chore(deps): update parquet/arrow/arrow-csv from 56 to 57.1

[kevinjqliu]

Closes #197 #198 #199

[kevinjqliu]

looks like we need to refactor get_column_writers since its now deprecated

[clflushopt]

I am wondering what the impact is of moving to 57 for all three deps

[kevinjqliu]

I am wondering what the impact is of moving to 57 for all three deps

in terms of performance?

[alamb]

Thanks @kevinjqliu and @clflushopt

I ran some unscientific benchmarks on my laptop and indeed it seems like the upgrade makes writing 10% slower for some reason 🤔

Benchmark

rm -rf lineitem && time tpchgen-cli --scale-factor=100 --tables=lineitem --parts=10 --format=parquet

Release	Time
main	0m25.369s
main	0m25.729s
this PR	0m28.516s
this PR	0m28.682s

I'll do some profiling and see if I can see any reason

[kevinjqliu]

Not scientific either, this shows improvements for this PR vs last release (2.0.1)
only changes since 2.0.1 release are related to github actions, v2.0.1...main

➜ hyperfine --warmup 5 --runs 30 './target/release/tpchgen-cli -s 10'
Benchmark 1: ./target/release/tpchgen-cli -s 10
  Time (mean ± σ):     729.7 ms ±   7.6 ms    [User: 702.9 ms, System: 20.1 ms]
  Range (min … max):   714.5 ms … 748.4 ms    30 runs
 
➜ hyperfine --warmup 5 --runs 30 'uvx tpchgen-cli -s 10'
Benchmark 1: uvx tpchgen-cli -s 10
  Time (mean ± σ):     825.4 ms ±  12.3 ms    [User: 706.8 ms, System: 29.4 ms]
  Range (min … max):   812.7 ms … 873.6 ms    30 runs

[alamb]

Not scientific either, this shows improvements for this PR vs last release (2.0.1) only changes since 2.0.1 release are related to github actions, v2.0.1...main

➜ hyperfine --warmup 5 --runs 30 './target/release/tpchgen-cli -s 10'
Benchmark 1: ./target/release/tpchgen-cli -s 10
  Time (mean ± σ):     729.7 ms ±   7.6 ms    [User: 702.9 ms, System: 20.1 ms]
  Range (min … max):   714.5 ms … 748.4 ms    30 runs
 
➜ hyperfine --warmup 5 --runs 30 'uvx tpchgen-cli -s 10'
Benchmark 1: uvx tpchgen-cli -s 10
  Time (mean ± σ):     825.4 ms ±  12.3 ms    [User: 706.8 ms, System: 29.4 ms]
  Range (min … max):   812.7 ms … 873.6 ms    30 runs

I think by default tpchgen-cli makes TBL files (not parquet) so this command is likely not testing any changes related to arrow/parquet

[alamb]

I filed a ticket upstream to investigate and will post my findings there

• [Parquet] Writing in 57.0.0 seems 10% slower than 56.0.0 apache/arrow-rs#8783

[kevinjqliu]

I think by default tpchgen-cli makes TBL files (not parquet) so this command is likely not testing any changes related to arrow/parquet

oh yea, good point. I did it agains with the same options you used above. This PR is faster than v2.0.1

➜ hyperfine --warmup 5 --runs 30 './target/release/tpchgen-cli --scale-factor=100 --tables=lineitem --parts=10 --format=parquet'
Benchmark 1: ./target/release/tpchgen-cli --scale-factor=100 --tables=lineitem --parts=10 --format=parquet
  Time (mean ± σ):     784.5 ms ±   3.4 ms    [User: 757.3 ms, System: 20.9 ms]
  Range (min … max):   777.0 ms … 791.4 ms    30 runs

➜ hyperfine --warmup 5 --runs 30 'uvx tpchgen-cli --scale-factor=100 --tables=lineitem --parts=10 --format=parquet'
Benchmark 1: uvx tpchgen-cli --scale-factor=100 --tables=lineitem --parts=10 --format=parquet
  Time (mean ± σ):     869.3 ms ±   5.3 ms    [User: 753.4 ms, System: 29.8 ms]
  Range (min … max):   860.0 ms … 882.8 ms    30 runs

[alamb]

I think we have figured out what was going on

• [Parquet] Writing in 57.0.0 seems 10% slower than 56.0.0 apache/arrow-rs#8783

[clflushopt]

I wanted to confirm similar numbers, I spent a little while thinking I was doing something wrong 😮‍💨

[alamb]

I wanted to confirm similar numbers, I spent a little while thinking I was doing something wrong 😮‍💨

The good (amazing ❤️ ) news is that @etseidl has a fix already (will be released in 57.1.0):

• perf: Speed up Parquet file writing (10%, back to speed of 56) apache/arrow-rs#8786

I verified with the code in apache/arrow-rs#8786, this PR now has roughly similar performance to 56

It still seems a few percent slower (0m25.957s vs 0m25.378s) but I will file some issues upstream to further optimize things

[alamb]

I reran the benchmarks with arrow 57.1.0 and the good news is that the difference is now much less

Release	Time
main	0m25.369s
main	0m25.729s
this PR	0m26.552s
this PR	0m26.886s

But it is still like 4-5% slower

[alamb]

(welcome back @kevinjqliu ❤️ )

[kevinjqliu]

updated this PR to use v57.1

I'm trying to reproduce the benchmark between using 56 (main), 57 (previous change), and 57.1 (current change).
So far, I haven't been able to reproduce the numbers alamb reported above...

@alamb were you running this command for the benchmark?

rm -rf lineitem && time tpchgen-cli --scale-factor=100 --tables=lineitem --parts=10 --format=parquet

[kevinjqliu]

Turns out I did not build the binaries correctly. Fixed it using this hyperfine benchmark script.

Now I'm seeing similar benchmark numbers:

📊 Hyperfine Benchmark Summary (v56.2.0 baseline)

Version	Average Time (s)	Difference from v56.2.0
v56.2.0	30.832	0.000 (0.00%)
v57.0.0	35.380	+4.548 (+14.76%)
v57.1.0	31.744	+0.912 (+2.96%)

[kevinjqliu]

@alamb @clflushopt i think this is good to go. WYDT?

[clflushopt]

@alamb @clflushopt i think this is good to go. WYDT?

+1 for bumping to 57.1.0

[clflushopt]

LGTM thanks @kevinjqliu

[alamb]

@alamb @clflushopt i think this is good to go. WYDT?

I agree -- I think it is time to merge!