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

fix(ingestion/nifi): Improve nifi lineage extraction performance #11490

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Oct 1, 2024

Conversation

skrydal
Copy link
Collaborator

@skrydal skrydal commented Sep 27, 2024

Checklist

  • The PR conforms to DataHub's Contributing Guideline (particularly Commit Message Format)
  • Links to related issues (if applicable)
  • Tests for the changes have been added/updated (if applicable)
  • Docs related to the changes have been added/updated (if applicable). If a new feature has been added a Usage Guide has been added for the same.
  • For any breaking change/potential downtime/deprecation/big changes an entry has been made in Updating DataHub

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 27, 2024

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@skrydal skrydal changed the title fix(ingestion/nifi) Increase nifi verbosity fix(ingestion/nifi): Increase nifi verbosity Sep 27, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ingestion PR or Issue related to the ingestion of metadata label Sep 27, 2024
@hsheth2 hsheth2 added the merge-pending-ci A PR that has passed review and should be merged once CI is green. label Sep 27, 2024
@skrydal skrydal removed the merge-pending-ci A PR that has passed review and should be merged once CI is green. label Sep 27, 2024
@skrydal skrydal changed the title fix(ingestion/nifi): Increase nifi verbosity [DO NOT MERGE] fix(ingestion/nifi): Increase nifi verbosity Sep 27, 2024
@skrydal skrydal changed the title [DO NOT MERGE] fix(ingestion/nifi): Increase nifi verbosity [DO NOT MERGE] fix(ingestion/nifi): Increase nifi lineage extraction performance Sep 29, 2024
@skrydal skrydal changed the title [DO NOT MERGE] fix(ingestion/nifi): Increase nifi lineage extraction performance fix(ingestion/nifi): Increase nifi lineage extraction performance Sep 30, 2024
@skrydal
Copy link
Collaborator Author

skrydal commented Sep 30, 2024

@hsheth2 please take a look again - I changed the PR completely, now it is improving the performance of the lineage extraction. It is ready to be merged if I get approvals.

@@ -694,8 +781,11 @@ def fetch_provenance_events(

if provenance_response.ok:
provenance = provenance_response.json().get("provenance", {})
total = provenance.get("results", {}).get("total")
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would these counts be available in provenance results before verifying that fetching provenance results has finished - which is done below in while loop ?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's a great catch - while it doesn't cause any exception it actually always returns 0 in such case for total and totalCount. Moved the retrieval of these values to back where they were.

connections: List[Tuple[str, str]] = field(default_factory=list)
connections: BidirectionalComponentGraph = field(
default_factory=BidirectionalComponentGraph
)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Assuming, perf improvement is due to removing duplicate connection edges,
I wonder if changing connections: List[Tuple[str, str]] to connections: Set[Tuple[str, str]] and keeping everything else just as before give similar boost in perf ?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would address duplicates problem but then we would need to still iterate over whole set to find matches for incoming/outgoing connections for an entity. The question is why would we do it this way then if we already have better implementation in place? Do you see any shortcoming of the current implementation, beside taking roughly twice the amount of memory (which I think is not much in first place, amount of connections, even for the biggest clusters, tends to be below 100k).

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The implementation of BidirectionalComponentGraph is fair and is adapted as per operations we need. It looks good to me.

@skrydal skrydal changed the title fix(ingestion/nifi): Increase nifi lineage extraction performance fix(ingestion/nifi): Improve nifi lineage extraction performance Oct 1, 2024
self.outgoing: Dict[str, Set[str]] = defaultdict(set)
self.incoming: Dict[str, Set[str]] = defaultdict(set)
# this will not count duplicates/removal of non-existing connections correctly - it is only for quick check
self.connections_cnt = 0
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we rename instance variables incoming, outgoing and connections_cnt to start with an underscore to clarify that they are not to be modified/accessed outside of class ?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Renamed the variables, as requested. Do we follow this pattern in other relevant classes as well? I haven't noticed many fields starting with a _.

del self.outgoing[component]
del self.incoming[component]

self.connections_cnt -= deleted_connections_cnt
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
self.connections_cnt -= deleted_connections_cnt
self.connections_cnt += added_connections_cnt - deleted_connections_cnt

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This would be wrong - the add_connection function already increments the counter.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, can you add a comment mentioning so , or use remove_connection?

Copy link
Collaborator

@mayurinehate mayurinehate Oct 1, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The count thing isn't so clear to me.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I added an explanatory comment, remove_connection shouldn't be used while removing a component (due to performance reasons)

connections: List[Tuple[str, str]] = field(default_factory=list)
connections: BidirectionalComponentGraph = field(
default_factory=BidirectionalComponentGraph
)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The implementation of BidirectionalComponentGraph is fair and is adapted as per operations we need. It looks good to me.

@skrydal skrydal merged commit e1514d5 into datahub-project:master Oct 1, 2024
68 checks passed
@skrydal skrydal deleted the nifi_problem branch October 1, 2024 19:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ingestion PR or Issue related to the ingestion of metadata
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants