Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Kent Yao d65f534c5a [SPARK-31414][SQL] Fix performance regression with new TimestampFormatter for json and csv time parsing
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

With benchmark original, where the timestamp values are valid to the new parser

the result is
```scala
[info] Running benchmark: Read dates and timestamps
[info]   Running case: timestamp strings
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 5781 ms
[info]   Running case: parse timestamps from Dataset[String]
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 44764 ms
[info]   Running case: infer timestamps from Dataset[String]
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 93764 ms
[info]   Running case: from_json(timestamp)
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 59021 ms
```
When we modify the benchmark to

```scala
     def timestampStr: Dataset[String] = {
        spark.range(0, rowsNum, 1, 1).mapPartitions { iter =>
          iter.map(i => s"""{"timestamp":"1970-01-01T01:02:03.${i % 100}"}""")
        }.select($"value".as("timestamp")).as[String]
      }

      readBench.addCase("timestamp strings", numIters) { _ =>
        timestampStr.noop()
      }

      readBench.addCase("parse timestamps from Dataset[String]", numIters) { _ =>
        spark.read.schema(tsSchema).json(timestampStr).noop()
      }

      readBench.addCase("infer timestamps from Dataset[String]", numIters) { _ =>
        spark.read.json(timestampStr).noop()
      }
```
where the timestamp values are invalid for the new parser which causes a fallback to legacy parser(2.4).
the result is

```scala
[info] Running benchmark: Read dates and timestamps
[info]   Running case: timestamp strings
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 5623 ms
[info]   Running case: parse timestamps from Dataset[String]
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 506637 ms
[info]   Running case: infer timestamps from Dataset[String]
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 509076 ms
```
About 10x perf-regression

BUT if we modify the timestamp pattern to `....HH:mm:ss[.SSS][XXX]` which make all timestamp values valid for the new parser to prohibit fallback, the result is

```scala
[info] Running benchmark: Read dates and timestamps
[info]   Running case: timestamp strings
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 5623 ms
[info]   Running case: parse timestamps from Dataset[String]
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 506637 ms
[info]   Running case: infer timestamps from Dataset[String]
[info]   Stopped after 3 iterations, 509076 ms
```

### Why are the changes needed?

 Fix performance regression.

### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

NO
### How was this patch tested?

new tests added.

Closes #28181 from yaooqinn/SPARK-31414.

Authored-by: Kent Yao <yaooqinn@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
2020-04-13 03:11:28 +00:00
Maxim Gekk 4e50f0291f [SPARK-30323][SQL] Support filters pushdown in CSV datasource
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?

In the PR, I propose to support pushed down filters in CSV datasource. The reason of pushing a filter up to `UnivocityParser` is to apply the filter as soon as all its attributes become available i.e. converted from CSV fields to desired values according to the schema. This allows to skip conversions of other values if the filter returns `false`. This can improve performance when pushed filters are highly selective and conversion of CSV string fields to desired values are comparably expensive ( for example, conversion to `TIMESTAMP` values).

Here are details of the implementation:
- `UnivocityParser.convert()` converts parsed CSV tokens one-by-one sequentially starting from index 0 up to `parsedSchema.length - 1`. At current index `i`, it applies filters that refer to attributes at row fields indexes `0..i`. If any filter returns `false`, it skips conversions of other input tokens.
- Pushed filters are converted to expressions. The expressions are bound to row positions according to `requiredSchema`. The expressions are compiled to predicates via generating Java code.
- To be able to apply predicates to partially initialized rows, the predicates are grouped, and combined via the `And` expression. Final predicate at index `N` can refer to row fields at the positions `0..N`, and can be applied to a row even if other fields at the positions `N+1..requiredSchema.lenght-1` are not set.

### Why are the changes needed?
The changes improve performance on synthetic benchmarks more **than 9 times** (on JDK 8 & 11):
```
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 11.0.5+10 on Mac OS X 10.15.2
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4850HQ CPU  2.30GHz
Filters pushdown:                         Best Time(ms)   Avg Time(ms)   Stdev(ms)    Rate(M/s)   Per Row(ns)   Relative
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w/o filters                                       11889          11945          52          0.0      118893.1       1.0X
pushdown disabled                                 11790          11860         115          0.0      117902.3       1.0X
w/ filters                                         1240           1278          33          0.1       12400.8       9.6X
```

### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No

### How was this patch tested?
- Added new test suite `CSVFiltersSuite`
- Added tests to `CSVSuite` and `UnivocityParserSuite`

Closes #26973 from MaxGekk/csv-filters-pushdown.

Authored-by: Maxim Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: HyukjinKwon <gurwls223@apache.org>
2020-01-16 13:10:08 +09:00
Maxim Gekk f5118f81e3 [SPARK-30409][SPARK-29173][SQL][TESTS] Use NoOp datasource in SQL benchmarks
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
In the PR, I propose to replace `.collect()`, `.count()` and `.foreach(_ => ())` in SQL benchmarks and use the `NoOp` datasource. I added an implicit class to `SqlBasedBenchmark` with the `.noop()` method. It can be used in benchmark like: `ds.noop()`. The last one is unfolded to `ds.write.format("noop").mode(Overwrite).save()`.

### Why are the changes needed?
To avoid additional overhead that `collect()` (and other actions) has. For example, `.collect()` has to convert values according to external types and pull data to the driver. This can hide actual performance regressions or improvements of benchmarked operations.

### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No

### How was this patch tested?
Re-run all modified benchmarks using Amazon EC2.

| Item | Description |
| ---- | ----|
| Region | us-west-2 (Oregon) |
| Instance | r3.xlarge (spot instance) |
| AMI | ami-06f2f779464715dc5 (ubuntu/images/hvm-ssd/ubuntu-bionic-18.04-amd64-server-20190722.1) |
| Java | OpenJDK8/10 |

- Run `TPCDSQueryBenchmark` using instructions from the PR #26049
```
# `spark-tpcds-datagen` needs this. (JDK8)
$ git clone https://github.com/apache/spark.git -b branch-2.4 --depth 1 spark-2.4
$ export SPARK_HOME=$PWD
$ ./build/mvn clean package -DskipTests

# Generate data. (JDK8)
$ git clone gitgithub.com:maropu/spark-tpcds-datagen.git
$ cd spark-tpcds-datagen/
$ build/mvn clean package
$ mkdir -p /data/tpcds
$ ./bin/dsdgen --output-location /data/tpcds/s1  // This need `Spark 2.4`
```
- Other benchmarks ran by the script:
```
#!/usr/bin/env python3

import os
from sparktestsupport.shellutils import run_cmd

benchmarks = [
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.AggregateBenchmark'],
    ['avro/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.AvroReadBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.BloomFilterBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.DataSourceReadBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.DateTimeBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.ExtractBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.FilterPushdownBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.InExpressionBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.IntervalBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.JoinBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.MakeDateTimeBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.MiscBenchmark'],
    ['hive/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.ObjectHashAggregateExecBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.OrcNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.OrcV2NestedSchemaPruningBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.ParquetNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.RangeBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.UDFBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.WideSchemaBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.WideTableBenchmark'],
    ['hive/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.hive.orc.OrcReadBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.csv.CSVBenchmark'],
    ['sql/test', 'org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.json.JsonBenchmark']
]

print('Set SPARK_GENERATE_BENCHMARK_FILES=1')
os.environ['SPARK_GENERATE_BENCHMARK_FILES'] = '1'

for b in benchmarks:
    print("Run benchmark: %s" % b[1])
    run_cmd(['build/sbt', '%s:runMain %s' % (b[0], b[1])])
```

Closes #27078 from MaxGekk/noop-in-benchmarks.

Lead-authored-by: Maxim Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Maxim Gekk <maxim.gekk@databricks.com>
Co-authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
2020-01-12 13:18:19 -08:00
Dongjoon Hyun 854a0f752e [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 08:58:25 -07:00