Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adds pre/post steps for merge and update aggregate #3417

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Sep 14, 2021

Conversation

abellina
Copy link
Collaborator

@abellina abellina commented Sep 9, 2021

This PR is prequel/continuation of #3373.

The work here adds part of the work by @ttnghia, and I added it to make sense of the extra processing added to the aggregate function expressions, and to be able to test it all.

  • The refactor adds a pre/post step to updates and merges. An example of a "pre merge" step is casting, or creating a struct, as is needed by MERGE_M2. The "pre update" case is not overloaded, and so it's the attribute reference as is (a pass-through projection). The "post update" step can be used to cast (as is done in GpuM2) in the update, and then later in the merge, the "post merge" where a struct is decomposed, and fields casted, as expected by Spark.

  • These steps allow 1 set of casting to be removed from the grouped aggregates in aggregates.scala. I did not mess with reduction aggregates in this PR, I can do that next. It was not required for the stddev_pop work.

  • An untested (other than some quick examples in a shell) impl of stddev_pop is adapted from Support stddev and variance aggregations families [databricks] #3373 to demonstrate how the buffers are put together to produce the final result (sqrt(M2/n)).

The code here really needs testing, as such there is no GpuOverrides node added in this PR. In other words, the code is there, but it is not being actively used. The two new projections for pre/post steps are getting executed by existing aggs.

I tested the diffs with the integration tests locally, and in databricks 8.2. I have not run in databricks 7.3 yet, but I wanted to get this up to get some 👀. Note that on databricks 8.2 I am noticing other issues with the tests (as did @revans2), especially when we run with the parallel setting. Tests were failing due to some unrelated bugs, so I'll re-run tests and comment here tomorrow, and we'll need some follow ups for that.

abellina and others added 3 commits September 8, 2021 19:55
Signed-off-by: Alessandro Bellina <abellina@nvidia.com>
Co-authored-by: Nghia Truong <nghiatruong.vn@gmail.com>
@abellina
Copy link
Collaborator Author

abellina commented Sep 9, 2021

build

@@ -995,7 +1019,7 @@ abstract class GpuBaseAggregateMeta[INPUT <: SparkPlan](
override def convertToGpu(): GpuExec = {
GpuHashAggregateExec(
requiredChildDistributionExpressions.map(_.map(_.convertToGpu())),
groupingExpressions.map(_.convertToGpu()),
groupingExpressions.map(_.convertToGpu()).asInstanceOf[Seq[NamedExpression]],
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because of type erasure (how java does generics) the sequence could contain things that are not NamedExpressions and the cast would happily pass. I would prefer to have us do something more like

groupingExpressions.map(_.convertToGpu().asInstanceOf[NamedExpression])

@abellina abellina marked this pull request as ready for review September 10, 2021 16:13
@sameerz sameerz added the task Work required that improves the product but is not user facing label Sep 10, 2021
@abellina abellina requested a review from ttnghia September 10, 2021 16:32
@abellina
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I see tests passing in 7.3 and 8.2 for databricks and locally. I found a leak, and addressed it with: a626e65.

@abellina
Copy link
Collaborator Author

build

revans2
revans2 previously approved these changes Sep 14, 2021
@ttnghia
Copy link
Collaborator

ttnghia commented Sep 14, 2021

It seems that we have enough material to merge this PR. @abellina before merging this please remove the standard deviation stuffs (CudfM2, CudfMergeM2, GpuM2, GpuStddevPop) as they will be reworked and reviewed in a separately PR.

@abellina
Copy link
Collaborator Author

abellina commented Sep 14, 2021

It seems that we have enough material to merge this PR. @abellina before merging this please remove the standard deviation stuffs (CudfM2, CudfMergeM2, GpuM2, GpuStddevPop) as they will be reworked and reviewed in a separately PR.

I started doing this here d4807c1, but re-reviewing my code I had comments around this because some of the changes are only for the M2 aggregates. Do you want me to remove comments as well, or rework them to not refer to M2?

At this point, you could let this in with the M2 reference implementation and change what you need to change, or just take the branch and do something on your own.

Or merge with the comments that point to future aggregates, if you are going to put your patch up soon.

@abellina
Copy link
Collaborator Author

build

@ttnghia
Copy link
Collaborator

ttnghia commented Sep 14, 2021

It seems that we have enough material to merge this PR. @abellina before merging this please remove the standard deviation stuffs (CudfM2, CudfMergeM2, GpuM2, GpuStddevPop) as they will be reworked and reviewed in a separately PR.

I started doing this here d4807c1, but re-reviewing my code I had comments around this because some of the changes are only for the M2 aggregates. Do you want me to remove comments as well, or rework them to not refer to M2?

At this point, you could let this in with the M2 reference implementation and change what you need to change, or just take the branch and do something on your own.

Or merge with the comments that point to future aggregates, if you are going to put your patch up soon.

Thanks, I just merged the code you removed and will continue working on them.

@abellina abellina merged commit 4ae2aea into NVIDIA:branch-21.10 Sep 14, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
task Work required that improves the product but is not user facing
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants