issue_comments

Table actions

3 rows where author_association = "MEMBER", issue = 1308715638 and user = 2448579 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: reactions, created_at (date), updated_at (date)

user 1

  • dcherian · 3 ✖

issue 1

  • Alternative parallel execution frameworks in xarray · 3 ✖

author_association 1

  • MEMBER · 3 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
1287134964 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6807#issuecomment-1287134964 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6807 IC_kwDOAMm_X85MuB70 dcherian 2448579 2022-10-21T15:38:27Z 2022-10-21T18:08:49Z MEMBER

IIUC the issue Ryan & Tom are talking about is tied to reading from files.

For example, we read from a zarr store using zarr, then wrap that zarr.Array (or h5Py Dataset) with a large number of ExplicitlyIndexed Classes that enable more complicated indexing, lazy decoding etc.

IIUC #4628 is about concatenating such arrays i.e. neither zarr.Array nor ExplicitlyIndexed support concatenation, so we end up calling np.array and forcing a disk read.

With dask or cubed we would have dask(ExplicitlyIndexed(zarr)) or cubed(ExplicitlyIndexed(zarr)) so as long as dask and cubed define concat and we dispatch to them, everything is 👍🏾

PS: This is what I was attempting to explain (not very clearly) in the distributed arrays meeting. We don't ever use dask.array.from_zarr (for e.g.). We use zarr to read, then wrap in ExplicitlyIndexed and then pass to dask.array.from_array.

 
{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 1,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Alternative parallel execution frameworks in xarray 1308715638
1188496314 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6807#issuecomment-1188496314 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6807 IC_kwDOAMm_X85G1wO6 dcherian 2448579 2022-07-19T01:29:28Z 2022-07-19T01:29:28Z MEMBER

Another parallel framework would be Ramba

cc @DrTodd13

 
{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 1,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Alternative parallel execution frameworks in xarray 1308715638
1188361671 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/6807#issuecomment-1188361671 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/6807 IC_kwDOAMm_X85G1PXH dcherian 2448579 2022-07-18T21:56:58Z 2022-07-18T21:56:58Z MEMBER

This sounds great! We should finish up https://github.com/pydata/xarray/pull/4972 to make it easier to test.

 
{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 1,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Alternative parallel execution frameworks in xarray 1308715638

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE [issue_comments] (
   [html_url] TEXT,
   [issue_url] TEXT,
   [id] INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
   [node_id] TEXT,
   [user] INTEGER REFERENCES [users]([id]),
   [created_at] TEXT,
   [updated_at] TEXT,
   [author_association] TEXT,
   [body] TEXT,
   [reactions] TEXT,
   [performed_via_github_app] TEXT,
   [issue] INTEGER REFERENCES [issues]([id])
);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_issue]
    ON [issue_comments] ([issue]);
CREATE INDEX [idx_issue_comments_user]
    ON [issue_comments] ([user]);