Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
Artem, in ignite 2.9 a way to build C++ for linux/mac os x was changed (autotools to cmake). As an author of this change, I want to contribute in documentation. As far as I understand, now it should be done through PR to specific repository. Could you please help me with this? пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 16:33, Anton Kalashnikov : > Hi Guys, > > As I understand we will be merging some tickets to release. May I suggest > also add ticket [1] to 2.9 release. > > There are not a lot of changes in code but It's a critical fix for the > ability to launch ignite in lamba on Azure(There are not any workaround). > > So if nobody minds let's merge it to 2.9. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13013 > > -- > Best regards, > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > 28.08.2020, 11:16, "Alex Plehanov" : > > Guys, > > > > We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and IGNITE-12568 (reverted > it > > locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1 > > > > IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot paths, to trace these > > hot paths, it's clear why we have performance drop here. > > > > IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) - switch/case block was > > refactored to an array of message suppliers. The message factory is on > the > > hot path, which explains why this commit has an impact on total > > performance. > > I've checked JIT assembly output, done some JMH microbenchmarks, and > found > > that old implementation of MessageFactory.create() about 30-35% faster > than > > the new one. The reason - approach with switch/case can effectively > inline > > message creation code, but with an array of suppliers relatively heavy > > "invokeinterface" cannot be skipped. I've tried to rewrite the code using > > an abstract class for suppliers instead of an interface (to > > replace "invokeinterface" with the "invokevirtual"), but it gives back > only > > 10% of method performance and in this case, code looks ugly (lambdas > can't > > be used). Currently, I can't find any more ways to optimize the current > > approach (except return to the switch/case block). Andrey Gura, as the > > author of IGNITE-12568, maybe you have some ideas about optimization? > > > > Perhaps we should revert IGNITE-12568, but there are some metrics already > > created, which can't be rewritten using old message factory > implementation > > (IGNITE-12756). Guys, WDYT? > > > > пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 01:52, Denis Magda : > > > >> Looks beautiful and easy to use, thanks, Artem! Could you please add > the > >> following copyright to the footer of the pages? > >> > >> *© 2020 The Apache Software Foundation.* > >> *Apache, Apache Ignite, the Apache feather and the Apache Ignite logo > are > >> either registered trademarks or trademarks of The Apache Software > >> Foundation. * > >> *Privacy Policy* > >> > >> - > >> Denis > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 5:20 AM Artem Budnikov < > >> a.budnikov.ign...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> We published the draft of Ignite 2.9 documentation on the Apache > Ignite > >>> web-site. The docs are available via the following link: > >>> > >>> > https://ignite.apache.org/docs/2.9.0/installation/installing-using-docker > >>> > >>> Alex, > >>> > >>> Is there an estimate for the release date? > >>> > >>> -Artem > >>> > >>> On 26.08.2020 17:47, Alex Plehanov wrote: > >>> > Denis, > >>> > > >>> > Currently, we are running mostly IgnitePutTxImplicitBenchmark > without > >>> > persistence. For other benchmarks drop is lower and it's harder to > find > >>> > problematic commit. > >>> > > >>> > ср, 26 авг. 2020 г. в 17:34, Denis Magda : > >>> > > >>> >> Alex, > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks for sending an update. The drop is quite big. What are the > >>> types of > >>> >> benchmarks you are observing the degradation for (atomic puts, > >>> >> transactions, sql, etc.)? > >>> >> > >>> >> Let us know if any help by particular committers is required. > >>> >> > >>> >> - > >>> >> Denis > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:26 AM Alex Plehanov < > >>> plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> Hello, guys! > >>> >>> > >>> >>> We finally have some benchmark results. Looks like there is more > than > >>> one > >>> >>> commit with a performance drop. Detected drops for those commits > only > >>> >>> slightly higher than measurement error, so it was hard to find > them > >>> and > >>> >> we > >>> >>> are not completely sure we found them all and found them right. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Drops detected: > >>> >>> 2-3% drop on commit 99b0e0143e0 (IGNITE-13060 Tracing: initial > >>> >>> implementation) > >>> >>> 2-3% drop on commit 65c30ec6947 (IGNITE-12568 MessageFactory is > >>> >> refactored > >>> >>> in order to detect registration of message with the same direct > type) > >>> >>> > >>> >>> The total drop we have on our environment - 7-8% and perhaps > there is > >>> >>> something else here (benchmarks still in progress, I wi
Re: [jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13392) Incorrect Vector::kNorm evaluation for odd powers
Hi,
I have added test cases to jira and PR with these cases.
Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13392
PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8196
Please review and share feedback.
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 at 12:48, Alexey Zinoviev
wrote:
> Great, could you provide in comment some test cases with correct from
> formula or wolfram and wrong answers
>
> сб, 29 авг. 2020 г., 22:25 Mark Andreev (Jira) :
>
> > Mark Andreev created IGNITE-13392:
> > -
> >
> > Summary: Incorrect Vector::kNorm evaluation for odd powers
> > Key: IGNITE-13392
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13392
> > Project: Ignite
> > Issue Type: Improvement
> > Components: ml
> > Reporter: Mark Andreev
> > Assignee: Mark Andreev
> >
> >
> > Current implementation of `Vector::kNorm` is incorrect.
> >
> > Current formula is
> > (`org.apache.ignite.ml.math.primitives.vector.AbstractVector:882`):
> > {code:java}
> > (\sum_{i}{x^p})^{1/p}
> > {code}
> > But correct formula is:
> > {code:java}
> > (\sum_{i}{|x|^p})^{1/p}
> > {code}
> > We can verify this using lectures ([
> > https://www.math.usm.edu/lambers/mat610/sum10/lecture2.pdf)] or using
> > Wolfram Mathematica:
> > {code:java}
> > > Norm[{x, y, z}, p]
> > (Abs[x]^p+Abs[y]^p+Abs[z]^p)^(1/p){code}
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
> > (v8.3.4#803005)
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Mark Andreev
Re: First contribute to Ignite ML
Hi, I have created a PR for BrayCurtis,Canberra,JensenShannon,WeightedMinkowski distances. Jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13386 PR https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8197 Please review and share feedback. On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:11, Alexey Zinoviev wrote: > Hi, Mark, I've created a ticket and assigned on you > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13386 > > Create PR to the main repository according the next schema > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute > process is described in the chapter " Git Process " > > Keep in mind next coding guidelines > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Coding+Guidelines#CodingGuidelines-JavadocComments > > > We have automated checks for part of them as a part of the CI. > > As a reference PR you could have a look to > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12383 related to the > distances. > Good luck! > Alex > > > вт, 25 авг. 2020 г. в 10:42, Alexey Zinoviev : > > > Great, I'll create a ticket for that case and assign it for you, I think > > it could be very useful contribution. > > > > > > > > вт, 25 авг. 2020 г., 10:07 Mark Andreev : > > > >> Hi, @Alexey Zinoviev . > >> > >> Currently, Ignite supports only these distances > >> (org.apache.ignite.ml.math.distances) : > >> - ChebyshevDistance > >> - CosineSimilarity > >> - EuclideanDistance > >> - HammingDistance > >> - JaccardIndex > >> - ManhattanDistance > >> - MinkowskiDistance > >> > >> But in scipy ( > >> https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/spatial.distance.html) we > can > >> find at least: > >> - BrayCurtis > >> - Canberra > >> - Jensen-Shannon > >> - Seuclidean > >> - Weighted Minkowski > >> > >> I can implement those and coverage with unit tests. > >> > >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 02:36, Denis Magda wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Mark, > >> > > >> > Welcome to the community! Hope you'll find it delightful to contribute > >> to > >> > the Ignite ML component. > >> > > >> > I've added you to JIRA's contributors' list, so you're good to go. > Just > >> in > >> > case, @Alexey Zinoviev is our main ML > >> > maintainer, > >> > but, probably, you already know him. > >> > > >> > - > >> > Denis > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 3:42 PM Mark Andreev > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hello, I want to join the Ignite community as a developer. My field > of > >> > > interests is Machine learning, so I can start with extending > >> > > DistanceMeasure implementations (migrate from scipy). > >> > > > >> > > Please, could you give me a contribution permission (username: > >> > mrkandreev)? > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > Mark Andreev > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Mark Andreev > >> > > > -- Best regards, Mark Andreev
IGNITE-12364 Migrate JMS module to ignite-extensions
Hi, I have created PR for migrating JMS module to ignite-extensions. Jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12355 PR https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8198 https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions/pull/20 Please review and share feedback. Regards, Saikat
[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13394) Migrate Kafka module to ignite-extensions
Saikat Maitra created IGNITE-13394: -- Summary: Migrate Kafka module to ignite-extensions Key: IGNITE-13394 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13394 Project: Ignite Issue Type: Sub-task Components: streaming Reporter: Saikat Maitra Migrate JMS module to ignite-extensions [https://github.com/apache/ignite-extensions] Details: [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-36%3A+Modularization#IEP-36:Modularization-IndependentIntegrations] Discussion : [http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Proposal-for-Ignite-Extensions-as-a-separate-Bahir-module-or-Incubator-project-td44064.html#a44107] -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13393) Tracing: Atomic cache read/write flow.
Alexander Lapin created IGNITE-13393: Summary: Tracing: Atomic cache read/write flow. Key: IGNITE-13393 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13393 Project: Ignite Issue Type: New Feature Reporter: Alexander Lapin Assignee: Alexander Lapin Implement tracing for atomic cache operations: * put * putAll * putAsync * putAllAsync * remove * removeAll * removeAsync * removeAllAsync * get * getAll * getAsync * getAllAsync Also add ability to include root cache read/write operations to tx tracing flow. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
Re: [jira] [Created] (IGNITE-13392) Incorrect Vector::kNorm evaluation for odd powers
Great, could you provide in comment some test cases with correct from
formula or wolfram and wrong answers
сб, 29 авг. 2020 г., 22:25 Mark Andreev (Jira) :
> Mark Andreev created IGNITE-13392:
> -
>
> Summary: Incorrect Vector::kNorm evaluation for odd powers
> Key: IGNITE-13392
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13392
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: ml
> Reporter: Mark Andreev
> Assignee: Mark Andreev
>
>
> Current implementation of `Vector::kNorm` is incorrect.
>
> Current formula is
> (`org.apache.ignite.ml.math.primitives.vector.AbstractVector:882`):
> {code:java}
> (\sum_{i}{x^p})^{1/p}
> {code}
> But correct formula is:
> {code:java}
> (\sum_{i}{|x|^p})^{1/p}
> {code}
> We can verify this using lectures ([
> https://www.math.usm.edu/lambers/mat610/sum10/lecture2.pdf)] or using
> Wolfram Mathematica:
> {code:java}
> > Norm[{x, y, z}, p]
> (Abs[x]^p+Abs[y]^p+Abs[z]^p)^(1/p){code}
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
> (v8.3.4#803005)
>
