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

HPCC-32933 Fix execute timings for loop activity #19264

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

shamser
Copy link
Contributor

@shamser shamser commented Nov 4, 2024

Track execute timings are incurred by CATCH_NEXTROW. And remove execute timings in getNextRow as it is executed by the CNextRowLoader thread. Track lookahead time.

Type of change:

  • This change is a bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • This change is a new feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • This change improves the code (refactor or other change that does not change the functionality)
  • This change fixes warnings (the fix does not alter the functionality or the generated code)
  • This change is a breaking change (fix or feature that will cause existing behavior to change).
  • This change alters the query API (existing queries will have to be recompiled)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
    • My code does not create any new warnings from compiler, build system, or lint.
  • The commit message is properly formatted and free of typos.
    • The commit message title makes sense in a changelog, by itself.
    • The commit is signed.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
    • I have updated the documentation accordingly, or...
    • I have created a JIRA ticket to update the documentation.
    • Any new interfaces or exported functions are appropriately commented.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTORS document.
  • The change has been fully tested:
    • I have added tests to cover my changes.
    • All new and existing tests passed.
    • I have checked that this change does not introduce memory leaks.
    • I have used Valgrind or similar tools to check for potential issues.
  • I have given due consideration to all of the following potential concerns:
    • Scalability
    • Performance
    • Security
    • Thread-safety
    • Cloud-compatibility
    • Premature optimization
    • Existing deployed queries will not be broken
    • This change fixes the problem, not just the symptom
    • The target branch of this pull request is appropriate for such a change.
  • There are no similar instances of the same problem that should be addressed
    • I have addressed them here
    • I have raised JIRA issues to address them separately
  • This is a user interface / front-end modification
    • I have tested my changes in multiple modern browsers
    • The component(s) render as expected

Smoketest:

  • Send notifications about my Pull Request position in Smoketest queue.
  • Test my draft Pull Request.

Testing:

Track execute timings are incurred by CATCH_NEXTROW.  And remove
execute timings in getNextRow as it is executed by the CNextRowLoader
thread.

Signed-off-by: Shamser Ahmed <[email protected]>
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 4, 2024

Jira Issue: https://hpccsystems.atlassian.net//browse/HPCC-32933

Jirabot Action Result:
Workflow Transition To: Merge Pending
Updated PR

@@ -439,6 +438,7 @@ class CLoopSlaveActivity : public CLoopSlaveActivityBase
}
CATCH_NEXTROW()
{
ActivityTimer t(slaveTimerStats, timeActivities);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this change looks correct in principle, but in practice, unless the lookahead time that is being performed by the feeder, the timing calculation may well be more inaccurate.

Copy link
Member

@jakesmith jakesmith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@shamser - please see comment.

Copy link
Member

@jakesmith jakesmith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@shamser - see comment.

{
ret.setown(curInput->nextRow()); // more cope with groups somehow....
LookAheadTimer t(slaveTimerStats, timeActivities);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hm, I think it's a bit more nuanced than this.
curInput is only the inputStream initially.. it then changes, the 2nd iteration of the loop, is not processing the input, but the result of the previous iteration. As it stands if it's doing many iterations, it will count it all against look ahead time.
I think you need to set a flag and only do until curInput changes.

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.

2 participants