Comparing pd.Series and getting, what appears to be, unusual results when the series contains None
--------------------------------------------------
Rise to the top 3% as a developer or hire one of them at Toptal: https://topt.al/25cXVn
--------------------------------------------------
Music by Eric Matyas
https://www.soundimage.org
Track title: Quiet Intelligence
--
Chapters
00:00 Comparing Pd.Series And Getting, What Appears To Be, Unusual Results When The Series Contains None
00:43 Accepted Answer Score 3
01:20 Thank you
--
Full question
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5354...
--
Content licensed under CC BY-SA
https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/lice...
--
Tags
#python #python3x #pandas
#avk47
    Rise to the top 3% as a developer or hire one of them at Toptal: https://topt.al/25cXVn
--------------------------------------------------
Music by Eric Matyas
https://www.soundimage.org
Track title: Quiet Intelligence
--
Chapters
00:00 Comparing Pd.Series And Getting, What Appears To Be, Unusual Results When The Series Contains None
00:43 Accepted Answer Score 3
01:20 Thank you
--
Full question
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5354...
--
Content licensed under CC BY-SA
https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/lice...
--
Tags
#python #python3x #pandas
#avk47
ACCEPTED ANSWER
Score 3
This is by design:
see the warnings box: http://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/missing_data.html
This was done quite a while ago to make the behavior of nulls consistent, in that they don't compare equal. This puts
Noneandnp.nanon an equal (though not-consistent with python, BUT consistent with numpy) footing.So this is not a bug, rather a consequence of stradling 2 conventions.
I suppose the documentation could be slightly enhanced.
For equality of series containing null values, use pd.Series.equals:
pd.Series(['x', 'y', None]).equals(pd.Series(['x', 'y', None]))  # True