Is it possible to use apply function or vectorization on this code logic?












1















I am trying to calculate closing balance



Input dataframe:



    open   inOut    close
0 3 100 0
1 0 300 0
2 0 200 0
3 0 230 0
4 0 150 0


Output DataFrame



    open    inOut   close
0 3 100 103
1 103 300 403
2 403 200 603
3 603 230 833
4 833 150 983


I am able to achieve this using crude for-loop and to optimize it i have used iterrow()



For-Loop



%%timeit
for i in range(len(df.index)):
if i>0:
df.iloc[i]['open'] = df.iloc[i-1]['close']
df.iloc[i]['close'] = df.iloc[i]['open']+df.iloc[i]['inOut']
else:
df.iloc[i]['close'] = df.iloc[i]['open']+df.iloc[i]['inOut']

1.64 ms ± 51.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


iterrows



%%timeit
for index,row in dfOg.iterrows():
if index>0:
row['open'] = dfOg.iloc[index-1]['close']
row['close'] = row['open']+row['inOut']
else:
row['close'] = row['open']+row['inOut']

627 µs ± 28.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)



performance optimized from 1.64ms -> 627µs




As per this blog, I am struggling to figure out how to write the above logic using apply() and vectorization.

for vectorization, I tried shifting the columns but not able to achieve the desired output.










share|improve this question

























  • I'm sorry, I made a silly mistake in the closing balance logic

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:25











  • .apply is not vectorization

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:32











  • @juanpa.arrivillaga yes i agree, but as per the blog i mentioned, apply is faster than itterrows()

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:34











  • You should use itertuples and apply won't really be faster than that. Note, your iterrows version doesn't work, it doesn't modify the original data-frame

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:50













  • thanks, @juanpa.arrivillaga ill check the performance of itertuples as well.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:51
















1















I am trying to calculate closing balance



Input dataframe:



    open   inOut    close
0 3 100 0
1 0 300 0
2 0 200 0
3 0 230 0
4 0 150 0


Output DataFrame



    open    inOut   close
0 3 100 103
1 103 300 403
2 403 200 603
3 603 230 833
4 833 150 983


I am able to achieve this using crude for-loop and to optimize it i have used iterrow()



For-Loop



%%timeit
for i in range(len(df.index)):
if i>0:
df.iloc[i]['open'] = df.iloc[i-1]['close']
df.iloc[i]['close'] = df.iloc[i]['open']+df.iloc[i]['inOut']
else:
df.iloc[i]['close'] = df.iloc[i]['open']+df.iloc[i]['inOut']

1.64 ms ± 51.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


iterrows



%%timeit
for index,row in dfOg.iterrows():
if index>0:
row['open'] = dfOg.iloc[index-1]['close']
row['close'] = row['open']+row['inOut']
else:
row['close'] = row['open']+row['inOut']

627 µs ± 28.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)



performance optimized from 1.64ms -> 627µs




As per this blog, I am struggling to figure out how to write the above logic using apply() and vectorization.

for vectorization, I tried shifting the columns but not able to achieve the desired output.










share|improve this question

























  • I'm sorry, I made a silly mistake in the closing balance logic

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:25











  • .apply is not vectorization

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:32











  • @juanpa.arrivillaga yes i agree, but as per the blog i mentioned, apply is faster than itterrows()

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:34











  • You should use itertuples and apply won't really be faster than that. Note, your iterrows version doesn't work, it doesn't modify the original data-frame

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:50













  • thanks, @juanpa.arrivillaga ill check the performance of itertuples as well.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:51














1












1








1








I am trying to calculate closing balance



Input dataframe:



    open   inOut    close
0 3 100 0
1 0 300 0
2 0 200 0
3 0 230 0
4 0 150 0


Output DataFrame



    open    inOut   close
0 3 100 103
1 103 300 403
2 403 200 603
3 603 230 833
4 833 150 983


I am able to achieve this using crude for-loop and to optimize it i have used iterrow()



For-Loop



%%timeit
for i in range(len(df.index)):
if i>0:
df.iloc[i]['open'] = df.iloc[i-1]['close']
df.iloc[i]['close'] = df.iloc[i]['open']+df.iloc[i]['inOut']
else:
df.iloc[i]['close'] = df.iloc[i]['open']+df.iloc[i]['inOut']

1.64 ms ± 51.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


iterrows



%%timeit
for index,row in dfOg.iterrows():
if index>0:
row['open'] = dfOg.iloc[index-1]['close']
row['close'] = row['open']+row['inOut']
else:
row['close'] = row['open']+row['inOut']

627 µs ± 28.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)



performance optimized from 1.64ms -> 627µs




As per this blog, I am struggling to figure out how to write the above logic using apply() and vectorization.

for vectorization, I tried shifting the columns but not able to achieve the desired output.










share|improve this question
















I am trying to calculate closing balance



Input dataframe:



    open   inOut    close
0 3 100 0
1 0 300 0
2 0 200 0
3 0 230 0
4 0 150 0


Output DataFrame



    open    inOut   close
0 3 100 103
1 103 300 403
2 403 200 603
3 603 230 833
4 833 150 983


I am able to achieve this using crude for-loop and to optimize it i have used iterrow()



For-Loop



%%timeit
for i in range(len(df.index)):
if i>0:
df.iloc[i]['open'] = df.iloc[i-1]['close']
df.iloc[i]['close'] = df.iloc[i]['open']+df.iloc[i]['inOut']
else:
df.iloc[i]['close'] = df.iloc[i]['open']+df.iloc[i]['inOut']

1.64 ms ± 51.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


iterrows



%%timeit
for index,row in dfOg.iterrows():
if index>0:
row['open'] = dfOg.iloc[index-1]['close']
row['close'] = row['open']+row['inOut']
else:
row['close'] = row['open']+row['inOut']

627 µs ± 28.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)



performance optimized from 1.64ms -> 627µs




As per this blog, I am struggling to figure out how to write the above logic using apply() and vectorization.

for vectorization, I tried shifting the columns but not able to achieve the desired output.







python pandas numpy vectorization apply






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 27 '18 at 9:25







Mukesh Suthar

















asked Nov 27 '18 at 8:58









Mukesh SutharMukesh Suthar

327




327













  • I'm sorry, I made a silly mistake in the closing balance logic

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:25











  • .apply is not vectorization

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:32











  • @juanpa.arrivillaga yes i agree, but as per the blog i mentioned, apply is faster than itterrows()

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:34











  • You should use itertuples and apply won't really be faster than that. Note, your iterrows version doesn't work, it doesn't modify the original data-frame

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:50













  • thanks, @juanpa.arrivillaga ill check the performance of itertuples as well.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:51



















  • I'm sorry, I made a silly mistake in the closing balance logic

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:25











  • .apply is not vectorization

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:32











  • @juanpa.arrivillaga yes i agree, but as per the blog i mentioned, apply is faster than itterrows()

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:34











  • You should use itertuples and apply won't really be faster than that. Note, your iterrows version doesn't work, it doesn't modify the original data-frame

    – juanpa.arrivillaga
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:50













  • thanks, @juanpa.arrivillaga ill check the performance of itertuples as well.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:51

















I'm sorry, I made a silly mistake in the closing balance logic

– Mukesh Suthar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:25





I'm sorry, I made a silly mistake in the closing balance logic

– Mukesh Suthar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:25













.apply is not vectorization

– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 27 '18 at 9:32





.apply is not vectorization

– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 27 '18 at 9:32













@juanpa.arrivillaga yes i agree, but as per the blog i mentioned, apply is faster than itterrows()

– Mukesh Suthar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:34





@juanpa.arrivillaga yes i agree, but as per the blog i mentioned, apply is faster than itterrows()

– Mukesh Suthar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:34













You should use itertuples and apply won't really be faster than that. Note, your iterrows version doesn't work, it doesn't modify the original data-frame

– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 27 '18 at 9:50







You should use itertuples and apply won't really be faster than that. Note, your iterrows version doesn't work, it doesn't modify the original data-frame

– juanpa.arrivillaga
Nov 27 '18 at 9:50















thanks, @juanpa.arrivillaga ill check the performance of itertuples as well.

– Mukesh Suthar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:51





thanks, @juanpa.arrivillaga ill check the performance of itertuples as well.

– Mukesh Suthar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:51












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














Edit: I changed things around to match the edits OP made to the question



You can do what you want in a vectorized way without any loops like this:



import pandas as pd

d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)

df['close'].values[:] = df['open'].values[0] + df['inOut'].values.cumsum()
df['open'].values[1:] = df['close'].values[:-1]


Timing with %%timeit:



529 µs ± 5.39 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



   close  inOut  open
0 103 100 3
1 403 300 103
2 603 200 403
3 833 230 603
4 983 150 833


So vectorizing your code this way is indeed somewhat faster. In fact, it's probably about as fast as possible. You can see this by timing just the dataframe creation code:



%%timeit
d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)


Result:



367 µs ± 5.67 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Subtracting out the time it takes to create the dataframe, the vectorized version of filling in your dataframe only takes about ~160 µs.






share|improve this answer


























  • kindly revisit the question. btw i like this simple approach, but i doubt will this work to calc closing balance.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26





















0














You can use np.where



%%timeit
df['open'] = np.where(df.index==0, df['open'], df['inOut'].shift())
df['close'] = df['open'] + df['inOut']
# 1.07 ms ± 16.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



    open    inOut   close
0 3.0 100 103.0
1 100.0 300 300.0
2 300.0 200 200.0
3 200.0 230 230.0
4 230.0 150 150.0





share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    That's pretty slick, but it's slow. I guess from the array construction that np.where does?

    – tel
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26











  • @tel yeah it's bit slower than your answer as there's condition check in np.where

    – AkshayNevrekar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:31













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%2f53495936%2fis-it-possible-to-use-apply-function-or-vectorization-on-this-code-logic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














Edit: I changed things around to match the edits OP made to the question



You can do what you want in a vectorized way without any loops like this:



import pandas as pd

d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)

df['close'].values[:] = df['open'].values[0] + df['inOut'].values.cumsum()
df['open'].values[1:] = df['close'].values[:-1]


Timing with %%timeit:



529 µs ± 5.39 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



   close  inOut  open
0 103 100 3
1 403 300 103
2 603 200 403
3 833 230 603
4 983 150 833


So vectorizing your code this way is indeed somewhat faster. In fact, it's probably about as fast as possible. You can see this by timing just the dataframe creation code:



%%timeit
d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)


Result:



367 µs ± 5.67 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Subtracting out the time it takes to create the dataframe, the vectorized version of filling in your dataframe only takes about ~160 µs.






share|improve this answer


























  • kindly revisit the question. btw i like this simple approach, but i doubt will this work to calc closing balance.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26


















3














Edit: I changed things around to match the edits OP made to the question



You can do what you want in a vectorized way without any loops like this:



import pandas as pd

d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)

df['close'].values[:] = df['open'].values[0] + df['inOut'].values.cumsum()
df['open'].values[1:] = df['close'].values[:-1]


Timing with %%timeit:



529 µs ± 5.39 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



   close  inOut  open
0 103 100 3
1 403 300 103
2 603 200 403
3 833 230 603
4 983 150 833


So vectorizing your code this way is indeed somewhat faster. In fact, it's probably about as fast as possible. You can see this by timing just the dataframe creation code:



%%timeit
d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)


Result:



367 µs ± 5.67 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Subtracting out the time it takes to create the dataframe, the vectorized version of filling in your dataframe only takes about ~160 µs.






share|improve this answer


























  • kindly revisit the question. btw i like this simple approach, but i doubt will this work to calc closing balance.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26
















3












3








3







Edit: I changed things around to match the edits OP made to the question



You can do what you want in a vectorized way without any loops like this:



import pandas as pd

d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)

df['close'].values[:] = df['open'].values[0] + df['inOut'].values.cumsum()
df['open'].values[1:] = df['close'].values[:-1]


Timing with %%timeit:



529 µs ± 5.39 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



   close  inOut  open
0 103 100 3
1 403 300 103
2 603 200 403
3 833 230 603
4 983 150 833


So vectorizing your code this way is indeed somewhat faster. In fact, it's probably about as fast as possible. You can see this by timing just the dataframe creation code:



%%timeit
d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)


Result:



367 µs ± 5.67 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Subtracting out the time it takes to create the dataframe, the vectorized version of filling in your dataframe only takes about ~160 µs.






share|improve this answer















Edit: I changed things around to match the edits OP made to the question



You can do what you want in a vectorized way without any loops like this:



import pandas as pd

d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)

df['close'].values[:] = df['open'].values[0] + df['inOut'].values.cumsum()
df['open'].values[1:] = df['close'].values[:-1]


Timing with %%timeit:



529 µs ± 5.39 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



   close  inOut  open
0 103 100 3
1 403 300 103
2 603 200 403
3 833 230 603
4 983 150 833


