Skip to content

Conversation

chris-b1
Copy link
Contributor

@chris-b1 chris-b1 commented Feb 1, 2016

closes part of #7621

WIP, but wanted to put it up as is, since it probably interacts with #12129
cc: @kawochen

this is how I modified the schema - open to suggestions

# normal block
 {'dtype': dtype,
  'data': ExtType(0, <bytes>)}
# Categorical block
 {'dtype': 'categorical',
  'data': {
      'codes': {'dtype': 'int8', 'data': ExtType(0, <bytes>),
      'categories': {'dtype': dtype, 'data': ExtType(0, <bytes>)}
}

@pwaller
Copy link
Contributor

pwaller commented Mar 9, 2016

I have cherry picked this onto 0.18.0rc1, fixed the conflict and it worksforme™.

Can I submit a PR with it?

@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Mar 9, 2016

iirc last time this was looked at we were going for a slightly more general soln for extension types
I believe @kawochen made the changes in master to make this accessible

@chris-b1
@kawochen

@pwaller
Copy link
Contributor

pwaller commented Mar 9, 2016

It would be awesome if there was any chance of getting this into 0.18.0.

@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Mar 9, 2016

no but 0.18.1 won't be far away

@chris-b1
Copy link
Contributor Author

chris-b1 commented Mar 9, 2016

@pwaller - feel free to submit a PR on my branch or just open up a new one if it's simpler.

Looking at #12129, the Series constructor logic can be probably cleaned up, but I think the overall approach still needs to something like what I did here - extending the schema to store both categories and codes.

@pwaller
Copy link
Contributor

pwaller commented Mar 9, 2016

Submitted at #12573

@jreback
Copy link
Contributor

jreback commented Mar 9, 2016

closing in favor of #12573

@jreback jreback closed this Mar 9, 2016
@chris-b1 chris-b1 deleted the msgpack-categorical branch June 8, 2016 22:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Categorical Categorical Data Type Enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants