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

update the sorting logic from cardinality to container count - Draft #14050

Conversation

anandheritage
Copy link
Contributor

@anandheritage anandheritage commented Sep 21, 2024

Thread : https://apache-pinot.slack.com/archives/C013WKLT5T7/p1726721380906609

Instructions:

  1. The PR has to be tagged with at least one of the following labels (*):
    1. feature
    2. bugfix
    3. performance
    4. ui
    5. backward-incompat
    6. release-notes (**)
  2. Remove these instructions before publishing the PR.

(*) Other labels to consider:

  • testing
  • dependencies
  • docker
  • kubernetes
  • observability
  • security
  • code-style
  • extension-point
  • refactor
  • cleanup

(**) Use release-notes label for scenarios like:

  • New configuration options
  • Deprecation of configurations
  • Signature changes to public methods/interfaces
  • New plugins added or old plugins removed

@anandheritage anandheritage marked this pull request as draft September 21, 2024 06:34
@anandheritage anandheritage changed the title update the sorting logic from cardinality to container count update the sorting logic from cardinality to container count - Draft Sep 21, 2024
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 21, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 65.05%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (8697dbe).
Report is 1069 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #14050      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.75%   65.05%   +3.30%     
- Complexity      207     1533    +1326     
============================================
  Files          2436     2564     +128     
  Lines        133233   140765    +7532     
  Branches      20636    21608     +972     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    91577    +9303     
+ Misses        44911    42450    -2461     
- Partials       6048     6738     +690     
Flag Coverage Δ
custom-integration1 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration1 100.00% <ø> (+99.99%) ⬆️
integration2 0.00% <ø> (ø)
java-11 64.98% <100.00%> (+3.28%) ⬆️
java-21 64.93% <100.00%> (+3.31%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-false 65.03% <100.00%> (+3.28%) ⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-true 64.89% <100.00%> (+37.16%) ⬆️
temurin 65.05% <100.00%> (+3.30%) ⬆️
unittests 65.05% <100.00%> (+3.30%) ⬆️
unittests1 56.53% <100.00%> (+9.64%) ⬆️
unittests2 35.03% <0.00%> (+7.30%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ public BlockDocIdIterator iterator() {

// evaluate the bitmaps in the order of the lowest matching num docIds comes first, so that we minimize the number
// of containers (range) for comparison from the beginning, as will minimize the effort of bitmap AND application
bitmapBasedDocIdIterators.sort(Comparator.comparing(x -> x.getDocIds().getCardinality()));
bitmapBasedDocIdIterators.sort(Comparator.comparing(x -> x.getDocIds().getContainerCount()));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

can you also update the comment just above?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@anandheritage anandheritage Sep 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will make that change - Looking for a way to benchmark this change. Can you recommend something ? Do we have a common tool to do that ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants