ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Create a Pandas Dataframe by appending one row at a time

How do I create an empty DataFrame, then add rows, one by one?

I created an empty DataFrame:

df = pd.DataFrame(columns=('lib', 'qty1', 'qty2'))

Then I can add a new row at the end and fill a single field with:

df = df._set_value(index=len(df), col='qty1', value=10.0)

It works for only one field at a time. What is a better way to add new row to df?

Note this is a very inefficient way to build a large DataFrame; new arrays have to be created (copying over the existing data) when you append a row.
@WesMcKinney: Thx, that's really good to know. Is it very fast to add columns to huge tables?
If it is too inefficient for you, you may preallocate an additional row and then update it.
Hey you... yes, you... I see what you're up to... you want to run this inside a loop and iteratively add rows to an empty DataFrame, don't you... well, don't!
I might understand this can be in general wrong but, what about real-time processing? So say I have some data that comes in every second and I have a thread that just wants to fill a dataframe and have another even-based thread that goes and look at the dataframe? I find this use case valid and where that solution is applicable to

f
fred

You can use df.loc[i], where the row with index i will be what you specify it to be in the dataframe.

>>> import pandas as pd
>>> from numpy.random import randint

>>> df = pd.DataFrame(columns=['lib', 'qty1', 'qty2'])
>>> for i in range(5):
>>>     df.loc[i] = ['name' + str(i)] + list(randint(10, size=2))

>>> df
     lib qty1 qty2
0  name0    3    3
1  name1    2    4
2  name2    2    8
3  name3    2    1
4  name4    9    6

Consider adding the index to preallocate memory (see my answer)
.loc is referencing the index column, so if you're working with a pre-existing DataFrame with an index that isn't a continous sequence of integers starting with 0 (as in your example), .loc will overwrite existing rows, or insert rows, or create gaps in your index. A more robust (but not fool-proof) approach for appending an existing nonzero-length dataframe would be: df.loc[df.index.max() + 1] = [randint(... or prepopulating the index as @FooBar suggested.
@hobs df.index.max() is nan when the DataFrame is empty.
@flow2k good catch! Only solution I can think of is a try accept (on the first row insertion only) with a pd.DataFrame() constructor call. Do you know any better ways?
@hobs One solution I thought of is using the ternary operator: df.loc[0 if pd.isnull(df.index.max()) else df.index.max() + 1]
S
SergiyKolesnikov

In case you can get all data for the data frame upfront, there is a much faster approach than appending to a data frame:

Create a list of dictionaries in which each dictionary corresponds to an input data row. Create a data frame from this list.

I had a similar task for which appending to a data frame row by row took 30 min, and creating a data frame from a list of dictionaries completed within seconds.

rows_list = []
for row in input_rows:

        dict1 = {}
        # get input row in dictionary format
        # key = col_name
        dict1.update(blah..) 

        rows_list.append(dict1)

df = pd.DataFrame(rows_list)               

I've moved to doing this as well for any situation where I can't get all the data up front. The speed difference is astonishing.
Copying from pandas docs: It is worth noting however, that concat (and therefore append) makes a full copy of the data, and that constantly reusing this function can create a significant performance hit. If you need to use the operation over several datasets, use a list comprehension. (pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/…)
This works great! Except when I created the data frame, the columns names were all in the wrong order...
@user5359531 You can use ordered dict in that case
@user5359531 You can manually specify the columns and the order will be preserved. pd.DataFrame(rows_list, columns=['C1', 'C2','C3']) will do the trick
P
Peter Mortensen

In the case of adding a lot of rows to dataframe, I am interested in performance. So I tried the four most popular methods and checked their speed.

Performance

Using .append (NPE's answer) Using .loc (fred's answer) Using .loc with preallocating (FooBar's answer) Using dict and create DataFrame in the end (ShikharDua's answer)

Runtime results (in seconds):

Approach 1000 rows 5000 rows 10 000 rows .append 0.69 3.39 6.78 .loc without prealloc 0.74 3.90 8.35 .loc with prealloc 0.24 2.58 8.70 dict 0.012 0.046 0.084

So I use addition through the dictionary for myself.

Code:

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import time

del df1, df2, df3, df4
numOfRows = 1000
# append
startTime = time.perf_counter()
df1 = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(100, size=(5,5)), columns=['A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E'])
for i in range( 1,numOfRows-4):
    df1 = df1.append( dict( (a,np.random.randint(100)) for a in ['A','B','C','D','E']), ignore_index=True)
print('Elapsed time: {:6.3f} seconds for {:d} rows'.format(time.perf_counter() - startTime, numOfRows))
print(df1.shape)

# .loc w/o prealloc
startTime = time.perf_counter()
df2 = pd.DataFrame(np.random.randint(100, size=(5,5)), columns=['A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E'])
for i in range( 1,numOfRows):
    df2.loc[i]  = np.random.randint(100, size=(1,5))[0]
print('Elapsed time: {:6.3f} seconds for {:d} rows'.format(time.perf_counter() - startTime, numOfRows))
print(df2.shape)

# .loc with prealloc
df3 = pd.DataFrame(index=np.arange(0, numOfRows), columns=['A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E'] )
startTime = time.perf_counter()
for i in range( 1,numOfRows):
    df3.loc[i]  = np.random.randint(100, size=(1,5))[0]
print('Elapsed time: {:6.3f} seconds for {:d} rows'.format(time.perf_counter() - startTime, numOfRows))
print(df3.shape)

# dict
startTime = time.perf_counter()
row_list = []
for i in range (0,5):
    row_list.append(dict( (a,np.random.randint(100)) for a in ['A','B','C','D','E']))
for i in range( 1,numOfRows-4):
    dict1 = dict( (a,np.random.randint(100)) for a in ['A','B','C','D','E'])
    row_list.append(dict1)

df4 = pd.DataFrame(row_list, columns=['A','B','C','D','E'])
print('Elapsed time: {:6.3f} seconds for {:d} rows'.format(time.perf_counter() - startTime, numOfRows))
print(df4.shape)

P.S.: I believe my realization isn't perfect, and maybe there is some optimization that could be done.


The use of df2.index.max() for .loc needlessly increases computational complexity. Simple df2.loc[i] = ... would do. For me it reduced the time from 10s to 8.64s
Please remove my name from the list, since you're not following my approach in your test: You're not preallocating the memory by providing an index of suitable size.
@FooBar Hi! I'm glad you as the author saw my answer :) you are right, I missed this important point. I prefer to add one more row for my result table as your approach show the different result!
@Mikhail_Sam For the last, dict approach, what's the rationale behind using two loops, for i in range (0,5): and for i in range( 1,numOfRows-4):?
Just wanted to throw out another comment as to why the Dict to Pandas DataFrame is a better way. In my experimentation with a dataset that has multiple different data types in the table, using the Pandas append methods destroy the typing, whereas using a Dict, and only creating the DataFrame from it ONCE, seems to keep the original datatypes intact.
M
Michael WS

You could use pandas.concat() or DataFrame.append(). For details and examples, see Merge, join, and concatenate.


Hi, so what is the answer for the methods using append() or concat(). I have the same problem, but still trying to figuring it out.
This is the right answer, but it isn't a very good answer (almost link only).
I think @fred's answer is more correct. IIUC the problem with this answer is that it needlessly copies the entire DataFrame every time a row is appended. Using the .loc mechanism that can be avoided, especially if you're careful.
But if you want to use DataFrame.append(), you have to make sure your row data is also a DataFrame in the first place, not a list.
DataFrame.append() is deprecated since version 1.4.0, use only pandas.concat() in future like pandas.concat([DF1, DF2])
c
cs95

NEVER grow a DataFrame!

Yes, people have already explained that you should NEVER grow a DataFrame, and that you should append your data to a list and convert it to a DataFrame once at the end. But do you understand why?

Here are the most important reasons, taken from my post here.

It is always cheaper/faster to append to a list and create a DataFrame in one go. Lists take up less memory and are a much lighter data structure to work with, append, and remove. dtypes are automatically inferred for your data. On the flip side, creating an empty frame of NaNs will automatically make them object, which is bad. An index is automatically created for you, instead of you having to take care to assign the correct index to the row you are appending.

This is The Right Way™ to accumulate your data

data = []
for a, b, c in some_function_that_yields_data():
    data.append([a, b, c])

df = pd.DataFrame(data, columns=['A', 'B', 'C'])

These options are horrible

append or concat inside a loop append and concat aren't inherently bad in isolation. The problem starts when you iteratively call them inside a loop - this results in quadratic memory usage. # Creates empty DataFrame and appends df = pd.DataFrame(columns=['A', 'B', 'C']) for a, b, c in some_function_that_yields_data(): df = df.append({'A': i, 'B': b, 'C': c}, ignore_index=True) # This is equally bad: # df = pd.concat( # [df, pd.Series({'A': i, 'B': b, 'C': c})], # ignore_index=True) Empty DataFrame of NaNs Never create a DataFrame of NaNs as the columns are initialized with object (slow, un-vectorizable dtype). # Creates DataFrame of NaNs and overwrites values. df = pd.DataFrame(columns=['A', 'B', 'C'], index=range(5)) for a, b, c in some_function_that_yields_data(): df.loc[len(df)] = [a, b, c]

The Proof is in the Pudding

Timing these methods is the fastest way to see just how much they differ in terms of their memory and utility.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/sGIV6.png

Benchmarking code for reference.

It's posts like this that remind me why I'm a part of this community. People understand the importance of teaching folks getting the right answer with the right code, not the right answer with wrong code. Now you might argue that it is not an issue to use loc or append if you're only adding a single row to your DataFrame. However, people often look to this question to add more than just one row - often the requirement is to iteratively add a row inside a loop using data that comes from a function (see related question). In that case it is important to understand that iteratively growing a DataFrame is not a good idea.


Fair enough. Are there any solution in case you need (or would like) a dataframe, but all your samples really do come one after the other? (Typically online learning or active learning)
This doesn't factor in the case where one needs the dataframe after every append(). In that case, the dataframe gets copied anyway, so the df.loc method is faster
@DevAggarwal incorrect, loc also creates a copy each time. Please see the graph timings in my answer. Append and loc_append are equally bad. I've also shared my code and process so you're free to convince yourself.
Aplogies should have been clearer. Kindly create the dataframe from intermediate list inside the for loop, here -- gist.github.com/Coldsp33d/…
Has anyone benchmarked what @DevAggarwal suggests? I often get to that case
F
FooBar

If you know the number of entries ex ante, you should preallocate the space by also providing the index (taking the data example from a different answer):

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
# we know we're gonna have 5 rows of data
numberOfRows = 5
# create dataframe
df = pd.DataFrame(index=np.arange(0, numberOfRows), columns=('lib', 'qty1', 'qty2') )

# now fill it up row by row
for x in np.arange(0, numberOfRows):
    #loc or iloc both work here since the index is natural numbers
    df.loc[x] = [np.random.randint(-1,1) for n in range(3)]
In[23]: df
Out[23]: 
   lib  qty1  qty2
0   -1    -1    -1
1    0     0     0
2   -1     0    -1
3    0    -1     0
4   -1     0     0

Speed comparison

In[30]: %timeit tryThis() # function wrapper for this answer
In[31]: %timeit tryOther() # function wrapper without index (see, for example, @fred)
1000 loops, best of 3: 1.23 ms per loop
100 loops, best of 3: 2.31 ms per loop

And - as from the comments - with a size of 6000, the speed difference becomes even larger:

Increasing the size of the array (12) and the number of rows (500) makes the speed difference more striking: 313ms vs 2.29s


Great answer. This should be the norm so that row space doesn't have to allocated incrementally.
Increasing the size of the array(12) and the number of rows(500) makes the speed difference more striking: 313ms vs 2.29s
L
Lydia
mycolumns = ['A', 'B']
df = pd.DataFrame(columns=mycolumns)
rows = [[1,2],[3,4],[5,6]]
for row in rows:
    df.loc[len(df)] = row

This! I've been searching for quite a while, and this is the first post that really shows how to assign particular values to a row! Bonus question: Which is the syntax for column-name/value pairs? I guess it must be something using a dict, but I can't seem to get it right.
this is not efficient as it actually copies the entire DataFrame when you extend it.
consider doing len(df.index) instead.
W
W.P. McNeill

You can append a single row as a dictionary using the ignore_index option.

>>> f = pandas.DataFrame(data = {'Animal':['cow','horse'], 'Color':['blue', 'red']})
>>> f
  Animal Color
0    cow  blue
1  horse   red
>>> f.append({'Animal':'mouse', 'Color':'black'}, ignore_index=True)
  Animal  Color
0    cow   blue
1  horse    red
2  mouse  black

You might also mention that f.append(<stuff>) creates a new object, rather than simply appending to the current object in place, so if you're trying to append to a dataframe in a script, you need to say f = f.append(<stuff>)
is there a way to do this in place?
@lol no. see github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/issues/2801 - the underlying arrays can't be extended so they have to be copied.
I prefer this method because it is very SQL-like (not dependent on indices semantically) and I use it whenever possible.
P
Peter Mortensen

For efficient appending, see How to add an extra row to a pandas dataframe and Setting With Enlargement.

Add rows through loc/ix on non existing key index data. For example:

In [1]: se = pd.Series([1,2,3])

In [2]: se
Out[2]:
0    1
1    2
2    3
dtype: int64

In [3]: se[5] = 5.

In [4]: se
Out[4]:
0    1.0
1    2.0
2    3.0
5    5.0
dtype: float64

Or:

In [1]: dfi = pd.DataFrame(np.arange(6).reshape(3,2),
   .....:                 columns=['A','B'])
   .....:

In [2]: dfi
Out[2]:
   A  B
0  0  1
1  2  3
2  4  5

In [3]: dfi.loc[:,'C'] = dfi.loc[:,'A']

In [4]: dfi
Out[4]:
   A  B  C
0  0  1  0
1  2  3  2
2  4  5  4
In [5]: dfi.loc[3] = 5

In [6]: dfi
Out[6]:
   A  B  C
0  0  1  0
1  2  3  2
2  4  5  4
3  5  5  5

The users asked for implement (add a new row). Here we see how to add a row in a defined index or add a column.
any benchmarks on how this works out compared to the dict method
this is not efficient as it actually copies the entire DataFrame.
P
Peter Mortensen

For the sake of a Pythonic way:

res = pd.DataFrame(columns=('lib', 'qty1', 'qty2'))
res = res.append([{'qty1':10.0}], ignore_index=True)
print(res.head())

   lib  qty1  qty2
0  NaN  10.0   NaN

B
Brian Burns

You can also build up a list of lists and convert it to a dataframe -

import pandas as pd

columns = ['i','double','square']
rows = []

for i in range(6):
    row = [i, i*2, i*i]
    rows.append(row)

df = pd.DataFrame(rows, columns=columns)

giving

i   double  square
0   0   0   0
1   1   2   1
2   2   4   4
3   3   6   9
4   4   8   16
5   5   10  25

P
Peter Mortensen

I figured out a simple and nice way:

>>> df
     A  B  C
one  1  2  3
>>> df.loc["two"] = [4,5,6]
>>> df
     A  B  C
one  1  2  3
two  4  5  6

Note the caveat with performance as noted in the comments.


Note that this will copy the entire DataFrame under the hood. The underlying arrays can't be extended so they have to be copied.
P
Peter Mortensen

If you always want to add a new row at the end, use this:

df.loc[len(df)] = ['name5', 9, 0]

This presumes that the index of the dataframe is numbered AND that it is perfectly sequential. Using df.reset_index() could resolve this, but as it stands it may actually overwrite an existing row.
P
Peter Mortensen

This is not an answer to the OP question, but a toy example to illustrate ShikharDua's answer which I found very useful.

While this fragment is trivial, in the actual data I had 1,000s of rows, and many columns, and I wished to be able to group by different columns and then perform the statistics below for more than one target column. So having a reliable method for building the data frame one row at a time was a great convenience. Thank you ShikharDua!

import pandas as pd

BaseData = pd.DataFrame({ 'Customer' : ['Acme','Mega','Acme','Acme','Mega','Acme'],
                          'Territory'  : ['West','East','South','West','East','South'],
                          'Product'  : ['Econ','Luxe','Econ','Std','Std','Econ']})
BaseData

columns = ['Customer','Num Unique Products', 'List Unique Products']

rows_list=[]
for name, group in BaseData.groupby('Customer'):
    RecordtoAdd={} #initialise an empty dict
    RecordtoAdd.update({'Customer' : name}) #
    RecordtoAdd.update({'Num Unique Products' : len(pd.unique(group['Product']))})
    RecordtoAdd.update({'List Unique Products' : pd.unique(group['Product'])})

    rows_list.append(RecordtoAdd)

AnalysedData = pd.DataFrame(rows_list)

print('Base Data : \n',BaseData,'\n\n Analysed Data : \n',AnalysedData)

P
Peter Mortensen

You can use a generator object to create a Dataframe, which will be more memory efficient over the list.

num = 10

# Generator function to generate generator object
def numgen_func(num):
    for i in range(num):
        yield ('name_{}'.format(i), (i*i), (i*i*i))

# Generator expression to generate generator object (Only once data get populated, can not be re used)
numgen_expression = (('name_{}'.format(i), (i*i), (i*i*i)) for i in range(num) )

df = pd.DataFrame(data=numgen_func(num), columns=('lib', 'qty1', 'qty2'))

To add raw to existing DataFrame you can use append method.

df = df.append([{ 'lib': "name_20", 'qty1': 20, 'qty2': 400  }])

P
Peter Mortensen

Create a new record (data frame) and add to old_data_frame.

Pass a list of values and the corresponding column names to create a new_record (data_frame):

new_record = pd.DataFrame([[0, 'abcd', 0, 1, 123]], columns=['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'])

old_data_frame = pd.concat([old_data_frame, new_record])

P
Peter Mortensen

Instead of a list of dictionaries as in ShikharDua's answer, we can also represent our table as a dictionary of lists, where each list stores one column in row-order, given we know our columns beforehand. At the end we construct our DataFrame once.

For c columns and n rows, this uses one dictionary and c lists, versus one list and n dictionaries. The list-of-dictionaries method has each dictionary storing all keys and requires creating a new dictionary for every row. Here we only append to lists, which is constant time and theoretically very fast.

# Current data
data = {"Animal":["cow", "horse"], "Color":["blue", "red"]}

# Adding a new row (be careful to ensure every column gets another value)
data["Animal"].append("mouse")
data["Color"].append("black")

# At the end, construct our DataFrame
df = pd.DataFrame(data)
#   Animal  Color
# 0    cow   blue
# 1  horse    red
# 2  mouse  black

P
Peter Mortensen

Here is the way to add/append a row in a Pandas DataFrame:

def add_row(df, row):
    df.loc[-1] = row
    df.index = df.index + 1
    return df.sort_index()

add_row(df, [1,2,3])

It can be used to insert/append a row in an empty or populated Pandas DataFrame.


this is adding with index in descending order
P
Peter Mortensen

If you want to add a row at the end, append it as a list:

valuestoappend = [va1, val2, val3]
res = res.append(pd.Series(valuestoappend, index = ['lib', 'qty1', 'qty2']), ignore_index = True)

q
qed

Another way to do it (probably not very performant):

# add a row
def add_row(df, row):
    colnames = list(df.columns)
    ncol = len(colnames)
    assert ncol == len(row), "Length of row must be the same as width of DataFrame: %s" % row
    return df.append(pd.DataFrame([row], columns=colnames))

You can also enhance the DataFrame class like this:

import pandas as pd
def add_row(self, row):
    self.loc[len(self.index)] = row
pd.DataFrame.add_row = add_row

G
Giorgos Myrianthous

All you need is loc[df.shape[0]] or loc[len(df)]

# Assuming your df has 4 columns (str, int, str, bool)
df.loc[df.shape[0]] = ['col1Value', 100, 'col3Value', False] 

or

df.loc[len(df)] = ['col1Value', 100, 'col3Value', False] 

P
Peter Mortensen
initial_data = {'lib': np.array([1,2,3,4]), 'qty1': [1,2,3,4], 'qty2': [1,2,3,4]}

df = pd.DataFrame(initial_data)

df

lib    qty1    qty2
0    1    1    1
1    2    2    2
2    3    3    3
3    4    4    4

val_1 = [10]
val_2 = [14]
val_3 = [20]

df.append(pd.DataFrame({'lib': val_1, 'qty1': val_2, 'qty2': val_3}))

lib    qty1    qty2
0    1    1    1
1    2    2    2
2    3    3    3
3    4    4    4
0    10    14    20

You can use a for loop to iterate through values or can add arrays of values.

val_1 = [10, 11, 12, 13]
val_2 = [14, 15, 16, 17]
val_3 = [20, 21, 22, 43]

df.append(pd.DataFrame({'lib': val_1, 'qty1': val_2, 'qty2': val_3}))

lib    qty1    qty2
0    1    1    1
1    2    2    2
2    3    3    3
3    4    4    4
0    10    14    20
1    11    15    21
2    12    16    22
3    13    17    43

An explanation for the first part would be in order. And why isn't there a "for" loop in the example code when it is talked about? Can you make it more clear? Please respond by editing your answer, not here in comments (without "Edit:", "Update:", or similar - the answer should appear as if it was written today).
P
Peter Mortensen

You can concatenate two DataFrames for this. I basically came across this problem to add a new row to an existing DataFrame with a character index (not numeric).

So, I input the data for a new row in a duct() and index in a list.

new_dict = {put input for new row here}
new_list = [put your index here]

new_df = pd.DataFrame(data=new_dict, index=new_list)

df = pd.concat([existing_df, new_df])

this is literally what I need
P
Peter Mortensen

Make it simple. By taking a list as input which will be appended as a row in the data-frame:

import pandas as pd
res = pd.DataFrame(columns=('lib', 'qty1', 'qty2'))
for i in range(5):
    res_list = list(map(int, input().split()))
    res = res.append(pd.Series(res_list, index=['lib', 'qty1', 'qty2']), ignore_index=True)

P
Peter Mortensen

pandas.DataFrame.append

DataFrame.append(self, other, ignore_index=False, verify_integrity=False, sort=False) → 'DataFrame'

Code

df = pd.DataFrame([[1, 2], [3, 4]], columns=list('AB'))
df2 = pd.DataFrame([[5, 6], [7, 8]], columns=list('AB'))
df.append(df2)

With ignore_index set to True:

df.append(df2, ignore_index=True)

It is not clear why the first two lines are not literal code. Brevity is good, but can you elaborate in your answer, e.g. by adding some supporting text? But without "Edit:", "Update:", or similar - the answer should appear as if it was written today.
M
Mahdi

If you have a data frame df and want to add a list new_list as a new row to df, you can simply do:

df.loc[len(df)] = new_list

If you want to add a new data frame new_df under data frame df, then you can use:

df.append(new_df)

P
Peter Mortensen

We often see the construct df.loc[subscript] = … to assign to one DataFrame row. Mikhail_Sam posted benchmarks containing, among others, this construct as well as the method using dict and create DataFrame in the end. He found the latter to be the fastest by far.

But if we replace the df3.loc[i] = … (with preallocated DataFrame) in his code with df3.values[i] = …, the outcome changes significantly, in that that method performs similar to the one using dict. So we should more often take the use of df.values[subscript] = … into consideration. However note that .values takes a zero-based subscript, which may be different from the DataFrame.index.


@baxx - One code example is at the benchmarks link (# .loc with prealloc), another example is in the question I have to compare data from each row of a Pandas DataFrame with data from the rest of the rows, is there a way to speed up the computation? and its accepted answer.
P
Peter Mortensen

Before going to add a row, we have to convert the dataframe to a dictionary. There you can see the keys as columns in the dataframe and the values of the columns are again stored in the dictionary, but there the key for every column is the index number in the dataframe.

That idea makes me to write the below code.

df2 = df.to_dict()
values = ["s_101", "hyderabad", 10, 20, 16, 13, 15, 12, 12, 13, 25, 26, 25, 27, "good", "bad"] # This is the total row that we are going to add
i = 0
for x in df.columns:   # Here df.columns gives us the main dictionary key
    df2[x][101] = values[i]   # Here the 101 is our index number. It is also the key of the sub dictionary
    i += 1

P
Peter Mortensen

If all data in your Dataframe has the same dtype you might use a NumPy array. You can write rows directly into the predefined array and convert it to a dataframe at the end. It seems to be even faster than converting a list of dicts.

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from string import ascii_uppercase

startTime = time.perf_counter()
numcols, numrows = 5, 10000
npdf = np.ones((numrows, numcols))
for row in range(numrows):
    npdf[row, 0:] = np.random.randint(0, 100, (1, numcols))
df5 = pd.DataFrame(npdf, columns=list(ascii_uppercase[:numcols]))
print('Elapsed time: {:6.3f} seconds for {:d} rows'.format(time.perf_counter() - startTime, numOfRows))
print(df5.shape)

Re "It seems to be even faster": Can you quantify that (by editing (changing) your answer)? What order are we talking about? 10% faster? 100% faster? 10 times faster? 1,000,000 times faster? At what scale (it could quadratic/exponential)?
P
Peter Mortensen

This code snippet uses a list of dictionaries to update the data frame. It adds on to ShikharDua's and Mikhail_Sam's answers.

import pandas as pd
colour = ["red", "big", "tasty"]
fruits = ["apple", "banana", "cherry"]
dict1={}
feat_list=[]
for x in colour:
    for y in fruits:
#         print(x, y)
        dict1 = dict([('x',x),('y',y)])
#         print(f'dict 1 {dict1}')
        feat_list.append(dict1)
#         print(f'feat_list {feat_list}')
feat_df=pd.DataFrame(feat_list)
feat_df.to_csv('feat1.csv')