Skip to content

Ambiguous description in pandas.DataFrame.to_parquet documentation #19662

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

Closed
pmlandwehr opened this issue Feb 12, 2018 · 2 comments · Fixed by #19669
Closed

Ambiguous description in pandas.DataFrame.to_parquet documentation #19662

pmlandwehr opened this issue Feb 12, 2018 · 2 comments · Fixed by #19669
Milestone

Comments

@pmlandwehr
Copy link

Relevant Docstring

In the verson 0.22.0 pandas.DataFrame.to_parquet documentation, the engine kwarg is described as:

"Parquet reader library to use. If ‘auto’, then the option ‘io.parquet.engine’ is used. If ‘auto’, then the first library to be installed is used."

The two descriptions of "auto" are in conflict, so the one that isn't correct should be removed.

@TomAugspurger
Copy link
Contributor

Agreed that it's unclear, but they aren't in conflict. That's explaining the implementation more than the behavior.

This should read

Parquet library to use. If 'auto', the value from ``io.parquet.engine`` is used. The
default ``io.parquet.engine`` behavior is to try 'pyarrow', falling back to 'fastparquet' if
'pyarrow' is unavailable.

PRs welcome!

@TomAugspurger TomAugspurger added this to the Next Major Release milestone Feb 12, 2018
@giba0
Copy link
Contributor

giba0 commented Feb 12, 2018

I'll do this!
=)

giba0 added a commit to giba0/pandas that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2018
TomAugspurger added a commit to TomAugspurger/pandas that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2018
…OCS---Ambiguous-description-in-pandas.DataFrame.to_parquet-documentation-pandas-dev#19662
@jorisvandenbossche jorisvandenbossche modified the milestones: Next Major Release, 0.23.0 Feb 13, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants