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/7045#issuecomment-1326262197,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7045,1326262197,IC_kwDOAMm_X85PDSe1,4160723,2022-11-24T10:35:02Z,2022-11-24T10:35:02Z,MEMBER,"I find the analogy with relational databases quite meaningful!
Rectangular grids likely have been the primary use case in Xarray for a long time, but I wonder to which extent it is the case nowadays. Probably a good question to ask for the next user survey?
Interestingly, the [2021 user survey results](https://github.com/xarray-contrib/user-survey/blob/main/2021.ipynb) (*) show that ""interoperability with pandas"" is not a critical feature while ""label-based indexing, interpolation, groupby, reindexing, etc."" is most important, although the description of the latter is rather broad. It would be interesting to compute the correlation between these two variables. The results also show that ""more flexible indexing (selection, alignment)"" is very useful or critical for 2/3 of the participants.
Not sure how to interpret those results within the context of this discussion, though.
(*) The [2022 user survey results](https://github.com/xarray-contrib/user-survey/blob/c03361f6ac8c270a89cc97c4df20de26c923badb/2021-vs-2022.ipynb) doesn't show significant differences in general
> suppose one could in principle have an array with coordinates such that none of the coordinates aligned with any particular axis, but it seems improbable.
Not that improbable for unstructured meshes, curvilinear grids, staggered grids, etc. Xarray is often chosen to handle them too (e.g., [uxarray](https://github.com/UXARRAY/uxarray), [xgcm](https://github.com/xgcm/xgcm)).","{""total_count"": 1, ""+1"": 1, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,1376109308
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7045#issuecomment-1251975597,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7045,1251975597,IC_kwDOAMm_X85Kn6Gt,4160723,2022-09-20T07:51:45Z,2022-09-20T07:51:45Z,MEMBER,"> So maybe the question here is whether such an ArrayIndex should be the default?
Another solution for more flexibility or a smooth transition may be to add a build option to the `Index` base class API, so that it would be possible for the current default `PandasIndex` or any custom index to easily (and explicitly) deactivate automatic alignment while keeping it around for label-based selection.
> Indexes (including alignment behavior) feel like a massive complication of Xarray, both conceptually (which includes documentation and teaching efforts) as well as code.
I agree, although this is getting addressed slowly but surely. In Xarray internals, most of the indexes logic is now in the `core.indexes` module. For the public API #4366, #6849 and #6971 will ultimately make things better. Object reprs are important too (#6795). There is still a good amount of work in order to improve the documentation, some of it is discussed in #6975.
IMO nearly all the complication and confusion emerge from the mixed concept of a dimension coordinate in the Xarray data model. Once the concept of an index is clearly decoupled from the concept of a coordinate and both concepts are represented as 1st-class citizens, it will help users focusing on the parts of the API and/or documentation that are relevant to their needs. It will also help ""selling"" Xarray to users who don't need much of the index capabilities (this has been discussed several times, either as external feedback or between Xarray devs, e.g., proposal of a ""xarray-lite"" package). Finally it will make more affordable major changes such as the one proposed here by @shoyer.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,1376109308