HippoBaro opened a new pull request, #11267: URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/11267
# Which issue does this PR close? <!-- We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases. You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. --> - Contributes to #9731. # Rationale for this change <!-- Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly in the issue then this section is not needed. Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes. --> Writer changes need a representative baseline across Arrow's physical representations, null distributions, and nested layouts. Dense scalar inputs alone do not capture the costs of dictionaries, run-end encoding, sparse values, or fragmented nested traversal. Expand the timing suite so future changes can be compared across these workloads on a consistent basis. # What changes are included in this PR? <!-- There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here but it is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this PR. --> Expand the Arrow writer timing suite to establish a representative baseline ahead of subsequent writer changes. The matrix now covers dictionary, run-end-encoded, nested, sparse, fixed-size binary, and decimal inputs, including combinations such as REE over dictionaries, nested REE values, and fragmented list reachability patterns. Report throughput in logical rows so dense and compact Arrow representations can be compared on the same basis, and make low-cardinality fixtures reproducible across runs. **On Linux, use a constrained jemalloc configuration to reduce allocator-driven noise** (which would create measurable drift depending on benchmark execution order). # Are these changes tested? <!-- We typically require tests for all PRs in order to: 1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes 2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example, are they covered by existing tests)? If this PR claims a performance improvement, please include evidence such as benchmark results. --> NA # Are there any user-facing changes? <!-- If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be updated before approving the PR. If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please call them out. --> NA -- 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]
