html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,performed_via_github_app,issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/645#issuecomment-164635815,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/645,164635815,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE2NDYzNTgxNQ==,1217238,2015-12-15T03:39:49Z,2015-12-15T03:39:49Z,MEMBER,"Lazy loading, even of indices, can be pretty important -- sometimes calculating indices requiring downloading a significant amount of data over a wire. I am reluctant to change it.

However, another possible way to fix the printing issue is to guarantee that index data always gets cast to a `pandas.Index` before accessing it, even if the next step is simply pulling out `.values` (a numpy array).
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,115210260
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/645#issuecomment-154195290,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/645,154195290,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE1NDE5NTI5MA==,1217238,2015-11-05T21:16:32Z,2015-11-05T21:16:32Z,MEMBER,"yes, exactly

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Maximilian Roos notifications@github.com
wrote:

> OK, because we need the dtype before we've loaded the Index?
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> https://github.com/xray/xray/issues/645#issuecomment-154193942.
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,115210260
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/645#issuecomment-154189059,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/645,154189059,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE1NDE4OTA1OQ==,1217238,2015-11-05T20:59:08Z,2015-11-05T20:59:08Z,MEMBER,"> Ha - maybe we'll never get there. One more push: in the comment above, can you see the differences between the two cases? One succeeds and one fails. The only difference is the length of the other coord. That's at least weird if not a bug?

Oh -- yes, I agree that is very strange. I have no idea why that is!

> What are your thoughts on making that change instead, then? Or too big a blast radius without more reflection? Currently only one test fails - setting a float32 dtype.

I think this will be a little tricky to change. The main subtlety is that currently we don't actually create the `pandas.Index` object until we load the entire index array into memory or need to do a lookup operation on the index. I'm not entirely sure this laziness is necessary, but it _might_ be helpful -- it lets us differ loading some data from disk (or remote data sources) until absolutely necessary. The challenge then is ensuring that dtypes are preserved if the array is cached or not -- we would need to figure out what the corresponding pandas type is even before we load the data necessary to create the Index object.
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,115210260
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/645#issuecomment-154182414,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/645,154182414,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE1NDE4MjQxNA==,1217238,2015-11-05T20:34:53Z,2015-11-05T20:34:53Z,MEMBER,"When I originally wrote that code, pandas didn't have `Float64Index` and would use `dtype=object`. Now, the need for this sort of thing is definitely less pressing.

> The unanswered question is why the code accesses the items from this coord when it's repr-ing differently, depending on the length of the other coord.

Sorry, I still don't understand exactly what you're referring to! This does sound pretty bizarre, though -- possibly a bug.
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,115210260
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/645#issuecomment-154149878,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/645,154149878,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE1NDE0OTg3OA==,1217238,2015-11-05T18:46:32Z,2015-11-05T18:46:32Z,MEMBER,"> Do you know why this line https://github.com/xray/xray/blob/master/xray/core/indexing.py#L400 isn't just value?

This line is basically there to work around cases where pandas stores an array in an index with a different dtype. For example, consider this dataset with an int32 coordinate:

```
In [10]: xray.Dataset({'x': np.arange(3, dtype='int32')}).x.dtype
Out[10]: dtype('int32')
```

Under the covers, there's an int64 index (pandas doesn't have `Int32Index`):

```
In [11]: xray.Dataset({'x': np.arange(3, dtype='int32')}).indexes['x']
Out[11]: Int64Index([0, 1, 2], dtype='int64', name=u'x')
```

This line ensure that we cast back to the original dtype when we get `.values` from the data.

In this case, I think a simple fix for `PandasIndexAdapter` would be to update it's `dtype` so it reports `object` instead of `int64` if it's holding a `PeriodIndex`. Then the casting should work properly.

> Do you know why it's trying to pull a value from the index when it prints?

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here -- which line(s) of code is surprising you?
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,115210260
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/645#issuecomment-153980946,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/645,153980946,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDE1Mzk4MDk0Ng==,1217238,2015-11-05T07:55:27Z,2015-11-05T07:55:27Z,MEMBER,"I have not tried using xray with pandas's `PeriodIndex` before. On the whole, I'm not a really big fan of PeriodIndex -- `IntervalIndex` (https://github.com/pydata/pandas/pull/8707) will be a more general solution that allows for arbitrary interval bounds.

The broken thing about PeriodIndex is that it lies and claims to have `int64` dtype even though it consists of `Period` scalars:

```
In [3]: pd.period_range('2000', freq='Y', periods=3).dtype
Out[3]: dtype('int64')
```

I suppose pandas is unlikely to fix this in the immediate (though I would argue that it really should). In the meantime, do you have any interest in working on a fix for this? I suspect this would be relatively straightforward -- you'll simply need a work around or two to explicitly handle PeriodIndex.
","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,115210260