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/2002#issuecomment-374956179,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2002,374956179,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM3NDk1NjE3OQ==,9655353,2018-03-21T14:27:57Z,2018-03-21T14:27:57Z,NONE,"You have just reproduced the issue.

The correct datetime values are in the filenames. So, you open two files, one from ``1991-09-01T12:00:00.00`` and the other from ``1991-09-02T12:00:00.00``, but the decoded time dimension becomes:
```
array(['1981-01-01T00:00:00.564166656', '1980-12-31T23:59:58.707073024'], dtype='datetime64[ns]')
```

Which is exactly the problem I'm facing.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,307224717
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2002#issuecomment-374951019,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2002,374951019,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM3NDk1MTAxOQ==,9655353,2018-03-21T14:13:35Z,2018-03-21T14:13:35Z,NONE,"Thanks for looking into this!

I did try 0.10.2, same result as 0.10.1.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,307224717
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2002#issuecomment-374922820,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2002,374922820,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM3NDkyMjgyMA==,9655353,2018-03-21T12:39:40Z,2018-03-21T12:39:40Z,NONE,"Actual data can be retrieved from here:
ftp://anon-ftp.ceda.ac.uk/neodc/esacci/sst/data/lt/Analysis/L4/v01.1","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,307224717
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2002#issuecomment-374920483,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2002,374920483,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM3NDkyMDQ4Mw==,9655353,2018-03-21T12:29:28Z,2018-03-21T12:29:28Z,NONE,#1859 seems to be related.,"{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,307224717
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1592#issuecomment-332174498,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1592,332174498,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMzMjE3NDQ5OA==,9655353,2017-09-26T11:52:17Z,2017-09-26T11:52:17Z,NONE,"Yes, must be the same issue. Thanks for fixing it! Feel free to close this as a duplicate.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,260569191
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1440#issuecomment-307070835,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1440,307070835,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMwNzA3MDgzNQ==,9655353,2017-06-08T10:59:45Z,2017-06-08T10:59:45Z,NONE,"I quite like the approach you're suggesting! What I dislike the most currently with our approach is that it is a real possibility that a single netCDF chunk falls into multiple dask chunks, we don't control for that in any way! I'd happily swap our approach out to the more general one you suggest.

This does of course beg for input regarding the API constraints, as in, would it be a good idea to add more kwargs for chunk size threshold and edge ratio to open functions?","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,233350060
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1396#issuecomment-306850272,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1396,306850272,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMwNjg1MDI3Mg==,9655353,2017-06-07T16:30:04Z,2017-06-07T16:50:40Z,NONE,"That's great to know! I think there's no need to try my 'solution' then, maybe only out of pure interest.

It would of course be interesting to know why a 'custom' chunked dataset was apparently not affected by the bug. And if it was indeed the case.

EDIT: I read the discussion on dask github and the xarray mailinglist. It's probably because when explicit chunking is used, the chunks are not aliased and fusing works as expected.","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,225774140
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1396#issuecomment-306838587,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1396,306838587,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMwNjgzODU4Nw==,9655353,2017-06-07T15:51:34Z,2017-06-07T15:53:06Z,NONE,"We had similar performance issues with xarray+dask, which we solved by using a chunking heuristic when opening a dataset. You can read about it in #1440. Now, in our case the data really wouldn't fit in memory, which is clearly not the case in your gist. Anyway, I thought I'd play around with your gist and see if chunking can make a difference.

I couldn't use your example directly, as the data it generates in memory is too large for the dev VM I'm on with this. So I changed the generated file size to (12, 1000, 2000), the essence of your gist remained though, it would take ~25 seconds to do the time series extraction, whereas ~800 ms using ```extract_point_xarray()```.

So, I thought I'd try our 'chunking heuristic' on the generated test datasets. Simply split the dataset in 2x2 chunks along spatial dimensions. So:

```python
ds = xr.open_mfdataset(all_files, decode_cf=False, chunks={'time':12, 'x':1000, 'y':500})
```

To my surprise:
```python
# time extracting a timeseries of a single point
y, x = 200, 300
with ProgressBar():
    %time ts = ds.data[:, y, x].load()
```
results in
```
[########################################] | 100% Completed |  0.7s
CPU times: user 124 ms, sys: 268 ms, total: 392 ms
Wall time: 826 ms
```

I'm not entirely sure what's happening, as the file obviously fits in memory just fine because the looping thing works well. Maybe it's fine when you loop through them one by one, but the single file chunk turns out to be too large when dask wants to parallelize the whole thing. I really have no idea.

I'd be very intrigued to see if you can get a similar result by doing a simple 2x2xtime chunking. By the way, ```chunks={'x':1000, 'y':500, 'time':1}``` produces similar results with some overhead. Extraction took ~1.5 seconds. 

EDIT:
```python
print(xr.__version__)
print(dask.__version__)
```
```
0.9.5
0.14.1
```","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,225774140
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1440#issuecomment-306814837,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1440,306814837,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDMwNjgxNDgzNw==,9655353,2017-06-07T14:37:14Z,2017-06-07T14:37:14Z,NONE,"We had a similar issue some time ago. We use ```xr.open_mfdataset``` to open long time series of data, where each time slice is a single file. In this case each file becomes a single dask chunk, which is appropriate for most data we have to work with (ESA CCI datasets). 

We encountered a problem, however, with a few datasets that had very significant compression levels, such that a single file would fit in memory, but not a few of them, on a consumer-ish laptop. So, the machine would quickly run out of memory when working with the opened dataset.

As we have to be able to open 'automatically' all ESA CCI datasets, manually denoting the chunk sizes was not an option, so we explored a few ways how to do this. Aligning the chunk sizes with NetCDF chunking was not a great idea because of the reason shoyer mentions above. The chunk sizes for some datasets would be too small and the bottleneck moves from memory consumption to the amount of read/write operations.

We eventually figured (with help from shoyer :)) that the chunks should be small enough to fit in memory on an average user's laptop. yet as big as possible to maximize the amount of NetCDF chunks falling nicely in the dask chunk. Also, shape of the dask chunk can be of importance to maximize the amount of NetCDF chunks falling nicely in. We figured it's a good guess to divide both lat and lon dimensions by the same divisor, as that's also how NetCDF is often chunked.

So, we open the first file, determine it's 'uncompressed' size and then figure out if we should chunk it as 1, 2x2, 3x3, etc. It's far from a perfect solution, but it works in our case. Here's how we have implemented this:
https://github.com/CCI-Tools/cate-core/blob/master/cate/core/ds.py#L506","{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,233350060
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/1316#issuecomment-288646219,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1316,288646219,MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI4ODY0NjIxOQ==,9655353,2017-03-23T08:14:37Z,2017-03-23T08:14:37Z,NONE,Thanks!,"{""total_count"": 0, ""+1"": 0, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,216010508