Drier and faster SumAggregator and AvgAggregator #120436
Merged
+76
−77
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
Dried up (and moved to the much faster inline logic) for the summation here for both implementations. Obviously this could have been done even drier but it didn't seem like that was possible without a performance hit (we really don't want to sub-class the leaf-collector I think). Benchmarks suggest this variant is ~10% faster than the previous iteration of `SumAggregator` (probably from making the grow method smaller) and a bigger than that improvement for the `AvgAggregator`.
original-brownbear
added
>non-issue
:Analytics/Aggregations
elasticsearchmachine
added
the
Team:Analytics
|
Pinging @elastic/es-analytical-engine (Team:Analytics) |
nik9000
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2025
original-brownbear
added
the
auto-backport
|
Thanks Nik! |
💚 Backport successful
|
original-brownbear
added a commit
to original-brownbear/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 22, 2025
Dried up (and moved to the much faster inline logic) for the summation here for both implementations. Obviously this could have been done even drier but it didn't seem like that was possible without a performance hit (we really don't want to sub-class the leaf-collector I think). Benchmarks suggest this variant is ~10% faster than the previous iteration of `SumAggregator` (probably from making the grow method smaller) and a bigger than that improvement for the `AvgAggregator`.
elasticsearchmachine
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 22, 2025
Dried up (and moved to the much faster inline logic) for the summation here for both implementations. Obviously this could have been done even drier but it didn't seem like that was possible without a performance hit (we really don't want to sub-class the leaf-collector I think). Benchmarks suggest this variant is ~10% faster than the previous iteration of `SumAggregator` (probably from making the grow method smaller) and a bigger than that improvement for the `AvgAggregator`.
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.
Follow up to #120241
Dried up (and moved to the much faster inline logic) for the summation here for both implementations. Obviously this could have been done even drier but it didn't seem like that was possible without a performance hit (we really don't want to sub-class the leaf-collector I think). Benchmarks suggest this variant is ~10% faster than the previous iteration of
SumAggregator(probably from making the grow method smaller) and a bigger than that improvement for theAvgAggregator.