WIP,DRAFT: Try using imaging constraints for joins #27
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Berg <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Berg <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Berg <[email protected]>
seberg
force-pushed
the
partition-try
branch
from
fd76956 to
0af9acd
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is just a work in progress, as of opening it does not work yet and definitely needs polishing after discussion.
The idea is to use legate imaging constraints for shuffling. Which is likely not be faster but simplifies things and may be useful to add offloading steps to the CPU (having legate deal with all data movements also for that).
EDIT: Current legate has issues with mixing 2-D and 1-D stores in constraints, but this is necessary. So this could not work until that is fixed (i.e. since there is a broadcast constraint, one can argue the interesting dimensionality is actually all 1-d here).