You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Now that xxhash64 is available, #12829 we should evaluate the default hash function. The default hash function is MurmurHash3_x86_32 as of 25.02 .
This came up in #12829 (comment) where we might see performance benefits and register pressure reductions from using a different hash function.
Describe the solution you'd like
Compile results from hash join, mixed join and groupby aggregation benchmarks across the available hash functions.
Additional context
We will want to add support for XXHash_32 before running this investigation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I would like to know if switching our default hasher from MurmurHash3_32 to XXHash32 has an impact on performance. This was previously proposed in #12829 but deserves an issue of its own to be acted upon.
If the register usage is lower for XXHash32 than MurmurHash3_32, it might benefit some of cudf's most complex kernels. Mixed joins, for instance, combine hashing and AST execution. Similar ideas have been mentioned before in issues like #10587. I'm not confident that this would make a positive difference (I expect no significant effect, based on our past explorations of mixed joins), but it would be worth checking.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Now that
xxhash64
is available, #12829 we should evaluate the default hash function. The default hash function isMurmurHash3_x86_32
as of 25.02 .This came up in #12829 (comment) where we might see performance benefits and register pressure reductions from using a different hash function.
Describe the solution you'd like
Compile results from hash join, mixed join and groupby aggregation benchmarks across the available hash functions.
Additional context
We will want to add support for
XXHash_32
before running this investigation.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: