-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 96
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
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ 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.
|
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? |
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. |
@quasiben updated the docs to include some more information |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @madsbk !
@gpucibot merge |
Fixes #597
Also moving Spilling from device to the ADDITIONAL FEATURES section