Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Upgrade to Arrow 17 #16400

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

galipremsagar
Copy link
Contributor

Description

This PR upgrades to arrow-17 in cudf.

Checklist

  • I am familiar with the Contributing Guidelines.
  • New or existing tests cover these changes.
  • The documentation is up to date with these changes.

@galipremsagar galipremsagar added improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function breaking Breaking change labels Jul 25, 2024
@galipremsagar galipremsagar self-assigned this Jul 25, 2024
@galipremsagar galipremsagar requested review from a team as code owners July 25, 2024 20:45
@galipremsagar galipremsagar requested review from bdice, wence- and vyasr July 25, 2024 20:45
@github-actions github-actions bot added libcudf Affects libcudf (C++/CUDA) code. Python Affects Python cuDF API. CMake CMake build issue Java Affects Java cuDF API. cudf.polars Issues specific to cudf.polars labels Jul 25, 2024
@galipremsagar galipremsagar changed the base branch from branch-24.08 to branch-24.10 July 25, 2024 20:45
@galipremsagar galipremsagar removed request for a team July 25, 2024 20:45
Copy link
Contributor

@vyasr vyasr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we want to upgrade this, certainly not so quickly. We know that moving our Arrow dependency too quickly can cause pain for some of our users (CC @beckernick), and also we're targeting removing the libarrow dependency in 24.10 anyway.

@bdice
Copy link
Contributor

bdice commented Jul 26, 2024

Thanks @vyasr - I had the same concern. Let's try to reduce our Arrow dependencies first, and we can upgrade this later in the 24.10 release cycle if still needed.

@galipremsagar
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't think we want to upgrade this, certainly not so quickly. We know that moving our Arrow dependency too quickly can cause pain for some of our users (CC @beckernick), and also we're targeting removing the libarrow dependency in 24.10 anyway.

Sounds good 👍

@galipremsagar galipremsagar marked this pull request as draft July 26, 2024 05:13
@vyasr
Copy link
Contributor

vyasr commented Aug 22, 2024

@galipremsagar once #16640 merges, we should replace this PR with one that simply relaxes the pyarrow constraint. Would you be able to take point on testing the versions that we support? I expect that anything after pyarrow 13 should work for us (we need pyarrow 13 for apache/arrow#36162).

@seberg when we add the earliest dependency testing to cudf (the cudf version of rapidsai/rmm#1613) can we also ensure that the appropriate pyarrow (and pandas) versions are being tested there? Thank you!

@galipremsagar
Copy link
Contributor Author

@galipremsagar once #16640 merges, we should replace this PR with one that simply relaxes the pyarrow constraint. Would you be able to take point on testing the versions that we support? I expect that anything after pyarrow 13 should work for us (we need pyarrow 13 for apache/arrow#36162).

@seberg when we add the earliest dependency testing to cudf (the cudf version of rapidsai/rmm#1613) can we also ensure that the appropriate pyarrow (and pandas) versions are being tested there? Thank you!

Sure 👍

@seberg
Copy link
Contributor

seberg commented Aug 22, 2024

hen we add the earliest dependency testing to cudf (the cudf version of rapidsai/rmm#1613) can we also ensure that the appropriate pyarrow (and pandas) versions are being tested there?

They already are part of gh-16570 (although you can double check the versions, and I guess this would modify them).

@vyasr
Copy link
Contributor

vyasr commented Aug 22, 2024

Oh awesome I thought there was a cudf PR for this but couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing it out! Yes, we'd just want to update the versions there.

@jakirkham
Copy link
Member

Right this is the cuDF PR: #16570

Think Matthew is going to work on adding some skips and xfails as appropriate: #16570 (comment)

Guessing once that is done it can be merged

@vyasr
Copy link
Contributor

vyasr commented Aug 28, 2024

Replaced by #16681.

@vyasr vyasr closed this Aug 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
breaking Breaking change CMake CMake build issue cudf.polars Issues specific to cudf.polars improvement Improvement / enhancement to an existing function Java Affects Java cuDF API. libcudf Affects libcudf (C++/CUDA) code. Python Affects Python cuDF API.
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants