kosiew commented on code in PR #24323: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/24323#discussion_r3782420984
########## benchmarks/benches/parquet_pruning_setup_cache.rs: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@ +// Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one +// or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file +// distributed with this work for additional information +// regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file +// to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the +// "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance +// with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at +// +// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +// +// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, +// software distributed under the License is distributed on an +// "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY +// KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the +// specific language governing permissions and limitations +// under the License. + +//! Benchmarks end-to-end Parquet scan cost for a cache-favourable workload. +//! +//! The 128 files share one physical schema and use the same predicate and target Review Comment: > what would happen if the schema is not the same? Different physical file schemas produce distinct `ParquetPruningSetupCache` keys in https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/21566, so their setup is not reused across schema variants. > or schema is already merged? Merged table schema is also not the targeted scenario in #21554. This benchmark's purpose is to evaluate whether addressing #21554 improves performance: that issue targets avoiding repeated per-file schema adaptation, predicate rewrites, and pruning-predicate construction when many files have the **same physical schema**. Schema evolution/merged-schema behavior is a separate workload and would dilute this focused benchmark. Existing [clickbench_partitioned benchmarks](https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/21566#issuecomment-5264261199) do not show significant improvement, I think because: - pruning setup work constitutes a small percentage of the work - the scenarios do not reuse cache -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
