-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.3k
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
[SPARK-47818][CONNECT][FOLLOW-UP] Introduce plan cache in SparkConnectPlanner to improve performance of Analyze requests #46098
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
xi-db
changed the title
[WIP][SPARK-47818][CONNECT][FOLLOW-UP] Introduce plan cache in SparkConnectPlanner to improve performance of Analyze requests
[SPARK-47818][CONNECT][FOLLOW-UP] Introduce plan cache in SparkConnectPlanner to improve performance of Analyze requests
Apr 17, 2024
@@ -35,6 +49,7 @@ def action(df): | |||
with self.sql_conf({"spark.sql.pyspark.udf.profiler": "perf"}): | |||
_do_computation(self.spark, action=action) | |||
|
|||
# Without the plan cache, UDF ID will be different for each action |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
also cc @xinrong-meng to check the profiler tests
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Apr 24, 2024
hvanhovell
approved these changes
Apr 24, 2024
@xi-db please update the PR. |
# Conflicts: # connector/connect/server/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/connect/execution/SparkConnectPlanExecution.scala
Hi @hvanhovell, the CI is green and its ready to merge. |
Merging. |
JacobZheng0927
pushed a commit
to JacobZheng0927/spark
that referenced
this pull request
May 11, 2024
…tPlanner to improve performance of Analyze requests ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? In [the previous PR](apache#46012), we cache plans of AnalyzePlan requests. We're also enabling it for ExecutePlan in this PR. ### Why are the changes needed? Some operations like spark.sql() issue ExecutePlan requests. By caching them, we can also improve performance if subsequent plans to be analyzed include the plan returned by ExecutePlan as a subtree. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No. ### How was this patch tested? Existing tests. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#46098 from xi-db/SPARK-47818-plan-cache-followup. Authored-by: Xi Lyu <xi.lyu@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Herman van Hovell <herman@databricks.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
In the previous PR, we cache plans of AnalyzePlan requests. We're also enabling it for ExecutePlan in this PR.
Why are the changes needed?
Some operations like spark.sql() issue ExecutePlan requests. By caching them, we can also improve performance if subsequent plans to be analyzed include the plan returned by ExecutePlan as a subtree.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
Existing tests.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.