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

Document DASK_JIT_UNSPILL #604

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 18, 2021
Merged

Conversation

madsbk
Copy link
Member

@madsbk madsbk commented May 12, 2021

Fixes #597

Also moving Spilling from device to the ADDITIONAL FEATURES section

@github-actions github-actions bot added the doc Documentation label May 12, 2021
@madsbk madsbk added 2 - In Progress Currently a work in progress non-breaking Non-breaking change labels May 12, 2021
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented May 12, 2021

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (branch-21.06@1d71749). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 151f436 differs from pull request most recent head 2794ce8. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2794ce8 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             branch-21.06     #604   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   90.31%           
===============================================
  Files                   ?       15           
  Lines                   ?     1569           
  Branches                ?        0           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?     1417           
  Misses                  ?      152           
  Partials                ?        0           

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 1d71749...2794ce8. Read the comment docs.

@madsbk madsbk marked this pull request as ready for review May 17, 2021 07:53
@madsbk madsbk requested a review from quasiben May 17, 2021 07:54
@quasiben
Copy link
Member

This is great @madsbk, thanks for working on it! It's probably worth mentioning the benefits (and potential problems) of using it. Something like, "when experimenting with JIT-UNSPILL we generally see better performance and lower memory usage". @beckernick do you have some general idea on percentages here ? Is it 20% better?

@beckernick
Copy link
Member

beckernick commented May 17, 2021

@beckernick do you have some general idea on percentages here ? Is it 20% better?

This will be workload dependent. However, for workloads that require significant spilling (such as large joins on infrastructure with less available memory than data) we have often seen greater than 50% improvement (i.e., something taking 300 seconds might take only 110 seconds). For workloads that do not, we would not expect to see much delta.

@madsbk
Copy link
Member Author

madsbk commented May 18, 2021

@quasiben updated the docs to include some more information

Copy link
Member

@quasiben quasiben left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks @madsbk !

@quasiben
Copy link
Member

@gpucibot merge

@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot merged commit cbb677c into rapidsai:branch-21.06 May 18, 2021
@madsbk madsbk deleted the jit_unspill_docs branch May 18, 2021 13:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
2 - In Progress Currently a work in progress doc Documentation non-breaking Non-breaking change
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Document DASK_JIT_UNSPILL
4 participants