-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 670
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
(refactor): Enable new engines with custom dispatching and other constructs #1666
Conversation
- Move distributed methods out of non-distributed modules - Refactor dispatching - Refactor structure of distributed modules - Add classes for execution engine and memory format
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
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.
Awesome work!
|
||
_batch_paths.register(execution_engine, _batch_paths_distributed) # type: ignore | ||
|
||
if memory_format.get() == MemoryFormatEnum.MODIN.value: |
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.
Really cool, I love how this is out of way!
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.
+1. Minor Q - can memory_format.get()
return an enum so you don't have to do .value
on every comparison?
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
engine.register_func(_read_parquet_metadata_file, ray_remote(_read_parquet_metadata_file)) | ||
engine.register_func(_select_query, ray_remote(_select_query)) | ||
engine.register_func(_select_object_content, ray_remote(_select_object_content)) | ||
engine.register_func(_wait_object_batch, ray_remote(_wait_object_batch)) |
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.
What do you think about keeping the register only for registration and moving the function definitions to modin module with the others? E.g.
distributed/ray/modin/s3/...py:
_wait_object_batch_distributed = ray_remote(_wait_object_batch)
_select_object_content_distributed = ray_remote(_select_object_content)
Also it seems now we do not actually need our own ray_remote
decorator that handled both distributed and non-distributed calls dynamically and we can use default @remote
.
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.
Awesome!
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
Feature or Bugfix
Detail
The current codebase cannot easily support multiple engines. The below changes remediate that:
Code flow:
The good:
config
when it comes to interacting with the engine and managing its state (initialising, registering, get/setting...)The bad:
The ugly:
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.