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

[Spark] Restore memory sensitive GBK translation (#33520) #33521

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JozoVilcek
Copy link
Contributor

@JozoVilcek JozoVilcek commented Jan 7, 2025

Restore priority of memory sensitive GBK translation in spark-runner to avoid OOM #33520


Thank you for your contribution! Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily:

  • Mention the appropriate issue in your description (for example: addresses #123), if applicable. This will automatically add a link to the pull request in the issue. If you would like the issue to automatically close on merging the pull request, comment fixes #<ISSUE NUMBER> instead.
  • Update CHANGES.md with noteworthy changes.
  • If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

See the Contributor Guide for more tips on how to make review process smoother.

To check the build health, please visit https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/.test-infra/BUILD_STATUS.md

GitHub Actions Tests Status (on master branch)

Build python source distribution and wheels
Python tests
Java tests
Go tests

See CI.md for more information about GitHub Actions CI or the workflows README to see a list of phrases to trigger workflows.

@JozoVilcek JozoVilcek changed the title [Spark] Restore memory sensitive GBK translation (#33520) [Spark] Restore memory sensitive GBK translation #33520 Jan 7, 2025
@JozoVilcek JozoVilcek changed the title [Spark] Restore memory sensitive GBK translation #33520 [Spark] Restore memory sensitive GBK translation (#33520) Jan 7, 2025
@je-ik je-ik self-requested a review January 7, 2025 13:05
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 7, 2025

Assigning reviewers. If you would like to opt out of this review, comment assign to next reviewer:

R: @damccorm added as fallback since no labels match configuration

Available commands:

  • stop reviewer notifications - opt out of the automated review tooling
  • remind me after tests pass - tag the comment author after tests pass
  • waiting on author - shift the attention set back to the author (any comment or push by the author will return the attention set to the reviewers)

The PR bot will only process comments in the main thread (not review comments).

Copy link
Contributor

@je-ik je-ik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We definitely should add some sort of test for the behavior, because otherwise we risk precisely the same situation - some future optimization will break this one. I'd also like to solve the conditions under which the optimization is correct, I'll be happy to assist with that. :)

// we can drop the windows and recover them later
groupedByKey =
GroupNonMergingWindowsFunctions.groupByKeyInGlobalWindow(
inRDD, keyCoder, coder.getValueCoder(), partitioner);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually, seems that these optimizations are not mutually exclusive. We might want to apply both.

GroupNonMergingWindowsFunctions.groupByKeyInGlobalWindow(
inRDD, keyCoder, coder.getValueCoder(), partitioner);
} else if (GroupNonMergingWindowsFunctions.isEligibleForGroupByWindow(windowingStrategy)) {
if (GroupNonMergingWindowsFunctions.isEligibleForGroupByWindow(windowingStrategy)) {
// we can have a memory sensitive translation for non-merging windows
groupedByKey =
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I know this is not part of this issue, but there is unresolved problem with this - under certain circumstances there is a need for GBK result to be Reiterable (e.g. CoGroupByKey). Could we figure out a way to automatically figure out if this expansion is correct? From the top of my head - if a Pipeline does not use CoGBK at all (better if we can look is this transform is part of CoGBK expansion), then this might be OK.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants