Skip to content

Add Parquet arrow_reader benchmarks for {u}int{8,16} columns #7484

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

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
May 8, 2025

Conversation

alamb
Copy link
Contributor

@alamb alamb commented May 8, 2025

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale for this change

I would like to easily compare the performance of the changes in #7055 to main. My scripts rely on the benchmark being present on main

What changes are included in this PR?

Bring the benchmarks @etseidl wrote in #7055 into a separate PR

Are there any user-facing changes?

@github-actions github-actions bot added the parquet Changes to the parquet crate label May 8, 2025
@alamb alamb changed the title Alamb/bench extraction Add Parquet arrow_reader benchmarks for {u}int{8,16} columns May 8, 2025
@@ -1307,6 +1386,17 @@ fn add_benches(c: &mut Criterion) {
);
group.finish();

// primitive int64 / logical uint64 benchmarks
let mut group = c.benchmark_group("arrow_array_reader/UInt64Array");
bench_primitive::<Int64Type>(
Copy link
Contributor Author

@alamb alamb May 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was confused at first -- I thought this is meant to be

Suggested change
bench_primitive::<Int64Type>(
bench_primitive::<UInt64Type>(

However, the type is the parquet type not the arrow / logical type

@alamb alamb merged commit 0e48877 into apache:main May 8, 2025
17 checks passed
@alamb alamb deleted the alamb/bench_extraction branch May 8, 2025 18:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
parquet Changes to the parquet crate
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants