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

PyArrow: Avoid buffer-overflow by avoid doing a sort #1555

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jan 23, 2025

Conversation

Fokko
Copy link
Contributor

@Fokko Fokko commented Jan 21, 2025

Second attempt of #1539

This was already being discussed back here: #208 (comment)

This PR changes from doing a sort, and then a single pass over the table to the approach where we determine the unique partition tuples filter on them individually.

Fixes #1491

Because the sort caused buffers to be joined where it would overflow in Arrow. I think this is an issue on the Arrow side, and it should automatically break up into smaller buffers. The combine_chunks method does this correctly.

Now:

0.42877754200890195
Run 1 took: 0.2507691659993725
Run 2 took: 0.24833179199777078
Run 3 took: 0.24401691700040828
Run 4 took: 0.2419595829996979
Average runtime of 0.28 seconds

Before:

Run 0 took: 1.0768639159941813
Run 1 took: 0.8784021250030492
Run 2 took: 0.8486490420036716
Run 3 took: 0.8614017910003895
Run 4 took: 0.8497851670108503
Average runtime of 0.9 seconds

So it comes with a nice speedup as well :)

This was already being discussed back here:

apache#208 (comment)

This PR changes from doing a sort, and then a single pass over the
table to the the approach where we determine the unique partition tuples
then filter on them one by one.

Fixes apache#1491

Because the sort caused buffers to be joined where it would overflow
in Arrow. I think this is an issue on the Arrow side, and it should
automatically break up into smaller buffers. The `combine_chunks`
method does this correctly.

Now:

```
0.42877754200890195
Run 1 took: 0.2507691659993725
Run 2 took: 0.24833179199777078
Run 3 took: 0.24401691700040828
Run 4 took: 0.2419595829996979
Average runtime of 0.28 seconds
```

Before:

```
Run 0 took: 1.0768639159941813
Run 1 took: 0.8784021250030492
Run 2 took: 0.8486490420036716
Run 3 took: 0.8614017910003895
Run 4 took: 0.8497851670108503
Average runtime of 0.9 seconds
```

So it comes with a nice speedup as well :)
@Fokko Fokko requested a review from kevinjqliu January 21, 2025 14:30
@Fokko Fokko force-pushed the fd-fix-overflowing-buffer branch from 855d121 to cafd39d Compare January 21, 2025 14:32
@kevinjqliu
Copy link
Contributor

make: *** [Makefile:55: test-integration] Aborted (core dumped)

uh oh

Copy link
Contributor

@kevinjqliu kevinjqliu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@Fokko Fokko force-pushed the fd-fix-overflowing-buffer branch from 19eeb45 to 9bf6cda Compare January 21, 2025 19:26
@Fokko Fokko force-pushed the fd-fix-overflowing-buffer branch from 9bf6cda to 7442c41 Compare January 21, 2025 19:29
@Fokko
Copy link
Contributor Author

Fokko commented Jan 21, 2025

@kevinjqliu I think the test is a bit too much, according to your comment here #1539 (comment) the test allocates almost 5gb 😀

@kevinjqliu
Copy link
Contributor

2^32 (4_294_967_296) is around 4GB, we just need to test a scenario greater than that

Comment on lines 416 to 419
if not isinstance(value, int):
# When adding files, it can be that we still need to convert from logical types to physical types
value = _to_partition_representation(iceberg_type, value)
transformed_value = partition_field.transform.transform(iceberg_type)(value)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is causing bugs, I'm going to revisit this to fix it properly

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, so I got to the bottom of it. It has to do with the return types of the transforms. eg. When we apply the bucket transform, the result is always an int, which is great. The problem is with the identity transform where the destination type is equal to the source type. So when a date comes in, it also comes out.

I think in the end it is better to remove the _to_partition_representation and see if we can consolidate this somewhere, but that's a different PR.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So when a date comes in, it also comes out.

is it due to not having support for datetime literal? #1542

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

also if its just for adding files, perhaps we can do something special just for that path

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

also if its just for adding files, perhaps we can do something special just for that path

Yes, that's exactly what I went for. I think we can simplify the logic in subsequent PRs :)

@Fokko Fokko merged commit 36d383d into apache:main Jan 23, 2025
7 checks passed
@Fokko Fokko deleted the fd-fix-overflowing-buffer branch January 23, 2025 06:50
Fokko pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 24, 2025
Following up #1555, which commented out tests in
`tests/integration/test_partitioning_key.py`
This PR uncomment those tests; they can run succesfully
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Bug] Error in overwrite(): pyarrow.lib.ArrowInvalid: offset overflow with large dataset (~3M rows)
2 participants