Skip to content

[SPARK-29320][TESTS] Compare sql/core module in JDK8/11 (Part 1) #25992

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[SPARK-29320][TESTS] Compare sql/core module in JDK8/11 (Part 1) #25992

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun commented Oct 1, 2019

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR regenerates the following sql/core benchmarks in JDK8/11 to compare the result.
(These are less time-consuming half of the all sql/core benchmarks)

AggregateBenchmark
BloomFilterBenchmark
BuiltInDataSourceWriteBenchmark
CSVBenchmark
ColumnarBatchBenchmark
CompressionSchemeBenchmark
DataSourceReadBenchmark
DatasetBenchmark
DateTimeBenchmark
ExternalAppendOnlyUnsafeRowArrayBenchmark
ExtractBenchmark
FilterPushdownBenchmark
HashedRelationMetricsBenchmark
InExpressionBenchmark
JoinBenchmark
MakeDateTimeBenchmark
MiscBenchmark
OrcNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark
OrcV2NestedSchemaPruningBenchmark
ParquetNestedSchemaPruningBenchmark
PrimitiveArrayBenchmark
RangeBenchmark
SortBenchmark
UDFBenchmark
UnsafeArrayDataBenchmark
WideSchemaBenchmark
WideTableBenchmark

Why are the changes needed?

According to the result, there are some difference between JDK8/JDK11. For example, ByteBuffer API and DirectByteBuffer performance is switched like the following.

JDK8

Int Read/Write:                           Best Time(ms)   Avg Time(ms)   Stdev(ms)    Rate(M/s)   Per Row(ns)   Relative
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java Array                                          245            245           0       1338.6           0.7       1.0X
ByteBuffer Unsafe                                   445            445           0        736.4           1.4       0.6X
ByteBuffer API                                     1936           1938           3        169.2           5.9       0.1X
DirectByteBuffer                                    743            744           1        440.8           2.3       0.3X

JDK11

Int Read/Write:                           Best Time(ms)   Avg Time(ms)   Stdev(ms)    Rate(M/s)   Per Row(ns)   Relative
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Java Array                                          232            234           1       1409.7           0.7       1.0X
ByteBuffer Unsafe                                   396            396           0        827.9           1.2       0.6X
ByteBuffer API                                      602            603           0        544.0           1.8       0.4X
DirectByteBuffer                                   1185           1186           2        276.6           3.6       0.2X

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.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Oct 1, 2019

Test build #111650 has finished for PR 25992 at commit 98bb243.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@HyukjinKwon
Copy link
Member

Woah .. huge PR but +1 from a cursory look

date strings 2508 2524 16 4.0 250.8 0.7X
parse dates from Dataset[String] 21884 21902 19 0.5 2188.4 0.1X
from_csv(timestamp) 27188 27723 477 0.4 2718.8 0.1X
from_csv(date) 21137 21191 84 0.5 2113.7 0.1X
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where these result did go anywhere? We need to keep this empty file?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, this seems to be truncated mistakenly for some reason.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oh, yea.

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

After resolve the conflicts, I'll regenerate the result and reopen this.

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

Oops. Rebasing and force-pushing seems to lose the track.

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

#26003 is made.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants