Returning only groups

From tidyverse/dplyr#1073 (comment)

require(data.table)
DT = data.table(x=1:2, y=1:6)
#    x y
#1: 1 1
#2: 2 2
#3: 1 3
#4: 2 4
#5: 1 5
#6: 2 6
DT[, .SD, by=x] # rows for each group are collected together
#    x y
#1: 1 1
#2: 1 3
#3: 1 5
#4: 2 2
#5: 2 4
#6: 2 6

Currently, there's no way of returning just the groups:

# expected result
#    x
#1: 1
#2: 2

Would it be sensible to have DT[, list(), by = x] perform this kind of grouping; that is, as a special case where j is an empty list? Or is it expected that this would provide results identical to DT[, c(), by = x] in the development version of data.table?

Or, alternatively, the syntax DT[, by = x] could implicitly collapse over the grouping variable x? Right now it seems like that is a no-op.

@kevinushey

@kevinushey, IIRC we'd like for DT[, , by = .] and DT[by=.] to mimic DT[, .SD, by=.]. Just because it makes more sense than just returning the groups (for data.table syntax).

DT[, .(), by=.] and DT[, list(), by=.] doesn't feel quite right to me, yet, as well. It seems like a very rare operation, but we should be able to do this. Will keep thinking. More suggestions of course welcome!

Related issue - #1242

It is possible using DT[, unique(.SD), .SDcols=.]. The DT[, list(), by=.] would be fine but the j of length 0 makes some inconsistency with non-0 rows returned value. Maybe DT[, list(.), by=.] would be better? currently just duplicates the column(s), that could be handled.

Some other thoughts:

DT[, NULL, by = x]: Treat NULL specially when a group has been specified?
DT[, .NULL, by = x]: Use a special dot symbol as a proxy for 'no column(s) to generate', similar in spirit to the other .I variables?
DT[, groups = x]: Add a new parameter that performs grouping and returns the grouped data.table; operates the same as by but does not accept a j expression?

Of the options so far, I like DT[, .(), by = ...] the most - and the more I stare at it, the more it seems to be perfectly suited for this job.

I like DT[, .(), by = ...]

+1, seems as the most natural option to me as well.

Personally, I think DT[keyby=...] is most natural and easiest to read (by and keyby should be interchangeable here).

Since you don't want j, leaving it out seems natural. Also, it leaves open the possibility for adding an i argument, which could be handy. (For example you could want "all names / email combos that didn't get a response, except known spam addresses.)

Linking to discussion here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/36270046/is-it-possible-to-return-a-data-table-without-j also #1245

@geneorama

I like the @geneorama proposal, there is another issue on handling that #1105

Could eventually be defined as .SDcols=NULL, .SDcols=character().

Actually, there is a simple syntax for doing this:
DT[, .(x = unique(x))]

@aradev

@aradev In current implementation, this is much slower than DT[ , TRUE, by = x].

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Returning only groups #1269

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Returning only groups #1269

Description

Activity

kevinushey commented on Aug 14, 2015

kevinushey commented on Aug 14, 2015

arunsrinivasan commented on Aug 14, 2015

eantonya commented on Aug 14, 2015

jangorecki commented on Aug 14, 2015

kevinushey commented on Aug 14, 2015

eantonya commented on Aug 14, 2015

vspinu commented on Aug 27, 2015

geneorama commented on Mar 28, 2016

mattdowle commented on Mar 28, 2016

jangorecki commented on Apr 13, 2016

jangorecki commented on Aug 2, 2016

aradev commented on Nov 16, 2017

MichaelChirico commented on Nov 16, 2017

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions