[SPARK-31527][SQL][TESTS][FOLLOWUP] Fix the number of rows in DateTimeBenchmark
#28440
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Test build #122227 has finished for PR 28440 at commit
|
Member
Author
|
@cloud-fan @maropu @yaooqinn Please, review this PR. |
yaooqinn
approved these changes
May 3, 2020
maropu
approved these changes
May 4, 2020
maropu
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 4, 2020
…meBenchmark` ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? - Changed to the number of rows in benchmark cases from 3 to the actual number `N`. - Regenerated benchmark results in the environment: | Item | Description | | ---- | ----| | Region | us-west-2 (Oregon) | | Instance | r3.xlarge | | AMI | ubuntu/images/hvm-ssd/ubuntu-bionic-18.04-amd64-server-20190722.1 (ami-06f2f779464715dc5) | | Java | OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_242 and OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 11.0.6+10 | ### Why are the changes needed? The changes are needed to have: - Correct benchmark results - Base line for other perf improvements that can be checked in the same environment. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? By running the benchmark and checking its output. Closes #28440 from MaxGekk/SPARK-31527-DateTimeBenchmark-followup. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yamamuro <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 2fb85f6) Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yamamuro <[email protected]>
Member
|
Thanks! Merged to master/3.0. |
huaxingao
pushed a commit
to huaxingao/spark
that referenced
this pull request
May 4, 2020
…meBenchmark` ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? - Changed to the number of rows in benchmark cases from 3 to the actual number `N`. - Regenerated benchmark results in the environment: | Item | Description | | ---- | ----| | Region | us-west-2 (Oregon) | | Instance | r3.xlarge | | AMI | ubuntu/images/hvm-ssd/ubuntu-bionic-18.04-amd64-server-20190722.1 (ami-06f2f779464715dc5) | | Java | OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_242 and OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 11.0.6+10 | ### Why are the changes needed? The changes are needed to have: - Correct benchmark results - Base line for other perf improvements that can be checked in the same environment. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? By running the benchmark and checking its output. Closes apache#28440 from MaxGekk/SPARK-31527-DateTimeBenchmark-followup. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Takeshi Yamamuro <[email protected]>
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2020
…g after some threshold ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Skip timestamps rebasing after a global threshold when there is no difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars. This allows to avoid checking hash maps of switch points, and fixes perf regressions in `toJavaTimestamp()` and `fromJavaTimestamp()`. ### Why are the changes needed? The changes fix perf regressions of conversions to/from external type `java.sql.Timestamp`. Before (see the PR's results #28440): ``` ================================================================================================ Conversion from/to external types ================================================================================================ OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_252-8u252-b09-1~18.04-b09 on Linux 4.15.0-1063-aws Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 v2 2.50GHz To/from Java's date-time: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From java.sql.Timestamp 376 388 10 13.3 75.2 1.1X Collect java.sql.Timestamp 1878 1937 64 2.7 375.6 0.2X ``` After: ``` ================================================================================================ Conversion from/to external types ================================================================================================ OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_252-8u252-b09-1~18.04-b09 on Linux 4.15.0-1063-aws Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 v2 2.50GHz To/from Java's date-time: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From java.sql.Timestamp 249 264 24 20.1 49.8 1.7X Collect java.sql.Timestamp 1503 1523 24 3.3 300.5 0.3X ``` Perf improvements in average of: 1. From java.sql.Timestamp is ~ 34% 2. To java.sql.Timestamps is ~16% ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? By existing test suites `DateTimeUtilsSuite` and `RebaseDateTimeSuite`. Closes #28441 from MaxGekk/opt-rebase-common-threshold. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2020
…g after some threshold ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Skip timestamps rebasing after a global threshold when there is no difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars. This allows to avoid checking hash maps of switch points, and fixes perf regressions in `toJavaTimestamp()` and `fromJavaTimestamp()`. ### Why are the changes needed? The changes fix perf regressions of conversions to/from external type `java.sql.Timestamp`. Before (see the PR's results #28440): ``` ================================================================================================ Conversion from/to external types ================================================================================================ OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_252-8u252-b09-1~18.04-b09 on Linux 4.15.0-1063-aws Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 v2 2.50GHz To/from Java's date-time: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From java.sql.Timestamp 376 388 10 13.3 75.2 1.1X Collect java.sql.Timestamp 1878 1937 64 2.7 375.6 0.2X ``` After: ``` ================================================================================================ Conversion from/to external types ================================================================================================ OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_252-8u252-b09-1~18.04-b09 on Linux 4.15.0-1063-aws Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2670 v2 2.50GHz To/from Java's date-time: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From java.sql.Timestamp 249 264 24 20.1 49.8 1.7X Collect java.sql.Timestamp 1503 1523 24 3.3 300.5 0.3X ``` Perf improvements in average of: 1. From java.sql.Timestamp is ~ 34% 2. To java.sql.Timestamps is ~16% ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? By existing test suites `DateTimeUtilsSuite` and `RebaseDateTimeSuite`. Closes #28441 from MaxGekk/opt-rebase-common-threshold. Authored-by: Max Gekk <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit bef5828) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
N.Why are the changes needed?
The changes are needed to have:
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
By running the benchmark and checking its output.