Should store `Table._rows` as columns instead of rows?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
enhancement
question
rows.table
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 886
- Forks
- 137
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
May use array.array or something like this.
Pros:
- Better performance to calculate manipulate data inside a column
- Possibility to create/replace columns easily (and dinamically)
Cons:
- Overhead to create a new row
- Add a lot of complexity to
Table.order_by
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the implementation of Table._rows and Table.order_by, then compare the proposed row-oriented and column-oriented designs against the listed performance, column replacement, row creation, and ordering trade-offs. Done would require a decided storage design and clearly defined acceptance criteria, which the issue does not currently provide.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- data
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100