Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cache implementation in databricks.koalas namespace #398

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into from
Closed

cache implementation in databricks.koalas namespace #398

wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

shril
Copy link
Contributor

@shril shril commented May 29, 2019

PR #333

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 29, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #398 into master will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #398      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.06%   93.09%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          27       27              
  Lines        3344     3358      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits         3112     3126      +14     
  Misses        232      232
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
databricks/koalas/__init__.py 92.85% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
databricks/koalas/namespace.py 90.75% <100%> (+0.57%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 103f1a6...a40630f. Read the comment docs.

@shril
Copy link
Contributor Author

shril commented May 29, 2019

@HyukjinKwon, can you please help me out here?
The build is failing in some update statement -

The command "sudo apt-get update" failed and exited with 100 during .

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

I retriggered the job but actually I was thinking about avoiding to add it into name space. Let's get the dataframe one first.

@shril
Copy link
Contributor Author

shril commented Jun 2, 2019

Hi @HyukjinKwon, the dataframe one is done.
Will we proceed with this one too or will we just go with the dataframe one?

@rxin can we have your insights here?

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Let's get #397 in first anyway.

@shril
Copy link
Contributor Author

shril commented Jun 4, 2019

@HyukjinKwon, I am okay with either of them.

@softagram-bot
Copy link

Softagram Impact Report for pull/398 (head commit: a40630f)

⭐ Change Overview

Showing the changed files, dependency changes and the impact - click for full size
(Open in Softagram Desktop for full details)

📄 Full report

Give feedback on this report to [email protected]

@shril
Copy link
Contributor Author

shril commented Jun 9, 2019

@ueshin Can you have a look here also?

@ueshin
Copy link
Collaborator

ueshin commented Jun 10, 2019

Actually I don't think we still need this if df.cache() can work with with as @HyukjinKwon suggested.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Let's close this for now. I think df.cache() with context manager is powerful enough.

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.

5 participants