[data] fix split read output blocks #41070
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Zandew
force-pushed
the
split-block-progress-fix
branch
from
7ef3852
to
26ea5b0
Compare
Zandew
requested review from
ericl,
scv119,
c21,
amogkam,
scottjlee,
bveeramani,
raulchen and
stephanie-wang
as code owners
scottjlee
reviewed
Nov 14, 2023
Comment on lines
38
to
39
| if cur_additional_split_factor: | ||
| size_based_splits *= cur_additional_split_factor |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, i feel like we still need to keep this logic and cur_additional_split_factor as a parameter in this function. @stephanie-wang as original author to confirm?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, this seems still useful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sounds good, I'll add it back
raulchen
approved these changes
Nov 14, 2023
| @@ -921,6 +921,28 @@ def yield_five(block_iter: Iterable[Block], ctx) -> Iterable[Block]: | |||
| # 100 inputs -> 100 / 10 = 10 tasks -> 10 * 5 = 50 output blocks | |||
| assert op._estimated_output_blocks == 50 | |||
|
|
|||
| # Test read output splitting | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's make it a standalone test?
Comment on lines
38
to
39
| if cur_additional_split_factor: | ||
| size_based_splits *= cur_additional_split_factor |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, this seems still useful.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Xue <andewzxue@gmail.com>
Zandew
force-pushed
the
split-block-progress-fix
branch
from
4b6eb29
to
cbe94c1
Compare
raulchen
approved these changes
Nov 16, 2023
ujjawal-khare
pushed a commit
to ujjawal-khare-27/ray
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2023
I'm not sure why we were calling `_set_num_output_blocks` on the upstream input operator when we were splitting blocks for the downstream read map operator. The split happens in the read map operator, which shouldn't affect the input operator. Also adds a test for estimating output blocks with additional split factor. --------- Signed-off-by: Andrew Xue <andewzxue@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Why are these changes needed?
I'm not sure why we were calling
_set_num_output_blockson the upstream input operator when we were splitting blocks for the downstream read map operator. The split happens in the read map operator, which shouldn't affect the input operator.Also adds a test for estimating output blocks with additional split factor.
Related issue number
Checks
git commit -s) in this PR.scripts/format.shto lint the changes in this PR.method in Tune, I've added it in
doc/source/tune/api/under thecorresponding
.rstfile.