Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-16844][SQL] Generate code for sort based aggregation - #14481
[SPARK-16844][SQL] Generate code for sort based aggregation#14481yucai wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
hvanhovell
commented
Aug 3, 2016
Ok to test |
SparkQA
commented
Aug 4, 2016
Test build #3202 has finished for PR 14481 at commit
|
yucai
commented
Aug 15, 2016
retest this please |
hvanhovell
commented
Aug 15, 2016
@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. |
yucai
commented
Aug 16, 2016
@hvanhovell thanks very much for the advice, yes, I will post the benchmark results first. |
yucai
commented
Aug 17, 2016
@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. |
yucai
commented
Aug 17, 2016
Generated code example, not for code review yet |
yucai
commented
Aug 17, 2016
Generated code example, not for code view yet. |
yucai
commented
Aug 17, 2016
@chenghao-intel Hao, kindly take a look at. |
chenghao-intel
commented
Aug 17, 2016
@yucai can you please rebase the code? |
hvanhovell
commented
Aug 17, 2016
@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
72a0c8aCompare461c737 to
958dc05Compare0a12860 to
2c22f81Comparemaropu
commented
Nov 25, 2016
@hvanhovell What's the status of this? If nobody takes this, I'll do. |
yucai
commented
Nov 25, 2016
@maropu, I am doing some refactor recently, will update it soon. |
maropu
commented
Nov 25, 2016
@yucai okay, thanks! |
AmplabJenkins
commented
Jan 23, 2017
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
maropu
commented
Jan 24, 2017
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: Closesapache#11129Closesapache#12085Closesapache#12162Closesapache#12419Closesapache#12420Closesapache#12491Closesapache#13762Closesapache#13837Closesapache#13851Closesapache#13881Closesapache#13891Closesapache#13959Closesapache#14091Closesapache#14481Closesapache#14547Closesapache#14557Closesapache#14686Closesapache#15594Closesapache#15652Closesapache#15850Closesapache#15914Closesapache#15918Closesapache#16285Closesapache#16389Closesapache#16652Closesapache#16743Closesapache#16893Closesapache#16975Closesapache#17001Closesapache#17088Closesapache#17119Closesapache#17272Closesapache#17971 Added: Closesapache#17778Closesapache#17303Closesapache#17872 ## How was this patch tested? N/A Author: hyukjinkwon <gurwls223@gmail.com> Closesapache#18017 from HyukjinKwon/close-inactive-prs.


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