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

[Enhancement]when hash table has no conflict no need check next #51943

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 17, 2024

Conversation

zombee0
Copy link
Contributor

@zombee0 zombee0 commented Oct 15, 2024

Why I'm doing:

What I'm doing:

when used_bucket == row_count, there is no conflict for hash value, so we don't need to check next.
we added a branch to check used_bucket == row_count, but it's predictable.
we don't need to check next, that reduces branch,
and no need to access memory, which means less cache miss especially when right table is large.
tpch sf1000,
select count(*) from lineitem join[broadcast] supplier on cast(l_suppkey as int) = cast(s_suppkey as int) where s_suppkey < 4000000;
before:
63s
after:
53s

select count(*) from lineitem join[broadcast] supplier on cast(l_suppkey as int) = cast(s_suppkey as int) where s_suppkey < 2000000;
before:
58s
after:
47s

Fixes #issue

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

  • I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
    • 3.3
    • 3.2
    • 3.1
    • 3.0
    • 2.5

@zombee0 zombee0 requested a review from a team as a code owner October 15, 2024 13:03
@zombee0 zombee0 changed the title [WIP][Enhancement]when hash table has no conflict no need check next [Enhancement]when hash table has no conflict no need check next Oct 16, 2024
trueeyu
trueeyu previously approved these changes Oct 16, 2024
Signed-off-by: zombee0 <[email protected]>
Copy link

[Java-Extensions Incremental Coverage Report]

pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

Copy link

[FE Incremental Coverage Report]

pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

Copy link

[BE Incremental Coverage Report]

pass : 12 / 12 (100.00%)

file detail

path covered_line new_line coverage not_covered_line_detail
🔵 be/src/exec/join_hash_map.tpp 12 12 100.00% []

@DorianZheng DorianZheng enabled auto-merge (squash) October 17, 2024 06:10
@DorianZheng DorianZheng merged commit 988cb2b into StarRocks:main Oct 17, 2024
44 checks passed
dirtysalt pushed a commit to dirtysalt/starrocks that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2024
ZiheLiu pushed a commit to ZiheLiu/starrocks that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2024
renzhimin7 pushed a commit to renzhimin7/starrocks that referenced this pull request Nov 7, 2024
@zombee0 zombee0 deleted the no_conflict_join branch February 26, 2025 06:46
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.

4 participants