Skip to content
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

[BEAM-3617] Revert "Reinstate proto round trip in Java DirectRunner" #4609

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 7, 2018

Conversation

jbonofre
Copy link
Member

@jbonofre jbonofre commented Feb 6, 2018

This reverts commit c0cb28c.

This commit introduced a severe performance degradation (on some query pipelines, the direct runner is 10 times longer between version 2.2.0 and 2.3.0).

The idea is to revert this change for Beam 2.3.0 and give us time to investigate.

Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

  • Make sure there is a JIRA issue filed for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not require a JIRA issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without pulling in other changes.
  • Format the pull request title like [BEAM-XXX] Fixes bug in ApproximateQuantiles, where you replace BEAM-XXX with the appropriate JIRA issue.
  • Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand:
    • What the pull request does
    • Why it does it
    • How it does it
    • Why this approach
  • Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
  • Run mvn clean verify to make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check will be performed on your pull request automatically.
  • If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

@jbonofre jbonofre changed the title Revert "Reinstate proto round trip in Java DirectRunner" [BEAM-3617] Revert "Reinstate proto round trip in Java DirectRunner" Feb 6, 2018
@@ -74,4 +76,10 @@ public Integer create(PipelineOptions options) {
return Math.max(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors(), MIN_PARALLELISM);
}
}

@Experimental(Kind.CORE_RUNNERS_ONLY)
@Default.Boolean(false)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the default is False, why is it causing performance degradation?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(This is the revert; HEAD doesn't contain this flag, it always does the round trip)

Copy link
Member

@tgroh tgroh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is fine as release triage.

@@ -74,4 +76,10 @@ public Integer create(PipelineOptions options) {
return Math.max(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors(), MIN_PARALLELISM);
}
}

@Experimental(Kind.CORE_RUNNERS_ONLY)
@Default.Boolean(false)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(This is the revert; HEAD doesn't contain this flag, it always does the round trip)

@kennknowles
Copy link
Member

We should probably do the same for the Flink runner. I'm not certain, since runners mostly grab out the field and hang onto them, but it is possible that there's something round-tripped and repeatedly deserialized.

@kennknowles
Copy link
Member

The HBase failure is common across gradle and maven. The Kinesis failure is the one I am trying to sickbay.

@kennknowles
Copy link
Member

retest this please

@kennknowles
Copy link
Member

If HBase failure is on master this is ready for cherry-pick to 2.3.0.

@jbonofre
Copy link
Member Author

jbonofre commented Feb 6, 2018

retest this please

@kennknowles
Copy link
Member

See #4627 as I think the failures are legitimate.

@jbonofre jbonofre merged commit b70b024 into apache:master Feb 7, 2018
@jbonofre jbonofre deleted the BEAM-3617 branch February 7, 2018 13:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants