the same user within 10 mins




            Which of these is right? It seems to me that the description in the post would be better, because otherwise someone could avoid detection by switching to a new user account after redeeming twice. (Maybe the software ensures that each stamp card is redeemable only by one user, but in that case why check the user at all?)




          3. The code assumes that the database will return records for each same stamp card id in increasing stamp time order, otherwise this won't work:



            g.tail(1).stamp_time.values - g.head(1).stamp_time.values


            But the SQL query only orders them by stamp card id, not by stamp time. Perhaps it happens to be the case at the moment that records are added to the table in stamp time order. But it is a bad idea to depend on this, because a change to the way the database is updated could break this assumption. It would be more robust to be explicit and write:



            ORDER BY stamp_card_id, stamp_time



          4. Here's what I suspect is the main performance problem:



            for i in range(0, len(unique_users)):
            user = unique_users[i]
            new_df = df[df.user_id == user]


            The expression df[df.user_id == user] looks innocent, but actually it has to loop over all the records in the dataframe twice: once to test user_id == user, and a second time to select the matching records. And this has to be done for every user. So if there are 36,000 records and (say) 10,000 unique users, then the user_id == user test gets run 360,000,000 times!



            Instead of iterating over the unique users and then finding the records for each user, use Panda's groupby method to efficiently group the records by user.



            But looking at my point §2 above, is this step really necessary? Perhaps what we really need to do is to ignore the users altogether and go straight to the stamp card ids.




          5. The same anti-pattern occurs in the stamp card processing code:



            sid = new_df.stamp_card_id.unique()
            for i in sid:
            fdf = new_df[new_df.stamp_card_id == i]


            This needs to become:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['stamp_card_id']):


            If you really do care about the users as well as the stamp cards, then you should order the query results by both:



            ORDER BY user_id, stamp_card_id, stamp_time


            and group by both:



            for fdf in df.groupby(['user_id', 'stamp_card_id']):



          6. The code creates a multiprocessing pool, but does not use it! You have to call the pool's methods, for example multiprocessing.Pool.apply, to take advantage of the pool—it doesn't work by magic.



            But actually I suspect that there's no need to use multiprocessing here. Once you have eliminated the quadratic runtime behaviour as discussed above, then it should run in an acceptable amount of time in a single process.









          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Dec 2 at 19:28

























          answered Dec 2 at 16:46









          Gareth Rees

          44.8k3100181




          44.8k3100181












          • Thanks for reviewing my code! Since a stamp card can be redeemed by many users therefore I included the user also.
            – Hitman
            Dec 3 at 5:44


















          • Thanks for reviewing my code! Since a stamp card can be redeemed by many users therefore I included the user also.
            – Hitman
            Dec 3 at 5:44
















          Thanks for reviewing my code! Since a stamp card can be redeemed by many users therefore I included the user also.
          – Hitman
          Dec 3 at 5:44




          Thanks for reviewing my code! Since a stamp card can be redeemed by many users therefore I included the user also.
          – Hitman
          Dec 3 at 5:44


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


          • 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.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          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%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f208881%2fmy-python-3-6-script-to-detect-stamp-card-redeem-fraud-and-prepare-a-csv-report%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

          Список кардиналов, возведённых папой римским Каликстом III

          Deduzione

          Mysql.sock missing - “Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket”