DRAFT investigate benchmark 21566 - #24214
Conversation
|
run benchmark clickbench_pushdown |
|
Benchmark for this request failed. Run configurationrun benchmark clickbench_pushdownLast 20 lines of output: Click to expandFile an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
run benchmark clickbench_pushdown |
|
Benchmark for this request failed. Run configurationrun benchmark clickbench_pushdownLast 20 lines of output: Click to expandFile an issue against this benchmark runner |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #24214 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 81.05%
=======================================
Files ? 1106
Lines ? 382268
Branches ? 382268
=======================================
Hits ? 309857
Misses ? 54114
Partials ? 18297 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Hi @kosiew I think you will merge main to the pr branch and then rerun the bench. |
|
@kumarUjjawal I am trying to compare: Context: My hypothesis - the benchmark difference is due to |
c976604 to
8b3c552
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
8b3c552 to
9ecb48a
Compare
|
run benchmark clickbench_pushdown clickbench_partitioned |
|
🤖 Benchmark running (GKE) | trigger CPU Details (lscpu)Comparing benchmark-21566 (9ecb48a) to c08832d (merge-base) diff Run configurationrun benchmark clickbench_pushdownResults will be posted here when complete File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
🤖 Benchmark running (GKE) | trigger CPU Details (lscpu)Comparing benchmark-21566 (9ecb48a) to c08832d (merge-base) diff Run configurationrun benchmark clickbench_partitionedResults will be posted here when complete File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
🤖 Benchmark completed (GKE) | trigger Instance: Comparing benchmark-21566 (9ecb48a) to c08832d (merge-base) diff Run configurationrun benchmark clickbench_pushdownCPU Details (lscpu)Details
Resource Usageclickbench_pushdown — base (merge-base)
clickbench_pushdown — branch
File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
🤖 Benchmark completed (GKE) | trigger Instance: Comparing benchmark-21566 (9ecb48a) to c08832d (merge-base) diff Run configurationrun benchmark clickbench_partitionedCPU Details (lscpu)Details
Resource Usageclickbench_partitioned — base (merge-base)
clickbench_partitioned — branch
File an issue against this benchmark runner |
Investigate benchmark difference between
v1 - #21566 (comment) - benchmark showed improvement
v2 - #21566 (comment) - benchmark largely unchanged
comparing v1 → v2, the big story is substantially better memory usage, while the branch’s previous runtime advantage mostly disappears.
The interesting v1 → v2 branch changes are: wall time stays 85s, peak memory drops 11.9 → 10.4 GiB (-12.6%), CPU user drops 853.8 → 846.0s (-0.9%), and CPU sys drops 60.2 → 58.9s (-2.2%). Average memory is unchanged at 4.6 GiB.
So overall, v2 is more resource-efficient than v1, especially on peak memory. However, relative to its own v2 base, the branch now has essentially no runtime/CPU advantage and consumes more memory (+0.8 GiB peak, +0.3 GiB average).
One caveat: the v2 base itself improved quite a lot versus v1 base, so the loss of the branch's relative advantage isn't because the branch got slower—the baseline caught up.