Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
test: scale remaining sort-merge join (SMJ) benchmark queries - #21200
Merged
Conversation
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Rich-T-kid pushed a commit
to Rich-T-kid/datafusion
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2026
…#21200) ## Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example `Closesapache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123. --> - Closes #. ## Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Our SMJ benchmark queries finish too quickly to demonstrate improvements that aren't massive. For example, I am working on an optimization that introduces `DynComparator` (part of apache#20910) and it's about a 10% improvement, but only when you actually make the queries run long enough. The new queries for apache#21184 are scaled enough to see improvements, but we need to scale the older queries. I am also continuing to see SMJ issues with Comet when running joins with billions (sometimes trillions) of rows. We can't do that for microbenchmarks, but we can at least start hitting millions of rows to look at more than a handful of batches. ## What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Bring our SMJ queries into alignment with some of the newer ones (Q21-23) to demonstrate further performance wins. ## Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? --> I ran the benchmark. On my M3 Max, here's how long it takes: | Query | Join Type | Rows | Keys | Filter | Median (ms) | |-------|-----------|------|------|--------|-------------| | Q1 | INNER | 1M×1M | 1:1 | — | 16.3 | | Q2 | INNER | 1M×10M | 1:10 | — | 117.4 | | Q3 | INNER | 1M×1M | 1:100 | — | 74.2 | | Q4 | INNER | 1M×10M | 1:10 | 1% | 17.1 | | Q5 | INNER | 1M×1M | 1:100 | 10% | 18.4 | | Q6 | LEFT | 1M×10M | 1:10 | — | 129.3 | | Q7 | LEFT | 1M×10M | 1:10 | 50% | 150.2 | | Q8 | FULL | 1M×1M | 1:10 | — | 16.6 | | Q9 | FULL | 1M×10M | 1:10 | 10% | 153.5 | | Q10 | LEFT SEMI | 1M×10M | 1:10 | — | 53.1 | | Q11 | LEFT SEMI | 1M×10M | 1:10 | 1% | 15.5 | | Q12 | LEFT SEMI | 1M×10M | 1:10 | 50% | 65.0 | | Q13 | LEFT SEMI | 1M×10M | 1:10 | 90% | 105.7 | | Q14 | LEFT ANTI | 1M×10M | 1:10 | — | 54.3 | | Q15 | LEFT ANTI | 1M×10M | 1:10 | partial | 51.5 | | Q16 | LEFT ANTI | 1M×1M | 1:1 | — | 10.3 | | Q17 | INNER | 1M×50M | 1:50 | 5% | 75.9 | | Q18 | LEFT SEMI | 1M×50M | 1:50 | 2% | 50.2 | | Q19 | LEFT ANTI | 1M×50M | 1:50 | partial | 336.4 | | Q20 | INNER | 1M×10M | 1:100 | GROUP BY | 763.7 | | Q21 | INNER | 10M×10M | 1:1 | 50% | 186.1 | | Q22 | LEFT | 10M×10M | 1:1 | 50% | 10,193.8 | | Q23 | FULL | 10M×10M | 1:1 | 50% | 10,194.7 | Note that Q22 and Q23 will be about 20x faster when apache#21184 merges, so taking 10 seconds to run is just a short-term issue. ## Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. --> <!-- If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api change` label. --> No.
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
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
Our SMJ benchmark queries finish too quickly to demonstrate improvements that aren't massive. For example, I am working on an optimization that introduces
DynComparator(part of #20910) and it's about a 10% improvement, but only when you actually make the queries run long enough. The new queries for #21184 are scaled enough to see improvements, but we need to scale the older queries.I am also continuing to see SMJ issues with Comet when running joins with billions (sometimes trillions) of rows. We can't do that for microbenchmarks, but we can at least start hitting millions of rows to look at more than a handful of batches.
What changes are included in this PR?
Bring our SMJ queries into alignment with some of the newer ones (Q21-23) to demonstrate further performance wins.
Are these changes tested?
I ran the benchmark. On my M3 Max, here's how long it takes:
Note that Q22 and Q23 will be about 20x faster when #21184 merges, so taking 10 seconds to run is just a short-term issue.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.