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

Project/afw table/ishasan #116

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 2, 2018
Merged

Project/afw table/ishasan #116

merged 6 commits into from
Nov 2, 2018

Conversation

ih64
Copy link
Contributor

@ih64 ih64 commented Sep 7, 2018

this PR is for issue #51 , a guided tour to AFW tables in the basics section. Ready for comments and review :)

@ih64 ih64 requested a review from drphilmarshall September 7, 2018 06:39
@ih64
Copy link
Contributor Author

ih64 commented Sep 17, 2018

made changes suggested in stack club. Biggest changes:

  1. commented on contiguous vs non contiguous tables. Demonstrating the difference by using %%timeit was not effective because the tables we are dealing with are too small for contiguity to make a difference. As a compromise, I include a link that shows an example using ~.5 million rows

  2. I elected to remove the discussion of footprints and heavyfootprints. Going into a discussion of them would take us into a digression about source detection, and take away from the heart of the notebook, which is a guided tour to tables. I'm happy to do a separate footprint tutorial later.

  3. I demonstrated catalog matching with two use cases. one where we keep only the nearest neighbors and one where we keep all matches within a search radius.

@drphilmarshall
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @ih64 - apologies for the looong delay on reviewing this. I thought I remembered you saying you were thinking of extending this notebook a bit, but since I don't see any commits beyond the stack club group-review I guess that extension is on hold (or not planned) and the ball is still squarely in my court for reviewing/approving this. If I can get a good enough connection at Newark airport in tomorrow's club session I will do it then.

Copy link
Contributor

@drphilmarshall drphilmarshall left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is great, @ih64 - really nice work! I fixed a bunch of typos while working through your notebook, and will submit an easy PR against this branch with those. I then have just one final request - that we show how to make a table with ra and dec in degrees, not radians. I'll pre-approve though, so that you can merge whenever you've added that last feature. Thanks very much, this is going to be most useful!

"cell_type": "markdown",
"metadata": {},
"source": [
"Notice to set the ra and dec, we needed to create afwGeom.Angle objects. These are in units of radians by default. Additionally, we set the parent to zero. This means this record refers to the object before any deblending occoured. Lets look at our table now to see how it stands"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Your example ra and dec look like they are in degrees, not radians - but I think it will be common for people to have coordinates in degrees. Perhaps this example should include showing what to do if this is indeed your situation. I guess the right thing to do is define the unit to be degrees when you instantiate the afwgeom.Angles? And then my last tiny suggestion is that your example dec should lie between 0 ad -70 deg :-)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @drphilmarshall! I now explicitly set the unit using keyword arguments when making afwGeom.Angles. Ready to merge (^^)/

@ih64 ih64 merged commit e263a04 into master Nov 2, 2018
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.

2 participants