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

Make key prefixes nice #989

Open
mrocklin opened this issue Mar 20, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Make key prefixes nice #989

mrocklin opened this issue Mar 20, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@mrocklin
Copy link
Member

Let's remember that keyname prefixes get used in the dashboard and are a common first impression that people have of the project. With that in mind it's important that, at least for common operations, these names are evocative and simple.

As an example, for dd.read_parquet(...) this should probably be "read_parquet" or "parquet" and not, as it is today "readparquetfsspec".

@mrocklin
Copy link
Member Author

Some other concerns:

  • p2pshuffle -> shuffle maybe?
  • sum-tree / mean-tree -> sum/mean?

@hendrikmakait
Copy link
Member

I would like names to be simple to understand at first glance and descriptive.

I'd think about having a general structure that we stick to, for example:

<logical expr>-<physical variant>-<task>

This would translate to sum-tree, shuffle-p2p-unpack.

Once we have a scheduler integration, we should be able to show progress on individual expressions instead of tasks which is probably a better representation for end users.

@mrocklin
Copy link
Member Author

I don't object to a structure like that in theory. I do want to make sure that we're optimizing the experience for users rather than for ourselves. If the user really doesn't care about the physical variant, then it might not make sense to include it (unless it's really important for us when tracking down common failures (which it might be)).

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants