PERF: do not check for label presence preventively #21594
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
toobaz
added
Refactor
This was referenced Jun 22, 2018
jschendel
reviewed
Jun 22, 2018
doc/source/whatsnew/v0.24.0.txt
Outdated
| @@ -198,6 +199,7 @@ Indexing | |||
| ^^^^^^^^ | |||
|
|
|||
| - The traceback from a ``KeyError`` when asking ``.loc`` for a single missing label is now shorter and more clear (:issue:`21557`) | |||
| - When ``.ix`` is asked for a missing integer label in a :class:`MultiIndex` with a first level of integer type, it now raises a ``KeyError``, consistently with the case of a flat :class:``Int64Index`` (:issue:`21593`) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Extra backticks in :class:``Int64Index``
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #21594 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.9% 91.9% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 153 153
Lines 49547 49530 -17
==========================================
- Hits 45537 45523 -14
+ Misses 4010 4007 -3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
jreback
requested changes
Jun 22, 2018
doc/source/whatsnew/v0.24.0.txt
Outdated
| @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ Performance Improvements | |||
|
|
|||
| - Improved performance of :func:`Series.describe` in case of numeric dtpyes (:issue:`21274`) | |||
| - Improved performance of :func:`pandas.core.groupby.GroupBy.rank` when dealing with tied rankings (:issue:`21237`) | |||
| - Improved performance of label indexing when key is a single label (:issue:`21594`) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
mention / reference .loc/.at here
| @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ def test_iloc_getitem_multiindex(self): | |||
| # corner column | |||
| rs = mi_int.iloc[2, 2] | |||
| with catch_warnings(record=True): | |||
| xp = mi_int.ix[:, 2].ix[2] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not that we care too much, but is this case looks slightly different from below (where testing for .ix)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, because as long as first level is non-int, .ix is fine. Adding a comment.
jreback
requested changes
Jun 22, 2018
doc/source/whatsnew/v0.24.0.txt
Outdated
| @@ -198,6 +199,7 @@ Indexing | |||
| ^^^^^^^^ | |||
|
|
|||
| - The traceback from a ``KeyError`` when asking ``.loc`` for a single missing label is now shorter and more clear (:issue:`21557`) | |||
| - When ``.ix`` is asked for a missing integer label in a :class:`MultiIndex` with a first level of integer type, it now raises a ``KeyError``, consistently with the case of a flat :class:``Int64Index`` (:issue:`21593`) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what did this raise before? (or did it work?)
|
@jreback added a couple of comments, ready for me |
jreback
approved these changes
Jun 25, 2018
|
thanks @toobaz nice code removal! keep em coming! |
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.
git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diffASV run:
We don't check anymore if errors raised in indexing have to do with ordering different types (in Python 3)... but I can't think of any possible case (and none is present in the tests) in which looking for a single label could create a sorting problem.