refactor(joins): require explicit abstract table as RHS of joins #9661
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
|
Converting this to draft to avoid merging early |
gforsyth
force-pushed
the
only_join_abstract_tables
branch
from
796f144 to
d160173
Compare
gforsyth
added
the
breaking change
gforsyth
force-pushed
the
only_join_abstract_tables
branch
from
d160173 to
162f8f2
Compare
We have (had) limited support for passing in in-memory objects as the RHS of a join, where we would create a memtable for the user and then use that. For backends where memtable creation is expensive, or for queries where there may be multiple calls to the same in-memory data, it is better to be explicit and first register the in-memory data with the backend using either `memtable` or `create_table`. BREAKING CHANGE: Passing a `pyarrow.Table` or a `pandas.DataFrame` as the right-hand-side of a join is no longer supported. To join against in-memory data, you can pass the in-memory object to `ibis.memtable` or `con.create_table` and use the resulting table object instead.
gforsyth
force-pushed
the
only_join_abstract_tables
branch
from
162f8f2 to
dd0dbfb
Compare
cpcloud
approved these changes
Sep 23, 2024
ncclementi
pushed a commit
to ncclementi/ibis
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 24, 2024
…s-project#9661) ## Description of changes We have (had) limited support for passing in in-memory objects as the RHS of a join, where we would create a memtable for the user and then use that. For backends where memtable creation is expensive, or for queries where there may be multiple calls to the same in-memory data, it is better to be explicit and first register the in-memory data with the backend using either `memtable` or `create_table`. BREAKING CHANGE: Passing a `pyarrow.Table` or a `pandas.DataFrame` as the right-hand-side of a join is no longer supported. To join against in-memory data, you can pass the in-memory object to `ibis.memtable` or `con.create_table` and use the resulting table object instead. ## Issues closed * Resolves ibis-project#9571
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.
Description of changes
We have (had) limited support for passing in in-memory objects as the
RHS of a join, where we would create a memtable for the user and then
use that. For backends where memtable creation is expensive, or for
queries where there may be multiple calls to the same in-memory data, it
is better to be explicit and first register the in-memory data with the
backend using either
memtableorcreate_table.BREAKING CHANGE: Passing a
pyarrow.Tableor apandas.DataFrameasthe right-hand-side of a join is no longer supported.
To join against in-memory data, you can pass the in-memory object to
ibis.memtableorcon.create_tableand use the resulting table objectinstead.
Issues closed