Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Update to arrow/parquet 55.2.0 - #16575
Conversation
Update to released version
| 01)CoalesceBatchesExec: target_batch_size=8192 | ||
| 02)--FilterExec: column1@0 != 42 | ||
| 03)----DataSourceExec: file_groups={4 groups: [[WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/scratch/repartition_scan/parquet_table/2.parquet:0..137], [WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/scratch/repartition_scan/parquet_table/2.parquet:137..274], [WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/scratch/repartition_scan/parquet_table/2.parquet:274..411], [WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/scratch/repartition_scan/parquet_table/2.parquet:411..547]]}, projection=[column1], file_type=parquet, predicate=column1@0 != 42, pruning_predicate=column1_null_count@2 != row_count@3 AND (column1_min@0 != 42 OR 42 != column1_max@1), required_guarantees=[column1 not in (42)] | ||
| 03)----DataSourceExec: file_groups={4 groups: [[WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/scratch/repartition_scan/parquet_table/2.parquet:0..141], [WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/scratch/repartition_scan/parquet_table/2.parquet:141..282], [WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/scratch/repartition_scan/parquet_table/2.parquet:282..423], [WORKSPACE_ROOT/datafusion/sqllogictest/test_files/scratch/repartition_scan/parquet_table/2.parquet:423..563]]}, projection=[column1], file_type=parquet, predicate=column1@0 != 42, pruning_predicate=column1_null_count@2 != row_count@3 AND (column1_min@0 != 42 OR 42 != column1_max@1), required_guarantees=[column1 not in (42)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some files can get (slightly) larger due to
| 07)│ DataSourceExec │ | ||
| 08)│ -------------------- │ | ||
| 09)│ bytes: 1072 │ | ||
| 09)│ bytes: 1040 │ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe these files are now slightly smaller due to
alamb
commented
Jun 26, 2025
🤖 |
alamb
commented
Jun 26, 2025
🤖: Benchmark completed Details |
alamb
commented
Jun 26, 2025
🤖 |
alamb
commented
Jun 26, 2025
🤖: Benchmark completed Details |
alamb
commented
Jun 26, 2025
🤖 |
alamb
commented
Jun 26, 2025
🤖: Benchmark completed Details |
zhuqi-lucas
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thanks @alamb , there are some performance regression for clickbench, but i may be noise?
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
Hmm looks non trivial -- I will rerun |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
🤖 |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
🤖: Benchmark completed Details |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
🤖 |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
🤖: Benchmark completed Details |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
🤖 |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
Hmm, next up will be to try and reproduce the slowdown locally 🤔 |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
🤖: Benchmark completed Details |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
I am preparing to compare locally with 3649dc8 (the (venv) andrewlamb@Andrews-MacBook-Pro-2:~/Software/datafusion$ git checkout `git merge-base alamb/alamb/arrow_55.2.0_upgrade_real apache/main`
Note: switching to '3649dc80cef2cdcd2df750e90e6ffd94ae6ae808'.
....
cargo build --profile=profiling -p datafusion-cli && cp target/profiling/datafusion-cli ~/Downloads/datafusion-cli-arrow-55.1.0 |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
I couldn't really reproduce anything locally but the variation is pretty noisy with q21 When looking at that query however, I found some other performance improvement: |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
I also don't really see any difference with q4 (another that was reported 10% slower) (venv) andrewlamb@Andrews-MacBook-Pro-2:~/Downloads$ ./datafusion-cli-alamb_arrow_55.2.0_upgrade_real -f q4-times-10.sql | grep Elapsed
Elapsed 0.312 seconds.
Elapsed 0.271 seconds.
Elapsed 0.266 seconds.
Elapsed 0.265 seconds.
Elapsed 0.273 seconds.
Elapsed 0.277 seconds.
Elapsed 0.267 seconds.
Elapsed 0.273 seconds.
Elapsed 0.269 seconds.
Elapsed 0.276 seconds.
(venv) andrewlamb@Andrews-MacBook-Pro-2:~/Downloads$ ./datafusion-cli-arrow-55.1.0 -f q4-times-10.sql |grep Elapsed
Elapsed 0.324 seconds.
Elapsed 0.289 seconds.
Elapsed 0.266 seconds.
Elapsed 0.269 seconds.
Elapsed 0.263 seconds.
Elapsed 0.272 seconds.
Elapsed 0.267 seconds.
Elapsed 0.275 seconds.
Elapsed 0.268 seconds.
Elapsed 0.262 seconds.I will next see if I can reproduce the same thing on the actual benchmark machine |
alamb
commented
Jun 27, 2025
Here are my benchmark results on the same benchmark machine: q4: q21 (basically no change ...) So I am stumped |
alamb
commented
Jun 29, 2025
An update here is I am working on some scripts to start measuring performance over time of datafusion so we can get a better handle on how performance is changing over time |
zhuqi-lucas
commented
Jun 30, 2025
This is great for us to monitor performance! |
alamb
commented
Jun 30, 2025
🤖 |
alamb
commented
Jun 30, 2025
🤖: Benchmark completed Details |
alamb
commented
Jun 30, 2025
🤖 |
alamb
commented
Jun 30, 2025
🤖: Benchmark completed Details |
alamb
commented
Jun 30, 2025
I am going to merge this PR in to unblock other things (like the PR for external parquet indexes) I am not really sure about the performance impact as I see some non trivial fluctuation. However, I have been working on a system to record and report DataFusion performance overtime. See #5504 for more detail or get a sneak peek here: https://github.com/alamb/datafusion-benchmarking If we have lost any performance let's plan to get it back over time |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
alamb
commented
Jun 30, 2025
🚀 |
Which issue does this PR close?
55.2.2#16492Rationale for this change
I would like to use new features in this minor version of arrow
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
By existing CI tests
Are there any user-facing changes?
No