[SPARK-31623][SQL][TESTS] Benchmark rebasing of INT96 and TIMESTAMP_MILLIS timestamps in read/write#28431
Closed
MaxGekk wants to merge 9 commits intoapache:masterfrom
Closed
Conversation
|
Test build #122174 has finished for PR 28431 at commit
|
Member
Author
|
@cloud-fan @HyukjinKwon Please, take a look at this. |
…estamps-DateTimeRebaseBenchmark # Conflicts: # sql/core/benchmarks/DateTimeRebaseBenchmark-jdk11-results.txt # sql/core/benchmarks/DateTimeRebaseBenchmark-results.txt # sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/benchmark/DateTimeRebaseBenchmark.scala
|
Test build #122264 has finished for PR 28431 at commit
|
|
Test build #122263 has finished for PR 28431 at commit
|
Member
Author
|
jenkins, retest this, please |
|
Test build #122265 has finished for PR 28431 at commit
|
|
Test build #122276 has finished for PR 28431 at commit
|
Contributor
|
thanks, merging to master/3.0! |
cloud-fan
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2020
…ILLIS timestamps in read/write ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Add new benchmarks to `DateTimeRebaseBenchmark` for reading/writing timestamps of INT96 and TIMESTAMP_MICROS column types. Here are benchmark results for reading timestamps after 1582 year with default settings (rebasing is off for TIMESTAMP_MICROS/TIMESTAMP_MILLIS, and rebasing on for INT96): timestamp type | vectorized off (ns/row) | vectorized on (ns/row) --|--|-- TIMESTAMP_MICROS| 160.1 | 50.2 INT96 | 215.6 | 117.8 TIMESTAMP_MILLIS | 159.9 | 60.6 ### Why are the changes needed? To compare default timestamp type `TIMESTAMP_MICROS` with other types in the case if an user decides to switch on them. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? By running the benchmarks via: ``` SPARK_GENERATE_BENCHMARK_FILES=1 build/sbt "sql/test:runMain org.apache.spark.sql.execution.benchmark.DateTimeRebaseBenchmark" ``` in the environment: | Item | Description | | ---- | ----| | Region | us-west-2 (Oregon) | | Instance | r3.xlarge | | AMI | ubuntu/images/hvm-ssd/ubuntu-bionic-18.04-amd64-server-20190722.1 (ami-06f2f779464715dc5) | | Java | OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_252-8u252 and OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 11.0.7+10 | Closes #28431 from MaxGekk/parquet-timestamps-DateTimeRebaseBenchmark. Authored-by: Max Gekk <max.gekk@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit 735771e) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Add new benchmarks to
DateTimeRebaseBenchmarkfor reading/writing timestamps of INT96 and TIMESTAMP_MICROS column types. Here are benchmark results for reading timestamps after 1582 year with default settings (rebasing is off for TIMESTAMP_MICROS/TIMESTAMP_MILLIS, and rebasing on for INT96):Why are the changes needed?
To compare default timestamp type
TIMESTAMP_MICROSwith other types in the case if an user decides to switch on them.Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
By running the benchmarks via:
in the environment: