feat: reuse partial aggregate hashes across repartition#23446
Conversation
|
run benchmarks clickbench_partitioned |
1 similar comment
|
run benchmarks clickbench_partitioned |
|
🤖 Benchmark running (GKE) | trigger CPU Details (lscpu)Comparing reuse-hash-through-hold-aggr (82bdb2b) to f34a676 (merge-base) diff using: clickbench_partitioned File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
🤖 Benchmark running (GKE) | trigger CPU Details (lscpu)Comparing reuse-hash-through-hold-aggr (82bdb2b) to f34a676 (merge-base) diff using: clickbench_partitioned File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
🤖 Benchmark completed (GKE) | trigger Instance: CPU Details (lscpu)Details
Resource Usageclickbench_partitioned — base (merge-base)
clickbench_partitioned — branch
File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
🤖 Benchmark completed (GKE) | trigger Instance: CPU Details (lscpu)Details
Resource Usageclickbench_partitioned — base (merge-base)
clickbench_partitioned — branch
File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
run benchmarks clickbench_partitioned |
|
🤖 Benchmark running (GKE) | trigger CPU Details (lscpu)Comparing reuse-hash-through-hold-aggr (82bdb2b) to f34a676 (merge-base) diff using: clickbench_partitioned File an issue against this benchmark runner |
|
🤖 Benchmark completed (GKE) | trigger Instance: CPU Details (lscpu)Details
Resource Usageclickbench_partitioned — base (merge-base)
clickbench_partitioned — branch
File an issue against this benchmark runner |
82bdb2b to
0200925
Compare
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?