home / github / issue_comments

Menu
  • GraphQL API
  • Search all tables

issue_comments: 253408063

This data as json

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/1046#issuecomment-253408063 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/1046 253408063 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDI1MzQwODA2Mw== 2443309 2016-10-13T03:58:32Z 2016-10-13T03:58:32Z MEMBER

We do try to stay consistent with pandas except for the last position. Here's the unit test where we verify that behavior.

Using x=0 from your example in Pandas:

``` Python In [1]: import pandas as pd s In [2]: data = pd.Series([0, 3, 6])

In [3]: data.rolling(3, center=True, min_periods=1).mean() Out[3]: 0 1.5 1 3.0 2 4.5 ```

If I remember correctly, and my brain is a bit like mush right now so I could be wrong, bottleneck and pandas handle this case differently so we had to make a decision. We choose to use bottleneck (for speed) but to do our best to stay consistent with pandas. Back to your example, this time just with bottleneck:

Python In [4]: bn.move_mean(data, 3, min_count=1) Out[4]: array([ 0. , 1.5, 3. ])

So, as you can see, bottleneck does something totally different that wouldn't otherwise work with center=True unless we did our little shift trick. I'm not really sure the best way to correct for this difference in the last position except to either a) try to push a center=True option into bottleneck (may not be possible), or b) write a bunch of logic on our end bridge the gap between these two (may be laborious). Of course, I'm open to ideas.

{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
  182667672
Powered by Datasette · Queries took 0.839ms · About: xarray-datasette