ODIn/spark-instrumented-optimizer
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity
spark-instrumented-optimizer/sql/core/benchmarks/RangeBenchmark-results.txt

16 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

[SPARK-25710][SQL] range should report metrics correctly ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? Currently `Range` reports metrics in batch granularity. This is acceptable, but it's better if we can make it row granularity without performance penalty. Before this PR, the metrics are updated when preparing the batch, which is before we actually consume data. In this PR, the metrics are updated after the data are consumed. There are 2 different cases: 1. The data processing loop has a stop check. The metrics are updated when we need to stop. 2. no stop check. The metrics are updated after the loop. ## How was this patch tested? existing tests and a new benchmark Closes #22698 from cloud-fan/range. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
2018-10-13 01:55:28 -04:00
================================================================================================
range
================================================================================================
[SPARK-34950][TESTS] Update benchmark results to the ones created by GitHub Actions machines ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/32015 added a way to run benchmarks much more easily in the same GitHub Actions build. This PR updates the benchmark results by using the way. **NOTE** that looks like GitHub Actions use four types of CPU given my observations: - Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8171M CPU 2.60GHz - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v4 2.30GHz - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v3 2.40GHz - Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8272CL CPU 2.60GHz Given my quick research, seems like they perform roughly similarly: ![Screen Shot 2021-04-03 at 9 31 23 PM](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6477701/113478478-f4b57b80-94c3-11eb-9047-f81ca8c59672.png) I couldn't find enough information about Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8272CL CPU 2.60GHz but the performance seems roughly similar given the numbers. So shouldn't be a big deal especially given that this way is much easier, encourages contributors to run more and guarantee the same number of cores and same memory with the same softwares. ### Why are the changes needed? To have a base line of the benchmarks accordingly. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, dev-only. ### How was this patch tested? It was generated from: - [Run benchmarks: * (JDK 11)](https://github.com/HyukjinKwon/spark/actions/runs/713575465) - [Run benchmarks: * (JDK 8)](https://github.com/HyukjinKwon/spark/actions/runs/713154337) Closes #32044 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-34950. Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
2021-04-03 16:02:56 -04:00
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_282-b08 on Linux 5.4.0-1043-azure
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v4 @ 2.30GHz
[SPARK-29320][TESTS] Compare `sql/core` module in JDK8/11 (Part 1) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR regenerates the `sql/core` benchmarks in JDK8/11 to compare the result. In general, we compare the ratio instead of the time. However, in this PR, the average time is compared. This PR should be considered as a rough comparison. **A. EXPECTED CASES(JDK11 is faster in general)** - [x] BloomFilterBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except one case) - [x] BuiltInDataSourceWriteBenchmark (JDK11 is faster at CSV/ORC) - [x] CSVBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except five cases) - [x] ColumnarBatchBenchmark (JDK11 is faster at `boolean`/`string` and some cases in `int`/`array`) - [x] DatasetBenchmark (JDK11 is faster with `string`, but is slower for `long` type) - [x] ExternalAppendOnlyUnsafeRowArrayBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except two cases) - [x] ExtractBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except HOUR/MINUTE/SECOND/MILLISECONDS/MICROSECONDS) - [x] HashedRelationMetricsBenchmark (JDK11 is faster) - [x] JSONBenchmark (JDK11 is much faster except eight cases) - [x] JoinBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except five cases) - [x] OrcNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark (JDK11 is faster in nine cases) - [x] PrimitiveArrayBenchmark (JDK11 is faster) - [x] SortBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except `Arrays.sort` case) - [x] UDFBenchmark (N/A, values are too small) - [x] UnsafeArrayDataBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except one case) - [x] WideTableBenchmark (JDK11 is faster except two cases) **B. CASES WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE MORE LATER** - [x] AggregateBenchmark (JDK11 is slower in general) - [x] CompressionSchemeBenchmark (JDK11 is slower in general except `string`) - [x] DataSourceReadBenchmark (JDK11 is slower in general) - [x] DateTimeBenchmark (JDK11 is slightly slower in general except `parsing`) - [x] MakeDateTimeBenchmark (JDK11 is slower except two cases) - [x] MiscBenchmark (JDK11 is slower except ten cases) - [x] OrcV2NestedSchemaPruningBenchmark (JDK11 is slower) - [x] ParquetNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark (JDK11 is slower except six cases) - [x] RangeBenchmark (JDK11 is slower except one case) `FilterPushdownBenchmark/InExpressionBenchmark/WideSchemaBenchmark` will be compared later because it took long timer. ### Why are the changes needed? According to the result, there are some difference between JDK8/JDK11. This will be a baseline for the future improvement and comparison. Also, as a reproducible environment, the following environment is used. - Instance: `r3.xlarge` - OS: `CentOS Linux release 7.5.1804 (Core)` - JDK: - `OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_222-b10)` - `OpenJDK Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11.0.4+11-LTS)` ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? This is a test-only PR. We need to run benchmark. Closes #26003 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-29320. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
2019-10-03 11:58:25 -04:00
range: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[SPARK-34950][TESTS] Update benchmark results to the ones created by GitHub Actions machines ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/32015 added a way to run benchmarks much more easily in the same GitHub Actions build. This PR updates the benchmark results by using the way. **NOTE** that looks like GitHub Actions use four types of CPU given my observations: - Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8171M CPU 2.60GHz - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v4 2.30GHz - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2673 v3 2.40GHz - Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8272CL CPU 2.60GHz Given my quick research, seems like they perform roughly similarly: ![Screen Shot 2021-04-03 at 9 31 23 PM](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/6477701/113478478-f4b57b80-94c3-11eb-9047-f81ca8c59672.png) I couldn't find enough information about Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8272CL CPU 2.60GHz but the performance seems roughly similar given the numbers. So shouldn't be a big deal especially given that this way is much easier, encourages contributors to run more and guarantee the same number of cores and same memory with the same softwares. ### Why are the changes needed? To have a base line of the benchmarks accordingly. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, dev-only. ### How was this patch tested? It was generated from: - [Run benchmarks: * (JDK 11)](https://github.com/HyukjinKwon/spark/actions/runs/713575465) - [Run benchmarks: * (JDK 8)](https://github.com/HyukjinKwon/spark/actions/runs/713154337) Closes #32044 from HyukjinKwon/SPARK-34950. Authored-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Max Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
2021-04-03 16:02:56 -04:00
full scan 18617 18864 257 28.2 35.5 1.0X
limit after range 23 25 2 23167.0 0.0 822.7X
filter after range 1288 1331 47 407.1 2.5 14.5X
count after range 56 62 4 9281.9 0.1 329.6X
count after limit after range 34 35 3 15645.0 0.1 555.6X
[SPARK-25710][SQL] range should report metrics correctly ## What changes were proposed in this pull request? Currently `Range` reports metrics in batch granularity. This is acceptable, but it's better if we can make it row granularity without performance penalty. Before this PR, the metrics are updated when preparing the batch, which is before we actually consume data. In this PR, the metrics are updated after the data are consumed. There are 2 different cases: 1. The data processing loop has a stop check. The metrics are updated when we need to stop. 2. no stop check. The metrics are updated after the loop. ## How was this patch tested? existing tests and a new benchmark Closes #22698 from cloud-fan/range. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
2018-10-13 01:55:28 -04:00
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink