mrkn commented on pull request #7477:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7477#issuecomment-656481697
@wesm I've finished rebase and adding tests for zero tensor cases. Please
review this and then merge it if possible.
---
mrkn commented on pull request #7477:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7477#issuecomment-652124757
@pitrou In summary, the constraint of the indices order of SparseCOOIndex
was removed, but the new flag field is introduced to state whether or not the
indices tensor is ordered in a
mrkn commented on pull request #7477:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7477#issuecomment-650148002
> > Without the canonical flag, we need to make a copy and sort the data of
non-canonical sparse tensor when serializing it because the current
SparseCOOIndex has the constraint that
mrkn commented on pull request #7477:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7477#issuecomment-650089924
@pitrou Without the canonical flag, we need to make a copy and sort the data
of non-canonical sparse tensor when serializing it because the current
SparseCOOIndex has the constraint
mrkn commented on pull request #7477:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/7477#issuecomment-647860707
> I don't understand the PR's motivation. You say that:
>
> > To support the integration with scipy.sparse.coo_matrix, it is necessary
to add a flag in SparseCOOIndex
> > bu
