You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current way of saying that block's queues are out of core if the block is out of core is too crude. For example, when sorting, when computing a histogram, it doesn't make sense to move the queues (that carry the histogram) out of core, just because the block is out of core. There are alternative methods one could imagine (e.g., specify maximum queue size limit below which the queue is never moved). It might be nice to think of a way to abstract it away, similarly to how we provide the skip mechanism for blocks right now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
While at it, we should also batch outgoing queues together when moving them out-of-core. Incoming queues don't have a choice but to be moved out individually when they arrive (lest we end up storing all of them in memory), but the outgoing queues are finalized after a callback is executed on a block from foreach, and, therefore, they can be handled together as a group.
Issue by Dmitriy Morozov
Monday Mar 09, 2015 at 23:34 GMT
The current way of saying that block's queues are out of core if the block is out of core is too crude. For example, when sorting, when computing a histogram, it doesn't make sense to move the queues (that carry the histogram) out of core, just because the block is out of core. There are alternative methods one could imagine (e.g., specify maximum queue size limit below which the queue is never moved). It might be nice to think of a way to abstract it away, similarly to how we provide the skip mechanism for blocks right now.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: