Add in user example that compares a two different approaches to UDFs #770
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
andygrove
approved these changes
Jul 25, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
None
Rationale for this change
The current example for python UDF is useful but doesn't demonstrate to a new user how they might implement a UDF using converting rows to python objects vs using features built in to pyarrow. This example shows a real use case where someone could perform such operations. Also it prints out timing results showing how using a pyarrow approach can give you a 10x speed improvement over converting to python objects.
What changes are included in this PR?
Added one example
Are there any user-facing changes?
None