| .. _io-fits-faq: | |
| astropy.io.fits FAQ | |
| ******************* | |
| .. contents:: | |
| General Questions | |
| ================= | |
| What is PyFITS and how does it relate to Astropy? | |
| ------------------------------------------------- | |
| PyFITS_ is a library written in, and for use with the Python_ programming | |
| language for reading, writing, and manipulating FITS_ formatted files. It | |
| includes a high-level interface to FITS headers with the ability for high and | |
| low-level manipulation of headers, and it supports reading image and table | |
| data as Numpy_ arrays. It also supports more obscure and non-standard formats | |
| found in some FITS files. | |
| The `astropy.io.fits` module is identical to PyFITS but with the names changed. | |
| When development began on Astropy it was clear that one of the core | |
| requirements would be a FITS reader. Rather than starting from scratch, | |
| PyFITS--being the most flexible FITS reader available for Python--was ported | |
| into Astropy. There are plans to gradually phase out PyFITS as a stand-alone | |
| module and deprecate it in favor of `astropy.io.fits`. See more about that in | |
| the next question. | |
| Although PyFITS is written mostly in Python, it includes an optional module | |
| written in C that's required to read/write compressed image data. However, | |
| the rest of PyFITS functions without this extension module. | |
| .. _PyFITS: https://github.com/spacetelescope/pyfits | |
| .. _Python: https://www.python.org/ | |
| .. _FITS: https://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/ | |
| .. _Numpy: http://www.numpy.org/ | |
| What is the development status of PyFITS? | |
| ----------------------------------------- | |
| PyFITS was written and maintained by the Science Software Branch at the `Space | |
| Telescope Science Institute`_, and is licensed by AURA_ under a `3-clause BSD | |
| license`_ (see `LICENSE.txt`_ in the PyFITS source code). | |
| It is now exclusively developed as a component of Astropy | |
| (`astropy.io.fits`) rather than as a stand-alone module. There are a few | |
| reasons for this: The first is simply to reduce development effort; the | |
| overhead of maintaining both PyFITS *and* `astropy.io.fits` in separate code | |
| bases is non-trivial. The second is that there are many features of Astropy | |
| (units, tables, etc.) from which the `astropy.io.fits` module can benefit | |
| greatly. Since PyFITS is already integrated into Astropy, it makes more sense | |
| to continue development there rather than make Astropy a dependency of PyFITS. | |
| PyFITS' past primary developer and active maintainer was Erik Bray. There | |
| is a `GitHub project`_ for PyFITS, but PyFITS is not actively developed anymore | |
| so patches and issue reports should be posted on the Astropy issue tracker. | |
| There is also a legacy `Trac site`_ with some older issue reports still open, | |
| but new issues should be submitted via GitHub if possible. | |
| The current (and last) stable release is 3.4.0. | |
| .. _Space Telescope Science Institute: http://www.stsci.edu/ | |
| .. _AURA: http://www.aura-astronomy.org/ | |
| .. _3-clause BSD license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#3-clause_license_.28.22New_BSD_License.22_or_.22Modified_BSD_License.22.29 | |
| .. _LICENSE.txt: https://aeon.stsci.edu/ssb/trac/pyfits/browser/trunk/LICENSE.txt | |
| .. _Trac site: https://aeon.stsci.edu/ssb/trac/pyfits/ | |
| .. _GitHub project: https://github.com/spacetelescope/PyFITS | |
| Usage Questions | |
| =============== | |
| Something didn't work as I expected. Did I do something wrong? | |
| --------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Possibly. But if you followed the documentation and things still did not work | |
| as expected, it is entirely possible that there is a mistake in the | |
| documentation, a bug in the code, or both. So feel free to report it as a bug. | |
| There are also many, many corner cases in FITS files, with new ones discovered | |
| almost every week. `astropy.io.fits` is always improving, but does not support | |
| all cases perfectly. There are some features of the FITS format (scaled data, | |
| for example) that are difficult to support correctly and can sometimes cause | |
| unexpected behavior. | |
| For the most common cases, however, such as reading and updating FITS headers, | |
| images, and tables, `astropy.io.fits`. is very stable and well-tested. Before | |
| every Astropy release it is ensured that all its tests pass on a variety | |
| of platforms, and those tests cover the majority of use-cases (until new corner | |
| cases are discovered). | |
| Astropy crashed and output a long string of code. What do I do? | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| This listing of code is what is knows as a `stack trace`_ (or in Python | |
| parlance a "traceback"). When an unhandled exception occurs in the code, | |
| causing the program to end, this is a way of displaying where the exception | |
| occurred and the path through the code that led to it. | |
| As Astropy is meant to be used as a piece in other software projects, some | |
| exceptions raised by Astropy are by design. For example, one of the most | |
| common exceptions is a `KeyError` when an attempt is made to read | |
| the value of a non-existent keyword in a header:: | |
| >>> from astropy.io import fits | |
| >>> h = fits.Header() | |
| >>> h['NAXIS'] | |
| Traceback (most recent call last): | |
| ... | |
| KeyError: "Keyword 'NAXIS' not found." | |
| This indicates that something was looking for a keyword called "NAXIS" that | |
| does not exist. If an error like this occurs in some other software that uses | |
| Astropy, it may indicate a bug in that software, in that it expected to find a | |
| keyword that didn't exist in a file. | |
| Most "expected" exceptions will output a message at the end of the traceback | |
| giving some idea of why the exception occurred and what to do about it. The | |
| more vague and mysterious the error message in an exception appears, the more | |
| likely that it was caused by a bug in Astropy. So if you're getting an | |
| exception and you really don't know why or what to do about it, feel free to | |
| report it as a bug. | |
| .. _stack trace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_trace | |
| Why does opening a file work in CFITSIO, ds9, etc. but not in Astropy? | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| As mentioned elsewhere in this FAQ, there are many unusual corner cases when | |
| dealing with FITS files. It's possible that a file should work, but isn't | |
| support due to a bug. Sometimes it's even possible for a file to work in an | |
| older version of Astropy, but not a newer version due to a regression | |
| that isn't tested for yet. | |
| Another problem with the FITS format is that, as old as it is, there are many | |
| conventions that appear in files from certain sources that do not meet the FITS | |
| standard. And yet they are so common-place that it is necessary to support | |
| them in any FITS readers. CONTINUE cards are one such example. There are | |
| non-standard conventions supported by Astropy that are not supported by | |
| CFITSIO and possibly vice-versa. You may have hit one of those cases. | |
| If Astropy is having trouble opening a file, a good way to rule out whether not | |
| the problem is with Astropy is to run the file through the `fitsverify`_ | |
| program. For smaller files you can even use the `online FITS verifier`_. | |
| These use CFITSIO under the hood, and should give a good indication of whether | |
| or not there is something erroneous about the file. If the file is | |
| malformatted, fitsverify will output errors and warnings. | |
| If fitsverify confirms no problems with a file, and Astropy is still having | |
| trouble opening it (especially if it produces a traceback) then it's possible | |
| there is a bug in Astropy. | |
| .. _fitsverify: https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/ftools/fitsverify/ | |
| .. _online FITS verifier: https://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/fits_verify.html | |
| How do I turn off the warning messages Astropy keeps outputting to my console? | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| Astropy uses Python's built-in `warnings`_ subsystem for informing about | |
| exceptional conditions in the code that are recoverable, but that the user may | |
| want to be informed of. One of the most common warnings in `astropy.io.fits` | |
| occurs when updating a header value in such a way that the comment must be | |
| truncated to preserve space:: | |
| Card is too long, comment is truncated. | |
| Any console output generated by Astropy can be assumed to be from the warnings | |
| subsystem. See Astropy's documentation on the :ref:`python-warnings` for more | |
| information on how to control and quiet warnings. | |
| .. _warnings: https://docs.python.org/3/library/warnings.html | |
| What convention does Astropy use for indexing, such as of image coordinates? | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| All arrays and sequences in Astropy use a zero-based indexing scheme. For | |
| example, the first keyword in a header is ``header[0]``, not ``header[1]``. | |
| This is in accordance with Python itself, as well as C, on which Python is | |
| based. | |
| This may come as a surprise to veteran FITS users coming from IRAF, where | |
| 1-based indexing is typically used, due to its origins in FORTRAN. | |
| Likewise, the top-left pixel in an N x N array is ``data[0,0]``. The indices | |
| for 2-dimensional arrays are row-major order, in that the first index is the | |
| row number, and the second index is the column number. Or put in terms of | |
| axes, the first axis is the y-axis, and the second axis is the x-axis. This is | |
| the opposite of column-major order, which is used by FORTRAN and hence FITS. | |
| For example, the second index refers to the axis specified by NAXIS1 in the | |
| FITS header. | |
| In general, for N-dimensional arrays, row-major orders means that the | |
| right-most axis is the one that varies the fastest while moving over the | |
| array data linearly. For example, the 3-dimensional array:: | |
| [[[1, 2], | |
| [3, 4]], | |
| [[5, 6], | |
| [7, 8]]] | |
| is represented linearly in row-major order as:: | |
| [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] | |
| Since 2 immediately follows 1, you can see that the right-most (or inner-most) | |
| axis is the one that varies the fastest. | |
| The discrepancy in axis-ordering may take some getting used to, but it is a | |
| necessary evil. Since most other Python and C software assumes row-major | |
| ordering, trying to enforce column-major ordering in arrays returned by Astropy | |
| is likely to cause more difficulties than it's worth. | |
| How do I open a very large image that won't fit in memory? | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |
| `astropy.io.fits.open` has an option to access the data portion of an | |
| HDU by memory mapping using `mmap`_. In Astropy this is used by default. | |
| What this means is that accessing the data as in the example above only reads | |
| portions of the data into memory on demand. For example, if I request just a | |
| slice of the image, such as ``hdul[0].data[100:200]``, then just rows 100-200 | |
| will be read into memory. This happens transparently, as though the entire | |
| image were already in memory. This works the same way for tables. For most | |
| cases this is your best bet for working with large files. | |
| To ensure use of memory mapping, just add the ``memmap=True`` argument to | |
| `fits.open <astropy.io.fits.open>`_. Likewise, using ``memmap=False`` will | |
| force data to be read entirely into memory. | |
| The default can also be controlled through a configuration option called | |
| ``USE_MEMMAP``. Setting this to ``0`` will disable mmap by default. | |
| Unfortunately, memory mapping does not currently work as well with scaled | |
| image data, where BSCALE and BZERO factors need to be applied to the data to | |
| yield physical values. Currently this requires enough memory to hold the | |
| entire array, though this is an area that will see improvement in the future. | |
| An alternative, which currently only works for image data (that is, non-tables) | |
| is the sections interface. It is largely replaced by the better support for | |
| mmap, but may still be useful on systems with more limited virtual-memory | |
| space, such as on 32-bit systems. Support for scaled image data is flakey with | |
| sections too, though that will be fixed. See the documentation on :ref:`image | |
| sections <data-sections>` for more details on using this interface. | |
| .. _mmap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmap | |
| How can I create a very large FITS file from scratch? | |
| ----------------------------------------------------- | |
| See :ref:`sphx_glr_generated_examples_io_skip_create-large-fits.py`. | |
| For creating very large tables, this method may also be used. Though it can be | |
| difficult to determine ahead of time how many rows a table will need. In | |
| general, use of the `astropy.io.fits` module is currently discouraged for the | |
| creation and manipulation of large tables. The FITS format itself is not | |
| designed for efficient on-disk or in-memory manipulation of table structures. | |
| For large, heavy-duty table data it might be better too look into using `HDF5`_ | |
| through the `PyTables`_ library. The :ref:`Astropy Table <astropy-table>` | |
| interface can provide an abstraction layer between different on-disk table | |
| formats as well (for example for converting a table between FITS and HDF5). | |
| PyTables makes use of Numpy under the hood, and can be used to write binary | |
| table data to disk in the same format required by FITS. It is then possible | |
| to serialize your table to the FITS format for distribution. At some point | |
| this FAQ might provide an example of how to do this. | |
| .. _HDF5: http://www.hdfgroup.org/HDF5/ | |
| .. _PyTables: http://www.pytables.org/ | |
| How do I create a multi-extension FITS file from scratch? | |
| --------------------------------------------------------- | |
| See :ref:`sphx_glr_generated_examples_io_create-mef.py`. | |
| .. _fits-scaled-data-faq: | |
| Why is an image containing integer data being converted unexpectedly to floats? | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| If the header for your image contains non-trivial values for the optional | |
| BSCALE and/or BZERO keywords (that is, BSCALE != 1 and/or BZERO != 0), then | |
| the raw data in the file must be rescaled to its physical values according to | |
| the formula:: | |
| physical_value = BZERO + BSCALE * array_value | |
| As BZERO and BSCALE are floating point values, the resulting value must be a | |
| float as well. If the original values were 16-bit integers, the resulting | |
| values are single-precision (32-bit) floats. If the original values were | |
| 32-bit integers the resulting values are double-precision (64-bit floats). | |
| This automatic scaling can easily catch you of guard if you're not expecting | |
| it, because it doesn't happen until the data portion of the HDU is accessed | |
| (to allow things like updating the header without rescaling the data). For | |
| example:: | |
| >>> fits_scaledimage_filename = fits.util.get_testdata_filepath('scale.fits') | |
| >>> hdul = fits.open(fits_scaledimage_filename) | |
| >>> image = hdul[0] | |
| >>> image.header['BITPIX'] | |
| 16 | |
| >>> image.header['BSCALE'] | |
| 0.045777764213996 | |
| >>> data = image.data # Read the data into memory | |
| >>> data.dtype.name # Got float32 despite BITPIX = 16 (16-bit int) | |
| 'float32' | |
| >>> image.header['BITPIX'] # The BITPIX will automatically update too | |
| -32 | |
| >>> 'BSCALE' in image.header # And the BSCALE keyword removed | |
| False | |
| The reason for this is that once a user accesses the data they may also | |
| manipulate it and perform calculations on it. If the data were forced to | |
| remain as integers, a great deal of precision is lost. So it is best to err | |
| on the side of not losing data, at the cost of causing some confusion at | |
| first. | |
| If the data must be returned to integers before saving, use the | |
| `~astropy.io.fits.ImageHDU.scale` method:: | |
| >>> image.scale('int32') | |
| >>> image.header['BITPIX'] | |
| 32 | |
| >>> hdul.close() | |
| Alternatively, if a file is opened with ``mode='update'`` along with the | |
| ``scale_back=True`` argument, the original BSCALE and BZERO scaling will | |
| be automatically re-applied to the data before saving. Usually this is | |
| not desirable, especially when converting from floating point back to | |
| unsigned integer values. But this may be useful in cases where the raw | |
| data needs to be modified corresponding to changes in the physical values. | |
| To prevent rescaling from occurring at all (good for updating headers--even if | |
| you don't intend for the code to access the data, it's good to err on the side | |
| of caution here), use the ``do_not_scale_image_data`` argument when opening | |
| the file:: | |
| >>> hdul = fits.open(fits_scaledimage_filename, do_not_scale_image_data=True) | |
| >>> image = hdul[0] | |
| >>> image.data.dtype.name | |
| 'int16' | |
| >>> hdul.close() | |
| Why am I losing precision when I assign floating point values in the header? | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| The FITS standard allows two formats for storing floating-point numbers in a | |
| header value. The "fixed" format requires the ASCII representation of the | |
| number to be in bytes 11 through 30 of the header card, and to be | |
| right-justified. This leaves a standard number of characters for any comment | |
| string. | |
| The fixed format is not wide enough to represent the full range of values that | |
| can be stored in a 64-bit float with full precision. So FITS also supports a | |
| "free" format in which the ASCII representation can be stored anywhere, using | |
| the full 70 bytes of the card (after the keyword). | |
| Currently Astropy only supports writing fixed format (it can read both | |
| formats), so all floating point values assigned to a header are stored in the | |
| fixed format. There are plans to add support for more flexible formatting. | |
| In the meantime it is possible to add or update cards by manually formatting | |
| the card image from a string, as it should appear in the FITS file:: | |
| >>> c = fits.Card.fromstring('FOO = 1234567890.123456789') | |
| >>> h = fits.Header() | |
| >>> h.append(c) | |
| >>> h | |
| FOO = 1234567890.123456789 | |
| As long as you don't assign new values to 'FOO' via ``h['FOO'] = 123``, will | |
| maintain the header value exactly as you formatted it (as long as it is valid | |
| according to the FITS standard). | |
| Why is reading rows out of a FITS table so slow? | |
| ------------------------------------------------ | |
| Underlying every table data array returned by `astropy.io.fits` is a Numpy | |
| `~numpy.recarray` which is a Numpy array type specifically for representing | |
| structured array data (i.e. a table). As with normal image arrays, Astropy | |
| accesses the underlying binary data from the FITS file via mmap (see the | |
| question "`What performance differences are there between astropy.io.fits and | |
| fitsio?`_" for a deeper explanation of this). The underlying mmap is then | |
| exposed as a `~numpy.recarray` and in general this is a very efficient way to | |
| read the data. | |
| However, for many (if not most) FITS tables it isn't all that simple. For | |
| many columns there are conversions that have to take place between the actual | |
| data that's "on disk" (in the FITS file) and the data values that are returned | |
| to the user. For example FITS binary tables represent boolean values | |
| differently from how Numpy expects them to be represented, "Logical" columns | |
| need to be converted on the fly to a format Numpy (and hence the user) can | |
| understand. This issue also applies to data that is linearly scaled via the | |
| ``TSCALn`` and ``TZEROn`` header keywords. | |
| Supporting all of these "FITS-isms" introduces a lot of overhead that might | |
| not be necessary for all tables, but are still common nonetheless. That's | |
| not to say it can't be faster even while supporting the peculiarities of | |
| FITS--CFITSIO for example supports all the same features but is orders of | |
| magnitude faster. Astropy could do much better here too, and there are many | |
| known issues causing slowdown. There are plenty of opportunities for speedups, | |
| and patches are welcome. In the meantime for high-performance applications | |
| with FITS tables some users might find the ``fitsio`` library more to their | |
| liking. | |
| I'm opening many FITS files in a loop and getting OSError: Too many open files | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| Say you have some code like: | |
| .. code:: python | |
| from astropy.io import fits | |
| for filename in filenames: | |
| with fits.open(filename) as hdul: | |
| for hdu in hdul: | |
| hdu_data = hdul.data | |
| # Do some stuff with the data | |
| The details may differ, but the qualitative point is that the data to many | |
| HDUs and/or FITS files are being accessed in a loop. This may result in | |
| an exception like:: | |
| Traceback (most recent call last): | |
| File "<stdin>", line 2, in <module> | |
| OSError: [Errno 24] Too many open files: 'my_data.fits' | |
| As explained in the :ref:`note on working with large files <fits-large-files>`, | |
| because Astropy uses mmap by default to read the data in a FITS file, even if | |
| you correctly close a file with `HDUList.close <astropy.io.fits.HDUList.close>`_ | |
| a handle is kept open to that file so that the memory-mapped data array can | |
| still be continued to be read transparently. | |
| The way Numpy supports mmap is such that the file mapping is not closed until | |
| the overlying `~numpy.ndarray` object has no references to it and is freed | |
| memory. However, when looping over a large number of files (or even just HDUs) | |
| rapidly, this may not happen immediately. Or in some cases if the HDU object | |
| persists, the data array attached to it may persist too. The easiest | |
| workaround is to *manually* delete the ``.data`` attribute on the HDU object so | |
| that the `~numpy.ndarray` reference is freed and the mmap can be closed: | |
| .. code:: python | |
| from astropy.io import fits | |
| for filename in filenames: | |
| with fits.open(filename) as hdul: | |
| for hdu in hdul: | |
| hdu_data = hdul.data | |
| # Do some stuff with the data | |
| # ... | |
| # Don't need the data anymore; delete all references to it | |
| # so that it can be garbage collected | |
| del hdu_data | |
| del hdu.data | |
| In some extreme cases files are opened and closed fast enough that Python's | |
| garbage collector does not free them (and hence free the file handles) often | |
| enough. To mitigate this your code can manually force a garbage collection | |
| by calling :func:`gc.collect` at the end of the loop. | |
| In a future release it will be easier to automatically perform this sort of | |
| cleanup when closing FITS files, where needed. | |
| Comparison with Other FITS Readers | |
| ================================== | |
| What is the difference between astropy.io.fits and fitsio? | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |
| The `astropy.io.fits` module (originally PyFITS) is a "pure Python" FITS | |
| reader in that all the code for parsing the FITS file format is in Python, | |
| though Numpy is used to provide access to the FITS data via the | |
| `~numpy.ndarray` interface. `astropy.io.fits` currently also accesses the | |
| `CFITSIO <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/fitsio/fitsio.html>`_ to support the | |
| FITS Tile Compression convention, but this feature is optional. It does not | |
| use CFITSIO outside of reading compressed images. | |
| `fitsio <https://github.com/esheldon/fitsio>`_, on the other hand, is a Python | |
| wrapper for the CFITSIO library. All the heavy lifting of reading the FITS | |
| format is handled by CFITSIO, while ``fitsio`` provides an easier to use | |
| object-oriented API including providing a Numpy interface to FITS files read | |
| from CFITSIO. Much of it is written in C (to provide the interface between | |
| Python and CFITSIO), and the rest is in Python. The Python end mostly | |
| provides the documentation and user-level API. | |
| Because ``fitsio`` wraps CFITSIO it inherits most of its strengths and | |
| weaknesses, though it has an added strength of providing an easier to use | |
| API than if one were to use CFITSIO directly. | |
| Why did Astropy adopt PyFITS as its FITS reader instead of fitsio? | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| When the Astropy Project was first started it was clear from the start that | |
| one of its core components should be a submodule for reading and writing FITS | |
| files, as many other components would be likely to depend on this | |
| functionality. At the time, the ``fitsio`` package was in its infancy (it | |
| goes back to roughly 2011) while PyFITS had already been established going | |
| back to before the year 2000). It was already a mature package with support | |
| for the vast majority of FITS files found in the wild, including outdated | |
| formats such as "Random Groups" FITS files still used extensively in the | |
| radio astronomy community. | |
| Although many aspects of PyFITS' interface have evolved over the years, much | |
| of it has also remained the same, and is already familiar to astronomers | |
| working with FITS files in Python. Most of not all existing training | |
| materials were also based around PyFITS. PyFITS was developed at STScI, which | |
| also put forward significant resources to develop Astropy, with an eye toward | |
| integrating Astropy into STScI's own software stacks. As most of the Python | |
| software at STScI uses PyFITS it was the only practical choice for making that | |
| transition. | |
| Finally, although CFITSIO (and by extension ``fitsio``) can read any FITS files | |
| that conform to the FITS standard, it does not support all of the non-standard | |
| conventions that have been added to FITS files in the wild. It does have some | |
| support for some of these conventions (such as CONTINUE cards and, to a limited | |
| extent, HIERARCH cards), it is not easy to add support for other conventions | |
| to a large and complex C codebase. | |
| PyFITS' object-oriented design makes supporting non-standard conventions | |
| somewhat easier in most cases, and as such PyFITS can be more flexible in the | |
| types of FITS files it can read and return *useful* data from. This includes | |
| better support for files that fail to meet the FITS standard, but still contain | |
| useful data that should still be readable at least well-enough to correct any | |
| violations of the FITS standard. For example, a common error in non-English- | |
| speaking regions is to insert non-ASCII characters into FITS headers. This | |
| is not a valid FITS file, but still should be readable in some sense. | |
| Supporting structural errors such as this is more difficult in CFITSIO which | |
| assumes a more rigid structure. | |
| What performance differences are there between astropy.io.fits and fitsio? | |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| There are two main performance areas to look at: reading/parsing FITS headers | |
| and reading FITS data (image-like arrays as well as tables). | |
| In the area of headers ``fitsio`` is significantly faster in most cases. This | |
| is due in large part to the (almost) pure C implementation (due to the use of | |
| CFITSIO), but also due to fact that it is more rigid and does not support as | |
| many local conventions and other special cases as `astropy.io.fits` tries to | |
| support in its pure Python implementation. | |
| That said the difference is small, and only likely to be a bottleneck either | |
| when opening files containing thousands of HDUs, or reading the headers out | |
| of thousands of FITS files in succession (in either case the difference is | |
| not even an order of magnitude). | |
| Where data is concerned the situation is a little more complicated, and | |
| requires some understanding of how `astropy.io.fits` is implemented versus | |
| CFITSIO and ``fitsio``. First it's important to understand how they differ in | |
| terms of memory management. | |
| `astropy.io.fits` uses mmap, by default, to provide access to the raw | |
| binary data in FITS files. Mmap is a system call (or in most cases these days | |
| a wrapper in your libc for a lower-level system call) which allows user-space | |
| applications to essentially do the same thing your OS is doing when it uses a | |
| pagefile (swap space) for virtual memory: It allows data in a file on disk to | |
| be paged into physical memory one page (or in practice usually several pages) | |
| at a time on an as-needed basis. These cached pages of the file are also | |
| accessible from all processes on the system, so multiple processes can read | |
| from the same file with little additional overhead. In the case of reading | |
| over all the data in the file the performance difference between using mmap | |
| versus reading the entire data into physical memory at once can vary widely | |
| between systems, hardware, and depending on what else is happening on the | |
| system at the moment, but mmap almost always going to be better. | |
| In principle it requires more overhead since accessing each page will result in | |
| a page fault, and the system requires more requests to the disk. But in | |
| practice the OS will optimize this pretty aggressively, especially for the most | |
| common case of sequential access--also in reality reading the entire thing into | |
| memory is still going to result in a whole lot of page faults too. For random | |
| access having all the data in physical memory is always going to be best, | |
| though with mmap it's usually going to be pretty good too (one doesn't normally | |
| access all the data in a file in totally random order--usually a few sections | |
| of it will be accessed most frequently, the OS will keep those pages in | |
| physical memory as best it can). So for the most general case of reading FITS | |
| files (or most large data on disk) this is the best choice, especially for | |
| casual users, and is hence enabled by default. | |
| CFITSIO/``fitsio``, on the other hand, doesn't assume the existence of | |
| technologies like mmap and page caching. Thus it implements its own LRU cache | |
| of I/O buffers that store sections of FITS files read from disk in memory in | |
| FITS' famous 2880 byte chunk size. The I/O buffers are used heavily in | |
| particular for keeping the headers in memory. Though for large data reads (for | |
| example reading an entire image from a file) it *does* bypass the cache and | |
| instead does a read directly from disk into a user-provided memory buffer. | |
| However, even when CFITSIO reads direct from the file, this is still largely | |
| less efficient than using mmap: Normally when your OS reads a file from disk, | |
| it caches as much of that read as it can in physical memory (in its page cache) | |
| so that subsequent access to those same pages does not require a subsequent | |
| expensive disk read. This happens when using mmap too, since the data has to | |
| be copied from disk into RAM at some point. The difference is that when using | |
| mmap to access the data, the program is able to read that data *directly* out | |
| of the OS's page cache (so long as it's only being read). On the other hand | |
| when reading data from a file into a local buffer such as with fread(), the | |
| data is first read into the page cache (if not already present) and then copied | |
| from the page cache into the local buffer. So every read performs at least one | |
| additional memory copy per page read (requiring twice as much physical memory, | |
| and possibly lots of paging if the file is large and pages need to dropped from | |
| the cache). | |
| The user API for CFITSIO usually works by having the user allocate a memory | |
| buffer large enough to hold the image/table they want to read (or at least the | |
| section they're interested in). There are some helper functions for | |
| determining the appropriate amount of space to allocate. Then you just pass it | |
| a pointer to your buffer and CFITSIO handles all the reading (usually using the | |
| process described above), and copies the results into your user buffer. For | |
| large reads it reads directly from the file into your buffer. Though if the | |
| data needs to be scaled it makes a stop in CFITSIO's own buffer first, then | |
| writes the rescaled values out to the user buffer (if rescaling has been | |
| requested). Regardless, this means that if your program wishes to hold an | |
| entire image in memory at once it will use as much RAM as the size of the | |
| data. For most applications it's better (and sufficient) to write it work on | |
| smaller sections of the data, but this requires extra complexity. Using mmap | |
| on the other hand makes managing this complexity simpler and more efficient. | |
| A very simple and informal test demonstrates this difference. This test was | |
| performed on four simple FITS images (one of which is a cube) of dimensions | |
| 256x256, 1024x1024, 4096x4096, and 256x1024x1024. Each image was generated | |
| before the test and filled with randomized 64-bit floating point values. A | |
| similar test was performed using both `astropy.io.fits` and ``fitsio``: A | |
| handle to the FITS file is opened using each library's basic semantics, and | |
| then the entire data array of the files is copied into a temporary array in | |
| memory (for example if we were blitting the image to a video buffer). For | |
| Astropy the test is written: | |
| .. code:: python | |
| def read_test_astropy(filename): | |
| with fits.open(filename, memmap=True) as hdul: | |
| data = hdul[0].data | |
| c = data.copy() | |
| The test was timed in IPython on a Linux system with kernel version 2.6.32, a | |
| 6-core Intel Xeon X5650 CPU clocked at 2.67 GHz per core, and 11.6 GB of RAM | |
| using: | |
| .. code:: python | |
| for filename in filenames: | |
| print(filename) | |
| %timeit read_test_astropy(filename) | |
| where ``filenames`` is just a list of the aforementioned generated sample | |
| files. The results were:: | |
| 256x256.fits | |
| 1000 loops, best of 3: 1.28 ms per loop | |
| 1024x1024.fits | |
| 100 loops, best of 3: 4.24 ms per loop | |
| 4096x4096.fits | |
| 10 loops, best of 3: 60.6 ms per loop | |
| 256x1024x1024.fits | |
| 1 loops, best of 3: 1.15 s per loop | |
| For ``fitsio`` the test was: | |
| .. code:: python | |
| def read_test_fitsio(filename): | |
| with fitsio.FITS(filename) as f: | |
| data = f[0].read() | |
| c = data.copy() | |
| This was also run in a loop over all the sample files, producing the results:: | |
| 256x256.fits | |
| 1000 loops, best of 3: 476 µs per loop | |
| 1024x1024.fits | |
| 100 loops, best of 3: 12.2 ms per loop | |
| 4096x4096.fits | |
| 10 loops, best of 3: 136 ms per loop | |
| 256x1024x1024.fits | |
| 1 loops, best of 3: 3.65 s per loop | |
| It should be made clear that the sample files were rewritten with new random | |
| data between the Astropy test and the fitsio test, so they were not reading | |
| the same data from the OS's page cache. Fitsio was much faster on the small | |
| (256x256) image because in that case the time is dominated by parsing the | |
| headers. As already explained this is much faster in CFITSIO. However, as | |
| the data size goes up and the header parsing no longer dominates the time, | |
| `astropy.io.fits` using mmap is roughly twice as fast. This discrepancy would | |
| be almost entirely due to it requiring roughly half as many in-memory copies | |
| to read the data, as explained earlier. That said, more extensive benchmarking | |
| could be very interesting. | |
| This is also not to say that `astropy.io.fits` does better in all cases. There | |
| are some cases where it is currently blown away by fitsio. See the subsequent | |
| question. | |
| Why is fitsio so much faster than Astropy at reading tables? | |
| ------------------------------------------------------------ | |
| In many cases it isn't--there is either no difference, or it may be a little | |
| faster in Astropy depending on what you're trying to do with the table and | |
| what types of columns or how many columns the table has. There are some | |
| cases, however, where ``fitsio`` can be radically faster, mostly for reasons | |
| explained above in "`Why is reading rows out of a FITS table so slow?`_" | |
| In principle a table is no different from, say, an array of pixels. But | |
| instead of pixels each element of the array is some kind of record structure | |
| (for example two floats, a boolean, and a 20 character string field). Just as | |
| a 64-bit float is an 8 byte record in an array, a row in such a table can be | |
| thought of as a 37 byte (in the case of the previous example) record in a 1-D | |
| array of rows. So in principle everything that was explained in the answer to | |
| the question "`What performance differences are there between astropy.io.fits | |
| and fitsio?`_" applies just as well to tables as it does to any other array. | |
| However, FITS tables have many additional complexities that sometimes preclude | |
| streaming the data directly from disk, and instead require transformation from | |
| the on-disk FITS format to a format more immediately useful to the user. A | |
| common example is how FITS represents boolean values in binary tables. | |
| Another, significantly more complicated example, is variable length arrays. | |
| As explained in "`Why is reading rows out of a FITS table so slow?`_", | |
| `astropy.io.fits` does not currently handle some of these cases as | |
| efficiently as it could, in particular in cases where a user only wishes to | |
| read a few rows out of a table. Fitsio, on the other hand, has a better | |
| interface for copying one row at a time out of a table and performing the | |
| necessary transformations on that row *only*, rather than on the entire column | |
| or columns that the row is taken from. As such, for many cases ``fitsio`` gets | |
| much better performance and should be preferred for many performance-critical | |
| table operations. | |
| Fitsio also exposes a microlanguage (implemented in CFITSIO) for making | |
| efficient SQL-like queries of tables (single tables only though--no joins or | |
| anything like that). This format, described in the `CFITSIO documentation | |
| <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/fitsio/c/c_user/node97.html>`_ can | |
| in some cases perform more efficient selections of rows than might be possible | |
| with Numpy alone, which requires creating an intermediate mask array in order | |
| to perform row selection. | |