issue_comments

the unpacked data should match the type of these attributes, which must both be of type float or both be of type double. An additional restriction in this case is that the variable containing the packed data must be of type byte, short or int. It is not advised to unpack an int into a float as there is a potential precision loss.

I find this is ambiguous. is float above referring to float16 or float32? Is double referring to float64?

Yes, I'm pretty sure "float" means single precision (np.float32), given that "double" certainly means double precision (no.float64).

If so, then they do recommend float64, as requested by the OP, because the test data is short and the scale_factor is float64 (a.k.a double?)

Yes, I believe so.

The broader discussion here is about CF compliance. I find the spec ambiguous and xarray non-compliant. So many tests rely on the existing behavior, that I am unsure how best to proceed to improve compliance. I worry it may be a major refactor, and possibly break things relying on the existing behavior. I'd like to discuss architecture. Should this be in a new issue, if this closes with PR #6851? Should there be a new keyword for cf_strict or something?

I think we can treat this a bug fix and just go forward with it. Yes, some people are going to be surprised, but I don't think it's distruptive enough that we need to go to a major effort to preserve backwards compatibility. It should already be straightforward to work around by setting decode_cf=False when opening a file and then explicitly calling xarray.decode_cf().

@magau thanks for pointing this out -- I think we simplify missed this part of the CF conventions document!

Looking at the dtype for add_offset and scale_factor does seem like a much cleaner way to handle this issue. I think we should give that a try!

We will still need some fall-back choice for CFMaskCoder if neither a add_offset or scale_factor attribute is provided (due to xarray's representation of missing values as NaN), but this is a relatively uncommon situation.

Please let us know if converting to float64 explicitly and rounding again does not solve this issue for you.

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:47 AM Thomas Zilio notifications@github.com wrote:

To explain the full context and why it became some kind of a problem to us :

We're experimenting with the parquet format (via pyarrow) and we first did something like : netcdf file -> netcdf4 -> pandas -> pyarrow -> pandas (when read later on).

We're now looking at xarray and the the huge ease of access it offers to netcdf like data and we tried something similar : netcdf file -> xarray -> pandas -> pyarrow -> pandas (when read later on).

Our problem appears when we're reading and comparing the data stored with these 2 approches. The difference between the 2 was - sometimes - larger than what expected/acceptable (10e-6 for float32 if I'm not mistaken). We're not constraining any type and letting the system and modules decide how to encode what and in the end we have significantly different values.

There might be something wrong in our process but it originate here with this float32/float64 choice so we thought it might be a problem.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2304#issuecomment-410792506, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABKS1iZHdJnGlkA_dHGHFonA27lIM2xHks5uOIErgaJpZM4VbG9w .

Both multiplying by 0.01 and float32 -> float64 are approximately equivalently expensive. The cost is dominated by the memory copy.

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:17 AM Ryan May notifications@github.com wrote:

Ah, ok, not scaling per-se (i.e. * 0.01), but a second round of value conversion.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/2304#issuecomment-410782982, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABKS1oEOX3WI7oaPDOQb7R59UgDyPXDsks5uOHozgaJpZM4VbG9w .

I'm not following why the data are scaled twice.

We automatically scale the data from int16->float32 upon reading it in xarray (if decode_cf=True). There's no way to turn that off and still get automatic scaling, so the best you can do is layer on int16->float32->float64, when you might prefer to only do int16->float64.

But since it's a downstream calculation issue, and does not impact the actual precision of what's being read from the file, what's wrong with saying "Use data.astype(np.float64)". It's completely identical to doing it internally to xarray.

It's almost but not quite identical. The difference is that the data gets scaled twice. This adds twice the overhead for scaling the values (which to be fair is usually negligible compared to IO).

Also, to get exactly equivalent numerics for further computation you would need to round again, e.g., data.astype(np.float64).round(np.ceil(-np.log10(data.encoding['scale_factor']))). This starts to get a little messy :).

A float32 values has 24 bits of precision in the significand, which is more than enough to store the 16-bits in in the original data; the exponent (8 bits) will more or less take care of the * 0.01:

Right. The actual raw data is being stored as an integer 21940 (along with the scale factor of 0.01). Both 21.939998626708984 (as float32) and 21.940000000000001 (as float64) are floating point approximations of the exact decimal number 219.40.

I would be happy to add options for whether to default to float32 or float64 precision. There are clearly tradeoffs here: - float32 uses half the memory - float64 has more precision for downstream computation

I don't think we can make a statement about which is better in general. The best we can do is make an educated guess about which will be more useful / less surprising for most and/or new users, and pick that as the default.

To clarify: why is it a problem for you to get floating point values like 21.939998626708984 instead of 21.940000000000001? Is it a loss of precision in some downstream calculation? Both numbers are accurate well within the precision indicated by the netCDF file (0.01).

Note that it's very easy to later convert from float32 to float64, e.g., by writing ds.astype(np.float64).