issue_comments: 587471646
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/3213#issuecomment-587471646 | https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/3213 | 587471646 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU4NzQ3MTY0Ng== | 18172466 | 2020-02-18T13:56:09Z | 2020-02-18T13:56:51Z | NONE | Thank you @crusaderky for your input. I understand and agree with your statements for sparse data files. My approach is different, because within my (hdf5) data files on disc, I have no sparse datasets at all. But as I combine two differently sampled xarray dataset (initialized by h5py > dask > xarray) with xarrays built-in top-level function "xarray.merge()" (resp. xarray.combine_by_coords()), the resulting dataset is sparse. Generally that is nice behaviour, because two differently sampled datasets get aligned along a coordinate/dimension, and the gaps are filled by NaNs. Nevertheless, those NaN "gaps" seem to need memory for every single NaN. That is what should be avoided. Maybe by implementing a redundant pointer to the same memory adress for each NaN? |
{
"total_count": 0,
"+1": 0,
"-1": 0,
"laugh": 0,
"hooray": 0,
"confused": 0,
"heart": 0,
"rocket": 0,
"eyes": 0
} |
479942077 |