You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 14, 2025. It is now read-only.
This is likely not unique to calc_nobs, and rather should occur anytime we're doing a groupby from source and merging into object without repartitioning. This groupby produces a result with npartitions equal to the number of source partitions, when we merge this into the object table the merge operation results in an object table with npartitions equal to the number of source partitions. This introduces partition bloat, which can needlessly expand the task graph. Not neccesarily a "bug", but this is not working in line with intuition, which would suggest an equal number of object rows should have an equal number of partitions. Edit: On second-look, it looks like we are attempting to repartition back to the number of object partitions in calc_nobs. Either this isn't working, or this may be a consequence of #342 as the repartition call is being used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is likely not unique to calc_nobs, and rather should occur anytime we're doing a groupby from source and merging into object without repartitioning. This groupby produces a result with npartitions equal to the number of source partitions, when we merge this into the object table the merge operation results in an object table with npartitions equal to the number of source partitions. This introduces partition bloat, which can needlessly expand the task graph. Not neccesarily a "bug", but this is not working in line with intuition, which would suggest an equal number of object rows should have an equal number of partitions. Edit: On second-look, it looks like we are attempting to repartition back to the number of object partitions in calc_nobs. Either this isn't working, or this may be a consequence of #342 as the repartition call is being used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: