-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.5k
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
GH-43627: [R] Fix summarize() performance regression (pushdown) #43649
GH-43627: [R] Fix summarize() performance regression (pushdown) #43649
Conversation
|
@ursabot please benchmark |
Benchmark runs are scheduled for commit 4493c6c. Watch https://buildkite.com/apache-arrow and https://conbench.ursa.dev for updates. A comment will be posted here when the runs are complete. |
Thanks for your patience. Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on PR commit 4493c6c. There were 96 benchmark results indicating a performance regression:
The full Conbench report has more details. |
Conbench confirms that this addresses the performance regression. Both of the benchmarks flagged on #41576 (comment) are back to their previous (better) results. Here's one of them: https://conbench.ursa.dev/compare/benchmark-results/066ba4064f317b748000fc9a4515588b...066bb8b26d287d6c80000b57fe949079/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for this
### Rationale for this change See #43627 (comment) ### What changes are included in this PR? An extra `dplyr::select()` ### Are these changes tested? Conbench should show that the performance is much better ### Are there any user-facing changes? Not slow * GitHub Issue: #43627
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit ab432b1. There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉 The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 1 possible false positive for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. |
Rationale for this change
See #43627 (comment)
What changes are included in this PR?
An extra
dplyr::select()
Are these changes tested?
Conbench should show that the performance is much better
Are there any user-facing changes?
Not slow