Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray (1.4X faster for sort-tpch Q11) #16509

zhuqi-lucas · 2025-06-23T10:05:10Z

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #16508

Rationale for this change

Add fast path for CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray.

What changes are included in this PR?

Add fast path for CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray if the data buffer is empty, which can avoid len compare for following logic.

Are these changes tested?

Yes

Are there any user-facing changes?

No

zhuqi-lucas · 2025-06-23T10:05:27Z

Test result:

--------------------
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Query        ┃      main ┃ fast_path_view ┃        Change ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ Q1           │ 106.56 ms │      106.53 ms │     no change │
│ Q2           │ 107.52 ms │      104.28 ms │     no change │
│ Q3           │ 666.52 ms │      677.66 ms │     no change │
│ Q4           │ 128.45 ms │      127.80 ms │     no change │
│ Q5           │ 258.79 ms │      260.39 ms │     no change │
│ Q6           │ 271.88 ms │      271.11 ms │     no change │
│ Q7           │ 427.24 ms │      415.86 ms │     no change │
│ Q8           │ 305.82 ms │      303.95 ms │     no change │
│ Q9           │ 316.23 ms │      316.75 ms │     no change │
│ Q10          │ 470.93 ms │      467.82 ms │     no change │
│ Q11          │ 281.10 ms │      197.90 ms │ +1.42x faster │
└──────────────┴───────────┴────────────────┴───────────────┘

alamb · 2025-06-23T15:05:11Z

datafusion/physical-plan/src/sorts/cursor.rs

@@ -293,14 +293,19 @@ impl CursorValues for StringViewArray {
        self.views().len()
    }

+    #[inline(always)]


For anyone else following along, I believe this is the same optimization as applied in

Perf: Optimize comparison kernels for inlined views arrow-rs#7731

alamb · 2025-06-23T16:40:27Z

🤖 ./gh_compare_branch.sh Benchmark Script Running
Linux aal-dev 6.11.0-1015-gcp #15~24.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Apr 24 20:41:05 UTC 2025 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Comparing fast_path_view (f22ca3c) to 2bf8441 diff
Benchmarks: tpch_mem clickbench_partitioned clickbench_extended
Results will be posted here when complete

alamb · 2025-06-23T17:21:01Z

🤖: Benchmark completed

Details

Comparing HEAD and fast_path_view
--------------------
Benchmark clickbench_extended.json
--------------------
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Query        ┃        HEAD ┃ fast_path_view ┃       Change ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ QQuery 0     │  1988.57 ms │     2142.83 ms │ 1.08x slower │
│ QQuery 1     │   718.95 ms │      707.35 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 2     │  1381.41 ms │     1385.85 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 3     │   648.24 ms │      686.89 ms │ 1.06x slower │
│ QQuery 4     │  1372.37 ms │     1370.82 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 5     │ 15173.88 ms │    15217.15 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 6     │  2082.96 ms │     2023.77 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 7     │  2049.36 ms │     2028.40 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 8     │   805.76 ms │      820.48 ms │    no change │
└──────────────┴─────────────┴────────────────┴──────────────┘
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Benchmark Summary             ┃            ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ Total Time (HEAD)             │ 26221.51ms │
│ Total Time (fast_path_view)   │ 26383.55ms │
│ Average Time (HEAD)           │  2913.50ms │
│ Average Time (fast_path_view) │  2931.51ms │
│ Queries Faster                │          0 │
│ Queries Slower                │          2 │
│ Queries with No Change        │          7 │
│ Queries with Failure          │          0 │
└───────────────────────────────┴────────────┘
--------------------
Benchmark clickbench_partitioned.json
--------------------
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Query        ┃        HEAD ┃ fast_path_view ┃        Change ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ QQuery 0     │     2.26 ms │        2.37 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 1     │    34.52 ms │       33.99 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 2     │    82.25 ms │       81.73 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 3     │    91.96 ms │      101.59 ms │  1.10x slower │
│ QQuery 4     │   670.29 ms │      595.46 ms │ +1.13x faster │
│ QQuery 5     │   924.74 ms │      848.52 ms │ +1.09x faster │
│ QQuery 6     │     2.29 ms │        2.23 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 7     │    39.12 ms │       39.60 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 8     │   875.61 ms │      869.89 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 9     │  1203.04 ms │     1148.95 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 10    │   256.35 ms │      258.61 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 11    │   290.28 ms │      285.61 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 12    │   911.90 ms │      874.02 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 13    │  1264.11 ms │     1274.50 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 14    │   835.77 ms │      826.75 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 15    │   788.25 ms │      793.46 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 16    │  1661.81 ms │     1673.49 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 17    │  1613.20 ms │     1632.61 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 18    │  2995.68 ms │     2969.08 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 19    │    88.59 ms │       84.39 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 20    │  1171.81 ms │     1139.65 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 21    │  1320.01 ms │     1283.02 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 22    │  2171.26 ms │     2095.38 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 23    │  7442.25 ms │     7410.28 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 24    │   472.94 ms │      453.60 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 25    │   402.89 ms │      395.16 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 26    │   526.97 ms │      514.73 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 27    │  1579.76 ms │     1525.91 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 28    │ 13130.51 ms │    11906.74 ms │ +1.10x faster │
│ QQuery 29    │   539.36 ms │      514.08 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 30    │   800.47 ms │      777.46 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 31    │   822.87 ms │      818.04 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 32    │  2525.29 ms │     2559.95 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 33    │  3219.31 ms │     3228.55 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 34    │  3323.28 ms │     3244.18 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 35    │  1282.15 ms │     1269.19 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 36    │   122.16 ms │      122.21 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 37    │    53.36 ms │       49.92 ms │ +1.07x faster │
│ QQuery 38    │   119.63 ms │      119.59 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 39    │   203.97 ms │      196.17 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 40    │    42.37 ms │       42.41 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 41    │    38.85 ms │       38.38 ms │     no change │
│ QQuery 42    │    31.93 ms │       33.52 ms │  1.05x slower │
└──────────────┴─────────────┴────────────────┴───────────────┘
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Benchmark Summary             ┃            ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ Total Time (HEAD)             │ 55975.43ms │
│ Total Time (fast_path_view)   │ 54134.99ms │
│ Average Time (HEAD)           │  1301.75ms │
│ Average Time (fast_path_view) │  1258.95ms │
│ Queries Faster                │          4 │
│ Queries Slower                │          2 │
│ Queries with No Change        │         37 │
│ Queries with Failure          │          0 │
└───────────────────────────────┴────────────┘
--------------------
Benchmark tpch_mem_sf1.json
--------------------
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Query        ┃      HEAD ┃ fast_path_view ┃       Change ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ QQuery 1     │ 103.20 ms │      103.84 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 2     │  21.07 ms │       20.58 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 3     │  32.68 ms │       32.00 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 4     │  18.60 ms │       18.70 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 5     │  50.00 ms │       48.53 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 6     │  11.86 ms │       11.95 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 7     │  86.84 ms │       88.45 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 8     │  25.11 ms │       25.03 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 9     │  54.79 ms │       54.82 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 10    │  43.38 ms │       42.97 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 11    │  11.47 ms │       11.33 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 12    │  34.12 ms │       34.13 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 13    │  25.94 ms │       26.54 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 14    │   9.78 ms │        9.75 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 15    │  18.83 ms │       19.84 ms │ 1.05x slower │
│ QQuery 16    │  18.81 ms │       18.78 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 17    │  96.22 ms │       95.89 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 18    │ 191.84 ms │      195.57 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 19    │  24.92 ms │       25.16 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 20    │  31.73 ms │       31.82 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 21    │ 144.91 ms │      148.56 ms │    no change │
│ QQuery 22    │  15.07 ms │       15.09 ms │    no change │
└──────────────┴───────────┴────────────────┴──────────────┘
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Benchmark Summary             ┃           ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ Total Time (HEAD)             │ 1071.19ms │
│ Total Time (fast_path_view)   │ 1079.35ms │
│ Average Time (HEAD)           │   48.69ms │
│ Average Time (fast_path_view) │   49.06ms │
│ Queries Faster                │         0 │
│ Queries Slower                │         1 │
│ Queries with No Change        │        21 │
│ Queries with Failure          │         0 │
└───────────────────────────────┴───────────┘

alamb · 2025-06-23T17:21:03Z

🤖 ./gh_compare_branch.sh Benchmark Script Running
Linux aal-dev 6.11.0-1015-gcp #15~24.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Apr 24 20:41:05 UTC 2025 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Comparing fast_path_view (f22ca3c) to 2bf8441 diff
Benchmarks: sort_tpch
Results will be posted here when complete

alamb · 2025-06-23T17:22:23Z

🤖: Benchmark completed

Details

Comparing HEAD and fast_path_view
--------------------
Benchmark sort_tpch.json
--------------------
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Query        ┃       HEAD ┃ fast_path_view ┃        Change ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ Q1           │  350.37 ms │      347.24 ms │     no change │
│ Q2           │  301.59 ms │      300.50 ms │     no change │
│ Q3           │ 1164.84 ms │     1187.22 ms │     no change │
│ Q4           │  412.28 ms │      410.15 ms │     no change │
│ Q5           │  414.43 ms │      407.09 ms │     no change │
│ Q6           │  445.56 ms │      447.95 ms │     no change │
│ Q7           │  902.09 ms │      888.45 ms │     no change │
│ Q8           │  819.94 ms │      777.72 ms │ +1.05x faster │
│ Q9           │  848.95 ms │      801.57 ms │ +1.06x faster │
│ Q10          │ 1226.96 ms │     1196.23 ms │     no change │
│ Q11          │  750.22 ms │      694.11 ms │ +1.08x faster │
└──────────────┴────────────┴────────────────┴───────────────┘
┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┳━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃ Benchmark Summary             ┃           ┃
┡━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╇━━━━━━━━━━━┩
│ Total Time (HEAD)             │ 7637.22ms │
│ Total Time (fast_path_view)   │ 7458.23ms │
│ Average Time (HEAD)           │  694.29ms │
│ Average Time (fast_path_view) │  678.02ms │
│ Queries Faster                │         3 │
│ Queries Slower                │         0 │
│ Queries with No Change        │         8 │
│ Queries with Failure          │         0 │
└───────────────────────────────┴───────────┘

alamb

Thank you @zhuqi-lucas -- very nice

Dandandan · 2025-06-23T21:48:01Z

🤖: Benchmark completed

Details

had a look at the "regressions", I think should not be impacted by this change (thus noise).

zhuqi-lucas added 2 commits June 23, 2025 17:42

Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray

838492d

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into fast_path_view

374b8be

github-actions bot added the physical-plan Changes to the physical-plan crate label Jun 23, 2025

zhuqi-lucas changed the title ~~Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray (1.6 faster for sort-tpch Q11)~~ Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray (1.4X faster for sort-tpch Q11) Jun 23, 2025

This was referenced Jun 23, 2025

Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray #16508

Closed

Perf: Optimize comparison kernels for inlined views apache/arrow-rs#7731

Merged

fix

f22ca3c

alamb reviewed Jun 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

alamb approved these changes Jun 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

Dandandan approved these changes Jun 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

comphead merged commit 15a8738 into apache:main Jun 24, 2025
27 checks passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray (1.4X faster for sort-tpch Q11) #16509

Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray (1.4X faster for sort-tpch Q11) #16509

Uh oh!

zhuqi-lucas commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

zhuqi-lucas commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb left a comment

Uh oh!

Dandandan commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray (1.4X faster for sort-tpch Q11) #16509

Perf: Optimize CursorValues compare performance for StringViewArray (1.4X faster for sort-tpch Q11) #16509

Uh oh!

Conversation

zhuqi-lucas commented Jun 23, 2025

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale for this change

What changes are included in this PR?

Are these changes tested?

Are there any user-facing changes?

Uh oh!

zhuqi-lucas commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb Jun 23, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

alamb commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Dandandan commented Jun 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!