tanelk opened a new pull request #32076:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/32076
<!--
Thanks for sending a pull request! Here are some tips for you:
1. If this is your first time, please read our contributor guidelines:
https://spark.apache.org/contributing.html
2. Ensure you have added or run the appropriate tests for your PR:
https://spark.apache.org/developer-tools.html
3. If the PR is unfinished, add '[WIP]' in your PR title, e.g.,
'[WIP][SPARK-XXXX] Your PR title ...'.
4. Be sure to keep the PR description updated to reflect all changes.
5. Please write your PR title to summarize what this PR proposes.
6. If possible, provide a concise example to reproduce the issue for a
faster review.
7. If you want to add a new configuration, please read the guideline first
for naming configurations in
'core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/internal/config/ConfigEntry.scala'.
-->
### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
<!--
Please clarify what changes you are proposing. The purpose of this section
is to outline the changes and how this PR fixes the issue.
If possible, please consider writing useful notes for better and faster
reviews in your PR. See the examples below.
1. If you refactor some codes with changing classes, showing the class
hierarchy will help reviewers.
2. If you fix some SQL features, you can provide some references of other
DBMSes.
3. If there is design documentation, please add the link.
4. If there is a discussion in the mailing list, please add the link.
-->
Changed the cost comparison function of the CBO to use the ratios of row
counts and sizes in bytes.
### Why are the changes needed?
<!--
Please clarify why the changes are needed. For instance,
1. If you propose a new API, clarify the use case for a new API.
2. If you fix a bug, you can clarify why it is a bug.
-->
In #30965 we changed to CBO cost comparison function so it would be
"symetric": `A.betterThan(B)` now implies, that `!B.betterThan(A)`.
With that we caused a performance regressions in some queries - TPCDS q19
for example.
The original cost comparison function used the ratios `relativeRows =
A.rowCount / B.rowCount` and `relativeSize = A.size / B.size`. The changed
function compared "absolute" cost values `costA = w*A.rowCount + (1-w)*A.size`
and `costB = w*B.rowCount + (1-w)*B.size`.
Given the input from @wzhfy we decided to go back to the relative values,
because otherwise one (size) may overwhelm the other (rowCount). But this time
we avoid adding up the ratios.
Originally `A.betterThan(B) => w*relativeRows + (1-w)*relativeSize < 1` was
used. Besides being "non-symteric", this also can exhibit one overwhelming
other.
For `w=0.5` If `A` size (bytes) is at least 2x larger than `B`, then no
matter how many times more rows does the `B` plan have, `B` will allways be
considered to be better - `0.5*2 + 0.5*0.00000000000001 > 1`.
When working with ratios, then it would be better to multiply them.
The proposed cost comparison function is: `A.betterThan(B) => relativeRows^w
* relativeSize^(1-w) < 1`.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
<!--
Note that it means *any* user-facing change including all aspects such as
the documentation fix.
If yes, please clarify the previous behavior and the change this PR proposes
- provide the console output, description and/or an example to show the
behavior difference if possible.
If possible, please also clarify if this is a user-facing change compared to
the released Spark versions or within the unreleased branches such as master.
If no, write 'No'.
-->
Comparison of the changed TPCDS v1.4 query execution times at sf=10:
| absolute | multiplicative | | additive |
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
q12 | 145 | 137 | -5.52% | 141 | -2.76%
q13 | 264 | 271 | 2.65% | 271 | 2.65%
q17 | 4521 | 4243 | -6.15% | 4348 | -3.83%
q18 | 758 | 466 | -38.52% | 480 | -36.68%
q19 | 38503 | 2167 | -94.37% | 2176 | -94.35%
q20 | 119 | 120 | 0.84% | 126 | 5.88%
q24a | 16429 | 16838 | 2.49% | 17103 | 4.10%
q24b | 16592 | 16999 | 2.45% | 17268 | 4.07%
q25 | 3558 | 3556 | -0.06% | 3675 | 3.29%
q33 | 362 | 361 | -0.28% | 380 | 4.97%
q52 | 1020 | 1032 | 1.18% | 1052 | 3.14%
q55 | 927 | 938 | 1.19% | 961 | 3.67%
q72 | 24169 | 13377 | -44.65% | 24306 | 0.57%
q81 | 1285 | 1185 | -7.78% | 1168 | -9.11%
q91 | 324 | 336 | 3.70% | 337 | 4.01%
q98 | 126 | 129 | 2.38% | 131 | 3.97%
All times are in ms, the change is compared to the situation in the master
branch (absolute).
The proposed cost function (multiplicative) significantlly improves the
performance on q18, q19 and q72. The original cost function (additive) has
similar improvements at q18 and q19. All other chagnes are within the error
bars and I would ignore them - perhaps q81 has also improved.
### How was this patch tested?
<!--
If tests were added, say they were added here. Please make sure to add some
test cases that check the changes thoroughly including negative and positive
cases if possible.
If it was tested in a way different from regular unit tests, please clarify
how you tested step by step, ideally copy and paste-able, so that other
reviewers can test and check, and descendants can verify in the future.
If tests were not added, please describe why they were not added and/or why
it was difficult to add.
-->
PlanStabilitySuite
--
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
