Revert "[SPARK-21052][SQL] Add hash map metrics to join" by JkSelf · Pull Request #23204 · apache/spark

JkSelf · 2018-12-03T08:23:40Z

Partial revert SPARK-26155, because of the performance degradation in TPC-DS result with 1TB data scale.

JkSelf · 2018-12-03T08:37:06Z

Cluster info:

	Master Node	Worker Nodes
Node	1x	4x
Processor	Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8170 CPU @ 2.10GHz	Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8180 CPU @ 2.50GHz
Memory	192 GB	384 GB
Storage Main	8 x 960G SSD	8 x 960G SSD
Network	10Gbe
Role	CM Management NameNodeSecondary NameNodeResource ManagerHive Metastore Server	DataNodeNodeManager
OS Version	CentOS 7.2	CentOS 7.2
Hadoop	Apache Hadoop 2.7.5	Apache Hadoop 2.7.5
Hive	Apache Hive 2.2.0
Spark	Apache Spark 2.1.0 & Apache Spark2.3.0
JDK version	1.8.0_112	1.8.0_112

Related parameters setting:

Component	Parameter	Value
Yarn Resource Manager	yarn.scheduler.maximum-allocation-mb	40GB
	yarn.scheduler.minimum-allocation-mb	1GB
	yarn.scheduler.maximum-allocation-vcores	121
	Yarn.resourcemanager.scheduler.class	Fair Scheduler
Yarn Node Manager	yarn.nodemanager.resource.memory-mb	40GB
	yarn.nodemanager.resource.cpu-vcores	121
Spark	spark.executor.memory	34GB
	spark.executor.cores	40

In above test environment, we found a serious performance degradation issue in Spark2.3 when running TPC-DS on SKX 8180. We investigated this problem and figured out the root cause is in community patch SPARK-21052 which add metrics to hash join process. And the impact code is L486 and L487 .

Following is the result of TPC-DS Q19 in spark2.1, spark2.3 remove L486&487, spark2.3 add L486&487 and spark2.4.

spark2.1	spark2.3 remove L486&487	spark2.3 addL486&487	spark2.4
49s	47s	307s	270s

cloud-fan · 2018-12-03T12:54:04Z

ok to test

cloud-fan · 2018-12-03T12:56:20Z

I know it's easy to just run the git revert command, but I'd like to manually revert it, since that PR was merged long time ago. And we should still keep changes like this renaming, as they are not quite related to the performance regression.

cloud-fan · 2018-12-03T12:57:36Z

ditto, it's better to put this code block here, let's keep this change.

cloud-fan · 2018-12-03T12:59:39Z

I'm fine to revert it if it caused a significant performance regression, we should revisit it later, with different ideas, like updating the metrics for each batch instead of each record.

cc @viirya @gatorsmile

cloud-fan · 2018-12-03T13:18:47Z

I think we can keep the changes in this file as well.

viirya · 2018-12-03T13:39:04Z

If as your test shows this is the cause of performance regression, we can just revert this and related changes. The change in HashAggregateExec, etc. can be kept.

+1, like I said in https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/23204/files#r238257371

viirya · 2018-12-03T13:41:24Z

Is this observable in general hash join query, except for TPC-DS Q19?

SparkQA · 2018-12-03T18:15:22Z

Test build #99615 has finished for PR 23204 at commit 7d5008d.

This patch fails Spark unit tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

LuciferYang · 2018-12-04T06:32:49Z

@cloud-fan @viirya #23214 maybe reslove this problem and we needn't revert this patch.

dongjoon-hyun · 2018-12-09T02:12:28Z

Hi, @LuciferYang . If we are not going to revert this, could you close this PR?

cloud-fan · 2018-12-09T02:43:25Z

according to #23214 (comment) , the hash join metrics is wrongly implemented. I think it's fine to revert it and re-implement it later.

@JkSelf can you address the comments and only revert the hash join part? thanks!

JkSelf · 2018-12-09T03:45:19Z

The result of all queries in tpcds with 1TB data scale is in tpcds result

JkSelf · 2018-12-09T03:45:57Z

@cloud-fan ok, i will revert as your comments later.

dongjoon-hyun · 2018-12-09T04:19:28Z

@cloud-fan and @JkSelf .
For the partial revert, we had better create a new Apache JIRA issue. That will be a more cleaner way to backport.

cloud-fan · 2018-12-09T06:30:02Z

+1

LuciferYang · 2018-12-10T05:26:43Z

@cloud-fan If we decide to partial revert SPARK-21052 and no need for #23214, I will close it.

cloud-fan · 2018-12-10T05:45:49Z

If we can quickly finish #23214 (within several days), let's go for it. But if we can't, I'd suggest we do the partial revert first to fix the perf regression, and add back the metrics later.

JkSelf · 2018-12-10T06:29:28Z

@cloud-fan @dongjoon-hyun update the patch, please help review if you have time. Thanks.

LuciferYang · 2018-12-10T06:37:03Z

ok~ already close #23214

cloud-fan · 2018-12-10T06:43:39Z

can we follow #23204 (comment) and create a new ticket?

SparkQA · 2018-12-10T07:05:00Z

Test build #99894 has finished for PR 23204 at commit 9baf05e.

This patch fails Spark unit tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

JkSelf · 2018-12-10T07:07:24Z

@cloud-fan the new ticket is in here. I will close this ticket.

cloud-fan · 2018-12-10T07:33:27Z

 }

- // At the end of the task, we update the avg hash probe.
- TaskContext.get().addTaskCompletionListener[Unit](_ =>


in this file, the join method takes avgHashProbe: SQLMetric, we should remove it.

@cloud-fan updated in new PR #23269 Thanks.

dongjoon-hyun · 2018-12-10T17:58:01Z

I'll close this in order to collect the reviews into new PR, #23269 .

cloud-fan reviewed Dec 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

viirya reviewed Dec 3, 2018
View reviewed changes

partial revert SPARK-21052 only in HashedRelation and HashJoin class
9baf05e

JkSelf force-pushed the revert-21052 branch from 7d5008d to 9baf05eCompare December 10, 2018 06:20

cloud-fan reviewed Dec 10, 2018
View reviewed changes

dongjoon-hyun closed this Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

Conversation

JkSelf commented Dec 3, 2018• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

JkSelf commented Dec 3, 2018

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented Dec 3, 2018

Uh oh!

cloud-fanDec 3, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cloud-fanDec 3, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented Dec 3, 2018

Uh oh!

cloud-fanDec 3, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

viiryaDec 3, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cloud-fanDec 3, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

viirya commented Dec 3, 2018

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Dec 3, 2018

Uh oh!

LuciferYang commented Dec 4, 2018

Uh oh!

dongjoon-hyun commented Dec 9, 2018

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented Dec 9, 2018

Uh oh!

JkSelf commented Dec 9, 2018

Uh oh!

JkSelf commented Dec 9, 2018

Uh oh!

dongjoon-hyun commented Dec 9, 2018

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented Dec 9, 2018

Uh oh!

LuciferYang commented Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

JkSelf commented Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

LuciferYang commented Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

JkSelf commented Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

cloud-fanDec 10, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JkSelfDec 11, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dongjoon-hyun commented Dec 10, 2018

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

JkSelf commented Dec 3, 2018•
edited
Loading