Make asset backfill eligibility logic subset-aware instead of iterating through partition keys individually #25997
+567
−412
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
gibsondan
force-pushed
the
bfsreal
branch
2 times, most recently
from
de05d19 to
3af0522
Compare
gibsondan
force-pushed
the
nonexistant
branch
from
5e8878c to
7d1ff8b
Compare
gibsondan
force-pushed
the
nonexistant
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7ad79e0 to
04f3df1
Compare
gibsondan
force-pushed
the
nonexistant
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0e17d76 to
7a03d4f
Compare
gibsondan
changed the title
gibsondan
requested review from
OwenKephart,
smackesey,
jamiedemaria and
clairelin135
OwenKephart
previously requested changes
Dec 5, 2024
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/asset_graph_view/asset_graph_view.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Comment on lines
198
to
175
| serializable_entity_subset = entity_subset.convert_to_serializable_subset() | ||
|
|
||
| serializable_entity_subsets = [ | ||
| SerializableEntitySubset(key=asset_key, value=serializable_entity_subset.value) | ||
| for asset_key in execution_set_keys | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| entity_subsets = [ | ||
| check.not_none( | ||
| self._asset_graph_view.get_subset_from_serializable_subset( | ||
| serializable_entity_subset | ||
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| for serializable_entity_subset in serializable_entity_subsets |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
painge, but not really a better option here. could be nice to extract this into a utility (DA has to do something similar), but that doesn't need to be in this PR
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/execution/asset_backfill.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/execution/asset_backfill.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/asset_graph_view/asset_graph_view.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/execution/asset_backfill.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/execution/asset_backfill.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/execution/asset_backfill.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/execution/asset_backfill.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
gibsondan
force-pushed
the
upstreamreal
branch
from
116be3e to
fa638ec
Compare
gibsondan
force-pushed
the
upstreamreal
branch
2 times, most recently
from
4c10f54 to
7c76dc2
Compare
gibsondan
force-pushed
the
bfsreal
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a2ec297 to
a20c4cb
Compare
gibsondan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 27, 2024
Summary: Pulling out the new BFS utility added in #25997 to its own function with its own tests to keep the PR size manageable. Test Plan: New tests NOCHANGELOG
gibsondan
force-pushed
the
bfsreal
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b93ead9 to
41e786b
Compare
jamiedemaria
previously requested changes
Dec 30, 2024
| repository = code_location.get_repository("test_repo") | ||
| asset_graph = repository.asset_graph | ||
| _execute_asset_backfill_iteration_no_side_effects(graphql_context, backfill_id, asset_graph) | ||
| _execute_asset_backfill_iteration_no_side_effects(graphql_context, backfill_id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this cleanup is really nice
python_modules/dagster/dagster_tests/core_tests/execution_tests/test_asset_backfill.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
python_modules/dagster/dagster/_core/execution/asset_backfill.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
gibsondan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 31, 2024
Summary: Pulling out the new BFS utility added in #25997 to its own function with its own tests to keep the PR size manageable. Test Plan: New tests NOCHANGELOG
gibsondan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 31, 2024
Summary: Pulling out the new BFS utility added in #25997 to its own function with its own tests to keep the PR size manageable. Test Plan: New tests NOCHANGELOG ## Summary & Motivation ## How I Tested These Changes ## Changelog > Insert changelog entry or delete this section.
refactor > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. moar refactor > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. subsets instead of values > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. more progress on subsets instead of values > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. more progress > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. yet more progress > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. more progress > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. more > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. renames > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. final names? > Insert changelog entry or delete this section. owen feedback > Insert changelog entry or delete this section.
jamiedemaria
approved these changes
Dec 31, 2024
|
I saw this comment here about the order in which runs are launched by the backfill daemon #26207 (reply in thread) - wondering if I need to worry at all about that behavior changing / if we were relying on that sort key (which is no longer present) anywhere? |
|
Looks like we do some additional ordering of the run requests here for single-partition runs, but dont have any similar sorting for ranged-partition runs I'm not sure the sort key was doing anything for the resulting request order. The asset partitions to request that are returned from the BFS search are returned as a set so we'd have no guarantees about order anyway. I think if we wanted to make guarantees about the order run requests are launched, we'd need to do it at the time of constructing the run requests. could still be worth writing a test though |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary & Motivation
This PR changes the core asset backfill eligibility logic to make it work with subsets instead of individual asset partition keys. This makes things more complicated (instead of returning a boolean + string in the bfs logic, we have to return the subset that passed and the subsets + reasons that they didn't pass, but much faster for large partition sets. A backfill of 125k partition keys that used to take 20 minutes to compute now takes about 10 seconds.
How I Tested These Changes
asset back, dry runs on existing large backfills
Changelog
Performance improvements for backfills of large partition sets.