Timeline for Simple dataset query fails
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2017 at 22:32 | comment | added | m_goldberg | @ChrisNadovich. Well, that's a nice sentiment and great goal the development team to have :-P Let us pray that we will live to see its achievement. | |
| Jul 13, 2017 at 19:20 | comment | added | Chris Nadovich | On slide two of the presentation on Datasets given at the Wolfram Tech Conference 2014 is the claim that Datasets are intended to solve the problem: "if something goes wrong it can be hard to understand why". youtube.com/watch?v=ks1iJSXy1CQ | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 18:07 | comment | added | m_goldberg | @ChrisNadovich. That is was derived from another dataset does matter. Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe it is a bug (there are plenty of them). But your derived dataset does not have the normal form, and that is something you must deal with. | |
| Jul 10, 2017 at 14:00 | vote | accept | Chris Nadovich | ||
| Jul 10, 2017 at 13:58 | comment | added | Chris Nadovich | Yeah, I'm starting to understand these may not be ready for prime time. But regarding the "you give no information about the bigger dataset" thing, riddle me this: why should it matter? Seriously. Why, ever, in any case, should I need to add curly braces to the column name, making it a list, only when more than one row is selected? Sounds to me like a bug, plain and simple. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 20:07 | comment | added | m_goldberg | @ChrisNadovich. Unfortunately, I have found renormalization is often necessary, but less so in V11.1.1 than in previous versions. It is something any user of datasets should keep in mind when weirdness happens. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 20:03 | comment | added | m_goldberg | @ChrisNadovich. I did not mean 'simple' as technical term; the usual dictionary definition will do. Or the renormalized form my be considered to define simple in this case. Datasets are a work in progress. They behave a lot better in V11.1.1 than they did in V10.0. I can't say more because the dataset you use in your example was derived by querying another more complicated dataset and you give no information about that process. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 16:14 | comment | added | Chris Nadovich | Indeed, renormalizing fixes it. But that's the crux of the question. Is it expected practice to need to renormalize after every query? If so, why isn't that the default format of a query result? Perhaps Dataset[#//Normal] processing should be the default and there should be an option Abnormal to give you the abnormal behavior should you actually want it. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 16:05 | comment | added | Chris Nadovich | Define "simple dataset". I'm querying something that is a list of associations. All associations in the list have exactly the same keys. The value associated with each key has exactly the same structure, typically just one number, but sometimes a list of numbers. I'm really not doing anything fancy -- I thought. It's so frustrating when you invest many days to learn a new topic (Datasets), build something from it, and then encounter erratic behavior nobody understands. | |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 11:29 | history | edited | MarcoB | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Fixed likely typos |
| Jul 8, 2017 at 5:12 | history | answered | m_goldberg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |