Skip to content

Conversation

@camposandro
Copy link
Collaborator

The association tables may need to be repartitioned such that its pixels are different from the inner alignment between the primary and the join catalogs. If that's the case we need to recompute the alignment for the join.

This PR adds some logic to do that: align_catalog_with_association first aligns the primary catalog with the association catalog and then it aligns the result to the join catalog to obtain the pixels that need to be joined between the three.

This is a step toward #795. However, I am looking for feedback since this solution will introduce new assoc_Norder and assoc_Npix columns in the partition join info (apart from the already existing Norder, Npix and join_Norder, join_Npix).

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jun 5, 2025

Before [784dec3] After [2017b99] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
failed 25.0±0.6ms n/a benchmarks.time_box_filter_on_partition
failed 6.44±0.01s n/a benchmarks.time_create_large_catalog
failed 959±6ms n/a benchmarks.time_create_midsize_catalog
failed 83.3±1ms n/a benchmarks.time_kdtree_crossmatch
failed 41.4±1ms n/a benchmarks.time_polygon_search

Click here to view all benchmarks.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 5, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.89041% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 96.85%. Comparing base (784dec3) to head (61d8310).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/lsdb/catalog/catalog.py 85.71% 1 Missing ⚠️
src/lsdb/dask/join_catalog_data.py 95.23% 1 Missing ⚠️
src/lsdb/dask/merge_catalog_functions.py 96.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #811      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.65%   96.85%   +1.19%     
==========================================
  Files          54       54              
  Lines        2509     2540      +31     
==========================================
+ Hits         2400     2460      +60     
+ Misses        109       80      -29     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@review-notebook-app
Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

@camposandro camposandro merged commit 02f56d3 into main Aug 7, 2025
11 of 12 checks passed
@camposandro camposandro deleted the sandro/join-through-xmatch-association branch August 7, 2025 20:10
@camposandro camposandro linked an issue Aug 7, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
3 tasks
@delucchi-cmu delucchi-cmu mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2025
21 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Joining a catalog through association should use association catalog alignment

4 participants