Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

I've opened a PR for temporal benchmarks: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/12997 Please chime in if some more benchmarks are needed. Results for the first run are here: https://conbench.ursa.dev/runs/019c6f9cdd82415382280c89be122b58/ Rok

Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

On 4/13/22 7:58 PM, Rok Mihevc wrote: Thanks for describing the use case Li! The examples we ran are on UTC timestamp without any timezone complications, perhaps there is room for short circuits when there are no timezone complications... I think using UTC zoned timestamp array might currentl

Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

Thanks for describing the use case Li! > The examples we ran are on UTC timestamp without any timezone > complications, perhaps there is room for short circuits when there are no > timezone complications... I think using UTC zoned timestamp array might currently behave as a regular timezoned time

Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

Thanks both for the reply. It's understandable that those kernels might not be optimized right now considering the state of the Arrow compute. > The temporal rounding operations operate on localized times taking into account the timestamp's timezone, which is why they're more computationally inten

Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

Hello Li, The temporal rounding operations operate on localized times taking into account the timestamp's timezone, which is why they're more computationally intensive that raw floating point operations. Which operation in particular did you benchmark? Is it part of a significant workload

Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

Hi Li, I've implemented most of the temporal rounding logic. The kernels have not really been optimized at all yet as they are pretty new and not completely finished (ambiguous behaviour due to DST [1], rounding origin point [2], etc). Most effort so far was on making test sets and getting the rig

Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

Thanks David! I am not yet familiar with the implementation of this kernel so I am hoping someone more familiar with kernels can shed some light on this. I wonder if this is kind of expected performance (comparing to similar kernel perf) or maybe something with the RoundTemporal implementation see

Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

While we do track benchmarks for each commit on Conbench [1] it seems we lack benchmarks for the temporal operations. I filed ARROW-16173 [2]. They do do a bit more work than just a round (especially if they need to handle time zones). [1]: https://conbench.ursa.dev/ [2]: https://issues.apache.

Re: Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

Sorry I should have mentioned this is the Arrow C++ compute kernels. On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 3:39 PM Li Jin wrote: > Hello! > > We recently noticed unexpected performance with Arrow's temporal > operation kernels (in particular, CeilTemporal). The perf we see are around > 1.4-1.8 Gb / s. This se

Perf/Benchmark for temporal operations

Hello! We recently noticed unexpected performance with Arrow's temporal operation kernels (in particular, CeilTemporal). The perf we see are around 1.4-1.8 Gb / s. This seems to be much lower than adding a constant to a float column (~9Gb/s). This is a bit unexpected because CeilTemporal is simila