issue_comments: 398575742
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/2237#issuecomment-398575742 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/2237 | 398575742 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDM5ODU3NTc0Mg== | 1217238 | 2018-06-19T23:21:10Z | 2018-06-19T23:21:10Z | MEMBER | Here's an example of what these indices look like for a slightly more realistic groupby example: ```python import xarray import pandas import numpy as np array = xarray.DataArray( range(1000), [('time', pandas.date_range('2000-01-01', freq='D', periods=1000))]) this works with xarray 0.10.7xarray.core.groupby._inverse_permutation_indices(
array.groupby('time.month')._group_indices)
I think it would work with the "put contiguous index regions into the same chunk" heuristic. On the other hand, this could break pretty badly for other group-by operations, e.g., calculating those anomalies by day of year instead:
This looks like @mrocklin's second case. That said, it's still probably more graceful to fail by creating too many small tasks rather than one giant task. |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
333312849 |