PERF/REF: concat #52672
Merged
PERF/REF: concat #52672
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mroeschke
approved these changes
Apr 15, 2023
mroeschke
added
Reshaping
|
Thanks @jbrockmendel |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivated by #50652, which is a near-worst-case for our current concat implementation. This gets about a 10-15% bump on the case I've been profiling (num_rows=100, num_cols=50_000, num_dfs=7). I'm exploring other approaches that I expect to get much bigger gains from.
The big upside here is the refactor. I find the current combine_concat_plans really hard to grok. Getting a single "plan" upfront rather than constructing multiple plans is much simpler.