-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29k
[SPARK-16844][SQL] Generate code for sort based aggregation #14481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
|
Ok to test |
|
Test build #3202 has finished for PR 14481 at commit
|
|
retest this please |
|
@yucai could you post some benchmark results? I would think that the overall runtime of the sort based aggregation path is dominated by the preceding exchange and sort operations, and that as a result this will not yield a enormous speed-up. Could you also post the generated code for a simple case? The helps during the review. |
|
@hvanhovell thanks very much for the advice, yes, I will post the benchmark results first. |
|
@hvanhovell Summary Workload Example 2: aggregate with keys In above workload pattern, sort actually occpies few time, most of time is used in aggregation, that's the main reason why sortagg code gen speeds up. |
|
Generated code example, not for code review yet |
|
Generated code example, not for code view yet. |
|
@chenghao-intel Hao, kindly take a look at. |
|
@yucai can you please rebase the code? |
|
@yucai thanks for posting the benchmarks and the code. One high level comment would be to start with a properly sorted dataset for the second benchmark. I would like to know how much time is actually spend in aggregation. |
9048ff0 to
72a0c8a
Compare
461c737 to
958dc05
Compare
0a12860 to
2c22f81
Compare
|
@hvanhovell What's the status of this? If nobody takes this, I'll do. |
|
@maropu, I am doing some refactor recently, will update it soon. |
|
@yucai okay, thanks! |
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
|
Any update? |
|
gentle ping @yucai, let me propose to close this if it is still inactive. |
## What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR proposes to close PRs ... - inactive to the review comments more than a month - WIP and inactive more than a month - with Jenkins build failure but inactive more than a month - suggested to be closed and no comment against that - obviously looking inappropriate (e.g., Branch 0.5) To make sure, I left a comment for each PR about a week ago and I could not have a response back from the author in these PRs below: Closes apache#11129 Closes apache#12085 Closes apache#12162 Closes apache#12419 Closes apache#12420 Closes apache#12491 Closes apache#13762 Closes apache#13837 Closes apache#13851 Closes apache#13881 Closes apache#13891 Closes apache#13959 Closes apache#14091 Closes apache#14481 Closes apache#14547 Closes apache#14557 Closes apache#14686 Closes apache#15594 Closes apache#15652 Closes apache#15850 Closes apache#15914 Closes apache#15918 Closes apache#16285 Closes apache#16389 Closes apache#16652 Closes apache#16743 Closes apache#16893 Closes apache#16975 Closes apache#17001 Closes apache#17088 Closes apache#17119 Closes apache#17272 Closes apache#17971 Added: Closes apache#17778 Closes apache#17303 Closes apache#17872 ## How was this patch tested? N/A Author: hyukjinkwon <[email protected]> Closes apache#18017 from HyukjinKwon/close-inactive-prs.


This PR is in internal review and will ask for community review later.