Hi Maciej, Thanks for the info you provided.
I tried to run the same example with 1.6 and current branch and record the difference between the time cost on preparing the executed plan. Current branch: 292 ms 95 ms 57 ms 34 ms 128 ms 120 ms 63 ms 106 ms 179 ms 159 ms 235 ms 260 ms 334 ms 464 ms 547 ms 719 ms 942 ms 1130 ms 1928 ms 1751 ms 2159 ms 2767 ms 3333 ms 4175 ms 5106 ms 6269 ms 7683 ms 9210 ms 10931 ms 13237 ms 15651 ms 19222 ms 23841 ms 26135 ms 31299 ms 38437 ms 47392 ms 51420 ms 60285 ms 69840 ms 74294 ms 1.6: 3 ms 4 ms 10 ms 4 ms 17 ms 8 ms 12 ms 21 ms 15 ms 15 ms 19 ms 23 ms 28 ms 28 ms 58 ms 39 ms 43 ms 61 ms 56 ms 60 ms 81 ms 73 ms 100 ms 91 ms 96 ms 116 ms 111 ms 140 ms 127 ms 142 ms 148 ms 165 ms 171 ms 198 ms 200 ms 233 ms 237 ms 253 ms 256 ms 271 ms 292 ms 452 ms Although they both take more time after each iteration due to the grown query plan, it is obvious that current branch takes much more time than 1.6 branch. The optimizer and query planning in current branch is much more complicated than 1.6. zero323 wrote > Hi Liang-Chi, > > Thank you for your answer and PR but what I think I wasn't specific > enough. In hindsight I should have illustrate this better. What really > troubles me here is a pattern of growing delays. Difference between > 1.6.3 (roughly 20s runtime since the first job): > > > 1.6 timeline > > vs 2.1.0 (45 minutes or so in a bad case): > > 2.1.0 timeline > > The code is just an example and it is intentionally dumb. You easily > mask this with caching, or using significantly larger data sets. So I > guess the question I am really interested in is - what changed between > 1.6.3 and 2.x (this is more or less consistent across 2.0, 2.1 and > current master) to cause this and more important, is it a feature or is > it a bug? I admit, I choose a lazy path here, and didn't spend much time > (yet) trying to dig deeper. > > I can see a bit higher memory usage, a bit more intensive GC activity, > but nothing I would really blame for this behavior, and duration of > individual jobs is comparable with some favor of 2.x. Neither > StringIndexer nor OneHotEncoder changed much in 2.x. They used RDDs for > fitting in 1.6 and, as far as I can tell, they still do that in 2.x. And > the problem doesn't look that related to the data processing part in the > first place. > > > On 02/02/2017 07:22 AM, Liang-Chi Hsieh wrote: >> Hi Maciej, >> >> FYI, the PR is at https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/16775. >> >> >> Liang-Chi Hsieh wrote >>> Hi Maciej, >>> >>> Basically the fitting algorithm in Pipeline is an iterative operation. >>> Running iterative algorithm on Dataset would have RDD lineages and query >>> plans that grow fast. Without cache and checkpoint, it gets slower when >>> the iteration number increases. >>> >>> I think it is why when you run a Pipeline with long stages, it gets much >>> longer time to finish. As I think it is not uncommon to have long stages >>> in a Pipeline, we should improve this. I will submit a PR for this. >>> zero323 wrote >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> While experimenting with ML pipelines I experience a significant >>>> performance regression when switching from 1.6.x to 2.x. >>>> >>>> import org.apache.spark.ml.{Pipeline, PipelineStage} >>>> import org.apache.spark.ml.feature.{OneHotEncoder, StringIndexer, >>>> VectorAssembler} >>>> >>>> val df = (1 to 40).foldLeft(Seq((1, "foo"), (2, "bar"), (3, >>>> "baz")).toDF("id", "x0"))((df, i) => df.withColumn(s"x$i", $"x0")) >>>> val indexers = df.columns.tail.map(c => new StringIndexer() >>>> .setInputCol(c) >>>> .setOutputCol(s"${c}_indexed") >>>> .setHandleInvalid("skip")) >>>> >>>> val encoders = indexers.map(indexer => new OneHotEncoder() >>>> .setInputCol(indexer.getOutputCol) >>>> .setOutputCol(s"${indexer.getOutputCol}_encoded") >>>> .setDropLast(true)) >>>> >>>> val assembler = new >>>> VectorAssembler().setInputCols(encoders.map(_.getOutputCol)) >>>> val stages: Array[PipelineStage] = indexers ++ encoders :+ assembler >>>> >>>> new Pipeline().setStages(stages).fit(df).transform(df).show >>>> >>>> Task execution time is comparable and executors are most of the time >>>> idle so it looks like it is a problem with the optimizer. Is it a known >>>> issue? Are there any changes I've missed, that could lead to this >>>> behavior? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best, >>>> Maciej >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: >>>> dev-unsubscribe@.apache >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> Liang-Chi Hsieh | @viirya >> Spark Technology Center >> http://www.spark.tc/ >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/SQL-ML-Pipeline-performance-regression-between-1-6-and-2-x-tp20803p20822.html >> Sent from the Apache Spark Developers List mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@.apache >> > > -- > Maciej Szymkiewicz > > > > nM15AWH.png (19K) > <http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/attachment/20827/0/nM15AWH.png> > KHZa7hL.png (26K) > <http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/attachment/20827/1/KHZa7hL.png> ----- Liang-Chi Hsieh | @viirya Spark Technology Center http://www.spark.tc/ -- View this message in context: http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/SQL-ML-Pipeline-performance-regression-between-1-6-and-2-x-tp20803p20829.html Sent from the Apache Spark Developers List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
