hhhizzz commented on PR #10141: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/10141#issuecomment-5011741531
I reran one representative point from `row_selection_cursor` on the current head (`8c217d8`) against the merge-base (`ee30b61`), using five alternating current/base runs on a pinned CPU. For `uniform50/L32`: - forced `Selectors`: +7.67% paired geometric mean - forced `Mask`: +2.80% All five pairs moved in the same direction and Criterion produced no warnings. However, I want to be precise about the interpretation: this benchmark forces the two policies in order to map their crossover; it does not exercise `Auto`. Therefore these numbers are a signal that the underlying forced paths became slower at L32, not evidence that the Auto decision or threshold is wrong. A single point is also not enough to establish a broad regression. Could we rerun the complete L4–L40 curve in `row_selection_cursor` on the current head and compare: 1. the Selector/Mask crossover against the merge-base; 2. the strategy selected by Auto at each point; and 3. Auto's runtime against the faster forced strategy? Since this PR adds a second input representation, it would be particularly useful to run the matrix for both selector-backed and mask-backed `RowSelection`s. That would show whether Auto should use a different threshold or cost model when choosing a strategy requires first converting the backing representation. -- 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]
