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

feat: coalesce scheduling of reads to speed up random access #2636

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jul 29, 2024

Conversation

raunaks13
Copy link
Contributor

@raunaks13 raunaks13 commented Jul 24, 2024

Should fix #2629, addresses #1959

  1. Earlier on randomly accessing rows, each request for a row was being scheduled separately, which increased overhead, especially on large datasets. This PR coalesces take scheduling when requests are within block_size distance from each other. The block size is determined based on the system.
  2. The binary scheduler was also scheduling decoding of all indices individually. This updates the binary scheduler so that it schedules all offsets at once. These are then processed to determine which bytes to decode like before.
  3. A script we can use to compare v1 vs v2 performance is added as test_random_access.py.

Specifically, on the lineitem dataset (same file from the issue above):

  • v1 query time: 0.12s
  • v2 query time (before): 2.8s.
  • v2 query time (after (1)): 0.54s.
  • v2 query time (after (1) and (2)): 0.02s.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 24, 2024
@raunaks13 raunaks13 added the rust Rust related tasks label Jul 24, 2024
@raunaks13 raunaks13 changed the title feat: coalesce scheduling of take operations to speed up random access feat: coalesce scheduling of reads to speed up random access Jul 24, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@wjones127 wjones127 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is cool! Got a few questions though on how this will work.

protos/encodings.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rust/lance-io/src/scheduler.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rust/lance-io/src/scheduler.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rust/lance-io/src/scheduler.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rust/lance-io/src/scheduler.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rust/lance-io/src/scheduler.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines +281 to +284
for req in request.iter().skip(1) {
if is_close_together(&curr_interval, req, self.block_size) {
curr_interval.end = curr_interval.end.max(req.end);
} else {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Doesn't this assume the requests are already kind of monotonic? Is that handled anywhere? Should we sort the requests by request.start before doing this?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@raunaks13 raunaks13 Jul 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I believe requests (ranges) are assumed to be sorted by a few encodings at this point. I don't think this is enforced anywhere though. We should probably make a note of wherever this sorting is assumed.
It may be better to sort the requests in the encoding itself (inside schedule_ranges()), before they are passed to submit_request() since then we won't have to call sort multiple times. In that case it may be better to leave this for another PR?
We could add a debug_assert!() though

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see. Looks like you are coalescing on the request side, and so they are all from the same array. If we put this one a different side, where they might be sourced from multiple decoders, it might be different. Seems fine for now, but wanted to note that seems to be an implicit assumption.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I broke coalescing up into two github issues: "in batch coalescing" which is cheap (we can assume all requests are for a single page of data and they arrive in sorted order) and "out of batch coalescing". I'm not sure we ever want to bother with "out of batch coalescing". You'd need some kind of sorted heap of requests and then you'd have to unsort them after the request is made. You'd also get weird things like what happens if you can coalesce part of a low priority request that's way back in the queue with a high priority request that's almost ready to run. You'd also need to make sure you aren't blocking the I/O threads at any point while you sort your queue. 💀

Copy link
Contributor

@westonpace westonpace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for doing this, sorry it took a while to review. We will need to change the way we handle the offsets. However, the coalescing logic looks correct.

rust/lance-encoding/src/encodings/physical/binary.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
protos/encodings.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 127 to 129
// We schedule all the indices for decoding together
// This is more efficient compared to scheduling them one by one (reduces speed significantly for random access)
let indices_bytes = scheduler.submit_request(indices_byte_ranges, top_level_row);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you can combine these into one call and keep indices_scheduler. Just make a single call to indices_scheduler.schedule_ranges (passing in many ranges) instead of many calls to schedule_ranges (each passing in one range).

Comment on lines +281 to +284
for req in request.iter().skip(1) {
if is_close_together(&curr_interval, req, self.block_size) {
curr_interval.end = curr_interval.end.max(req.end);
} else {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, I broke coalescing up into two github issues: "in batch coalescing" which is cheap (we can assume all requests are for a single page of data and they arrive in sorted order) and "out of batch coalescing". I'm not sure we ever want to bother with "out of batch coalescing". You'd need some kind of sorted heap of requests and then you'd have to unsort them after the request is made. You'd also get weird things like what happens if you can coalesce part of a low priority request that's way back in the queue with a high priority request that's almost ready to run. You'd also need to make sure you aren't blocking the I/O threads at any point while you sort your queue. 💀

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.12195% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 79.36%. Comparing base (7782eb9) to head (6537121).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
...st/lance-encoding/src/encodings/physical/binary.rs 93.54% 0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
rust/lance-io/src/scheduler.rs 96.07% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2636      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.33%   79.36%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         222      222              
  Lines       64584    64635      +51     
  Branches    64584    64635      +51     
==========================================
+ Hits        51236    51296      +60     
+ Misses      10360    10355       -5     
+ Partials     2988     2984       -4     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 79.36% <95.12%> (+0.03%) ⬆️

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@westonpace westonpace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One minor nit, otherwise good to go

rust/lance-encoding/src/encodings/physical/binary.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@raunaks13 raunaks13 merged commit 93c81d2 into lancedb:main Jul 29, 2024
21 of 22 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request python rust Rust related tasks
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

lancedb version: 0.9.0 use Lance v2,the performance of the new file format is slower than the old format
4 participants