BUG: read_hdf bad filtering in case of categorical string columns #39351
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
…has wrong number of columns (pandas-dev#39341)
|
yes, ofc. |
Co-authored-by: jreback <[email protected]>
…es-for-categorical' into read-hdf-returns-unexpected-values-for-categorical
nofarm3
deleted the
read-hdf-returns-unexpected-values-for-categorical
branch
nofarm3
restored the
read-hdf-returns-unexpected-values-for-categorical
branch
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This bug happens when filtering on categorical string columns and choose a value which doesn't exist in the column.
Instead of returning an empty dataframe, we get some records.
It happens because of the usage in numpy
searchsorted(v, side="left")that find indices where elements should be inserted to maintain order (and not 0 in case that the value doesn't exist), like was assumed in the code.I changed it to first the for the value, and use
searchsortedonly if value exists, I also added a test for this specific use case.I think in the long run, maybe we should refactor this area in the code since one function covers multiple use cases which makes it more complex to test.