So vectorizing your code this way is indeed somewhat faster. In fact, it's probably about as fast as possible. You can see this by timing just the dataframe creation code:



%%timeit
d = {'open': [3] + [0]*4, 'inOut': [100, 300, 200, 230, 150], 'close': [0]*5}
df = pd.DataFrame(d)


Result:



367 µs ± 5.67 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Subtracting out the time it takes to create the dataframe, the vectorized version of filling in your dataframe only takes about ~160 µs.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 27 '18 at 9:39

























answered Nov 27 '18 at 9:10









teltel

7,41621431




7,41621431













  • kindly revisit the question. btw i like this simple approach, but i doubt will this work to calc closing balance.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26





















  • kindly revisit the question. btw i like this simple approach, but i doubt will this work to calc closing balance.

    – Mukesh Suthar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26



















kindly revisit the question. btw i like this simple approach, but i doubt will this work to calc closing balance.

– Mukesh Suthar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:26







kindly revisit the question. btw i like this simple approach, but i doubt will this work to calc closing balance.

– Mukesh Suthar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:26















0














You can use np.where



%%timeit
df['open'] = np.where(df.index==0, df['open'], df['inOut'].shift())
df['close'] = df['open'] + df['inOut']
# 1.07 ms ± 16.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



    open    inOut   close
0 3.0 100 103.0
1 100.0 300 300.0
2 300.0 200 200.0
3 200.0 230 230.0
4 230.0 150 150.0





share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    That's pretty slick, but it's slow. I guess from the array construction that np.where does?

    – tel
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26











  • @tel yeah it's bit slower than your answer as there's condition check in np.where

    – AkshayNevrekar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:31


















0














You can use np.where



%%timeit
df['open'] = np.where(df.index==0, df['open'], df['inOut'].shift())
df['close'] = df['open'] + df['inOut']
# 1.07 ms ± 16.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



    open    inOut   close
0 3.0 100 103.0
1 100.0 300 300.0
2 300.0 200 200.0
3 200.0 230 230.0
4 230.0 150 150.0





share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    That's pretty slick, but it's slow. I guess from the array construction that np.where does?

    – tel
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26











  • @tel yeah it's bit slower than your answer as there's condition check in np.where

    – AkshayNevrekar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:31
















0












0








0







You can use np.where



%%timeit
df['open'] = np.where(df.index==0, df['open'], df['inOut'].shift())
df['close'] = df['open'] + df['inOut']
# 1.07 ms ± 16.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



    open    inOut   close
0 3.0 100 103.0
1 100.0 300 300.0
2 300.0 200 200.0
3 200.0 230 230.0
4 230.0 150 150.0





share|improve this answer















You can use np.where



%%timeit
df['open'] = np.where(df.index==0, df['open'], df['inOut'].shift())
df['close'] = df['open'] + df['inOut']
# 1.07 ms ± 16.2 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)


Output:



    open    inOut   close
0 3.0 100 103.0
1 100.0 300 300.0
2 300.0 200 200.0
3 200.0 230 230.0
4 230.0 150 150.0






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 27 '18 at 9:27

























answered Nov 27 '18 at 9:17









AkshayNevrekarAkshayNevrekar

4,85391837




4,85391837








  • 1





    That's pretty slick, but it's slow. I guess from the array construction that np.where does?

    – tel
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26











  • @tel yeah it's bit slower than your answer as there's condition check in np.where

    – AkshayNevrekar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:31
















  • 1





    That's pretty slick, but it's slow. I guess from the array construction that np.where does?

    – tel
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:26











  • @tel yeah it's bit slower than your answer as there's condition check in np.where

    – AkshayNevrekar
    Nov 27 '18 at 9:31










1




1





That's pretty slick, but it's slow. I guess from the array construction that np.where does?

– tel
Nov 27 '18 at 9:26





That's pretty slick, but it's slow. I guess from the array construction that np.where does?

– tel
Nov 27 '18 at 9:26













@tel yeah it's bit slower than your answer as there's condition check in np.where

– AkshayNevrekar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:31







@tel yeah it's bit slower than your answer as there's condition check in np.where

– AkshayNevrekar
Nov 27 '18 at 9:31




















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53495936%2fis-it-possible-to-use-apply-function-or-vectorization-on-this-code-logic%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

Contact image not getting when fetch all contact list from iPhone by CNContact

count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets

A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks