issue_comments

Table actions

4 rows where author_association = "MEMBER" and issue = 1471685307 sorted by updated_at descending

✎ View and edit SQL

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

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

issue 1

  • Disable bottleneck by default? · 4 ✖

author_association 1

  • MEMBER · 4 ✖
id html_url issue_url node_id user created_at updated_at ▲ author_association body reactions performed_via_github_app issue
1351908915 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7344#issuecomment-1351908915 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7344 IC_kwDOAMm_X85QlH4z shoyer 1217238 2022-12-14T18:24:04Z 2022-12-14T18:24:04Z MEMBER

I think it's OK to still require bottleneck for ffill and bfill:

  1. There are no numerical concerns: these functions simply repeat numbers forward (or backwards).
  2. There is no good alternative to using a loop, and writing the loop in NumPy would be probitively slow.
 
{
    "total_count": 2,
    "+1": 2,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Disable bottleneck by default? 1471685307
1336299057 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7344#issuecomment-1336299057 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7344 IC_kwDOAMm_X85Ppk4x shoyer 1217238 2022-12-04T01:55:34Z 2022-12-04T01:55:34Z MEMBER

The case where Bottleneck really makes a difference was for moving window statistics, where it uses a smarter algorithm than our current NumPy implementation, which creating a moving window view.

Otherwise, I agree, it probably isn't worth the trouble.

That said -- we could also switch to smarter NumPy based algorithms to implement most moving window calculations, e.g,. using np.nancumsum for moving window means.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Disable bottleneck by default? 1471685307
1334523276 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7344#issuecomment-1334523276 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7344 IC_kwDOAMm_X85PizWM max-sixty 5635139 2022-12-01T22:22:02Z 2022-12-01T22:22:02Z MEMBER

I'd be fine with disabling, since bottleneck doesn't seem to be actively maintained.

Though I would say it's numerically unstable rather than incorrect! I would always want it enabled, but it does make sense to default to the conservative option.

I had dreams of making numbagg into a better bottleneck — it's just as fast, much more flexible, and integrates really well with xarray. But those dreams have not come to pass (yet!).

 
{
    "total_count": 2,
    "+1": 2,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Disable bottleneck by default? 1471685307
1334242366 https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7344#issuecomment-1334242366 https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7344 IC_kwDOAMm_X85Phuw- TomNicholas 35968931 2022-12-01T19:24:24Z 2022-12-01T19:24:24Z MEMBER

I kinda think correctness by default is more important than performance, especially if the default performance isn't prohibitively slow. 

{
    "total_count": 1,
    "+1": 1,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
   Disable bottleneck by default? 1471685307

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]);