Remove benchmarks suffix

[bdice]

This PR addresses suggestions from @robertmaynard, @karthikeyann, and @harrism in #10093 to remove the suffix _benchmark from the name of the benchmark files. The developer guide has been updated to reflect this change.

I left a few shared files with the word "benchmark" in them, such as cpp/benchmarks/fixture/benchmark_fixture.hpp and cpp/benchmarks/fixture/templated_benchmark_fixture.hpp.

I built the benchmarks locally to ensure that nothing was broken (I'm noting this because I recall that our CI does not build the benchmarks).

[robertmaynard]

Can you rename join.cu to left_joins.cu so that we can rename join_nvbench.cu to join.cu.
That to me better captures what exact join routines each file is benchmarking.

[karthikeyann]

LGTM 👍

[harrism]

CI should build benchmarks. Are you certain it is not? I just fixed this in RMM, which was not.

[bdice]

CI should build benchmarks. Are you certain it is not? I just fixed this in RMM, which was not.

Last I checked this was a month ago: #9905. It's possible this has changed since then, but my comment indicated that CI did not build benchmarks. #9810 (comment)

[bdice]

@harrism I see your changes to RMM rapidsai/rmm#941 and I think this line indicates we are not building benchmarks in cuDF CI (missing benchmarks):

cudf/conda/recipes/libcudf/build.sh

Line 7 in cfb6cbe

./build.sh -v libcudf tests --allgpuarch --build_metrics --incl_cache_stats --cmake-args=\"-DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR=lib\"

Shall I make a follow-up PR to build cuDF benchmarks in CI? There is a trade-off because this would cost additional CI time.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #10112 (3d5863d) into branch-22.04 (e24fa8f) will increase coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           branch-22.04   #10112      +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage         10.37%   10.42%   +0.04%     
================================================
  Files               119      119              
  Lines             20149    20607     +458     
================================================
+ Hits               2091     2148      +57     
- Misses            18058    18459     +401     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
python/cudf/cudf/io/csv.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/io/hdf.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/io/orc.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/__init__.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/_version.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/core/abc.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/api/types.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/io/dlpack.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/core/frame.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
python/cudf/cudf/core/index.py	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 59 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cfb6cbe...3d5863d. Read the comment docs.

[ttnghia]

Fantastic! Please do the same for tests/*_tests.*.

[bdice]

@gpucibot merge

[harrism]

@harrism I see your changes to RMM rapidsai/rmm#941 and I think this line indicates we are not building benchmarks in cuDF CI (missing benchmarks):

cudf/conda/recipes/libcudf/build.sh

Line 7 in cfb6cbe

./build.sh -v libcudf tests --allgpuarch --build_metrics --incl_cache_stats --cmake-args=\"-DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR=lib\"

Shall I make a follow-up PR to build cuDF benchmarks in CI? There is a trade-off because this would cost additional CI time.

Would be good to discuss with the team. Not sure what CI time cost would be?

[bdice]

Not sure what CI time cost would be?

I think the best way to find out is to open a draft PR. I'll work on this.

[karthikeyann]

I think the best way to find out is to open a draft PR. I'll work on this.

Use build time metrics html report.