-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.5k
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
Revert "[SPARK-30642][SPARK-30659][SPARK-30660][SPARK-30662]" #27487
Conversation
…ctors" This reverts commit d0c3e9f.
Wow. It's a massive revert. If you have a discussion on the other PRs, could you add some pointers into the description? What is the performance regression?
|
@dongjoon-hyun There is some test and discussion in #27374, I also update the description. |
Thank you, @zhengruifeng . |
Also, cc @huaxingao since she is also the author of the last PR. |
Test build #118014 has finished for PR 27487 at commit
|
This reverts commit f59685a.
Test build #118016 has finished for PR 27487 at commit
|
…vectors" This reverts commit 073ce12.
Test build #118020 has finished for PR 27487 at commit
|
retest this please |
Test build #118022 has finished for PR 27487 at commit
|
This reverts commit 96d2727.
Test build #118029 has finished for PR 27487 at commit
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM.
Merged to master |
Thank you. I should have realized that sparse vectors could be an issue in the first place. That's my bad. |
@srowen Never mind, I should have maken more perfermance tests. Maybe we should do such refactors only when we have enough time for testing. When working on these PRs, it maybe too close to the code freeze. |
Is this to revert the PRs on branch-3.0 too? I cannot find it in branch-3.0 commits. |
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Revert #27360 #27396 #27374 #27389 ### Why are the changes needed? BLAS need more performace tests, specially on sparse datasets. Perfermance test of LogisticRegression (#27374) on sparse dataset shows that blockify vectors to matrices and use BLAS will cause performance regression. LinearSVC and LinearRegression were also updated in the same way as LogisticRegression, so we need to revert them to make sure no regression. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? remove newly added param blockSize ### How was this patch tested? reverted testsuites Closes #27487 from zhengruifeng/revert_blockify_ii. Authored-by: zhengruifeng <ruifengz@foxmail.com> Signed-off-by: zhengruifeng <ruifengz@foxmail.com>
@viirya Yes, this is to revert on branch-3.0 too. I am go to revert it on 3.0. Thanks for pointing it out! |
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Revert apache#27360 apache#27396 apache#27374 apache#27389 ### Why are the changes needed? BLAS need more performace tests, specially on sparse datasets. Perfermance test of LogisticRegression (apache#27374) on sparse dataset shows that blockify vectors to matrices and use BLAS will cause performance regression. LinearSVC and LinearRegression were also updated in the same way as LogisticRegression, so we need to revert them to make sure no regression. ### Does this PR introduce any user-facing change? remove newly added param blockSize ### How was this patch tested? reverted testsuites Closes apache#27487 from zhengruifeng/revert_blockify_ii. Authored-by: zhengruifeng <ruifengz@foxmail.com> Signed-off-by: zhengruifeng <ruifengz@foxmail.com>
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Revert
#27360
#27396
#27374
#27389
Why are the changes needed?
BLAS need more performace tests, specially on sparse datasets.
Perfermance test of LogisticRegression (#27374) on sparse dataset shows that blockify vectors to matrices and use BLAS will cause performance regression.
LinearSVC and LinearRegression were also updated in the same way as LogisticRegression, so we need to revert them to make sure no regression.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
remove newly added param blockSize
How was this patch tested?
reverted testsuites