Repository navigation
Add blog post: nested TPC-H benchmark for Comet #214
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
3802cff
f45ee2d
b769570
eb87551
3c37ec2
229f8e9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| layout: post | ||
| title: Announcing a derived TPC-H, a benchmark for nested data in Apache DataFusion Comet | ||
| date: 2026-10-25 | ||
| author: pmc | ||
| categories: [performance, benchmarks] | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Nit: |
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| {% comment %} | ||
| Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more | ||
| contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with | ||
| this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. | ||
| The ASF licenses this file to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 | ||
| (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with | ||
| the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at | ||
|
|
||
| http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | ||
|
|
||
| Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software | ||
| distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, | ||
| WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. | ||
| See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
| limitations under the License. | ||
| {% endcomment %} | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| [TOC] | ||
|
|
||
| Query engines get fast at what their benchmarks measure, and the most widely used analytical benchmarks contain no nested data. Apache DataFusion Comet now runs all 22 queries of a nested TPC-H at scale factor 1000 (1 TB) in 777 s, against 1,515 s for Spark. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Nit: I think a more concrete opening would be stronger than the general statement about benchmarks, e.g. leading with the fact that Comet's TPC-H gains weren't showing up in users' nested pipelines. Feel free to ignore. |
||
|
|
||
| <img | ||
| src="../images/comet-nested-tpch/intro-total.svg" | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. These paths will need fixing before we publish. |
||
| width="100%" | ||
| class="img-fluid" | ||
| alt="Total execution time at SF1000: Spark 1,515.0 s, Comet nested unoptimized 1,087.5 s, Comet nested optimized 777.2 s" | ||
| /> | ||
|
|
||
| Nested TPC-H is a TPC-H derived benchmark in the Comet repository ([#7044](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/pull/7044)). The TPC-H data and the questions the queries answer are unchanged. The tables are reshaped to store most columns in arrays of structs, and the queries are rewritten to unnest those arrays. The data and queries are engine neutral, so they can be used to compare Spark, Comet and other engines. | ||
|
|
||
| We built it because our benchmarks and our users disagreed. Comet tracked its performance with TPC-H and TPC-DS, and the numbers were encouraging. Real user pipelines showed smaller gains, or none at all. What those pipelines had in common was nested data, which neither benchmark contains. | ||
|
|
||
| So we started experimenting with nested benchmarks in Comet to see where the gaps were. The first runs showed them: some queries ran slower on Comet than on Spark, even though Comet accelerates the same queries on flat TPC-H. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Why: TPC-H is flat, real data is not | ||
|
|
||
| [TPC-H](https://www.tpc.org/tpch/) is one of the most cited analytical benchmarks, and its schema is flat: eight normalized tables with primitive columns. Its 22 queries exercise well-understood choke points such as aggregation, join ordering and correlated subqueries (Boncz, Neumann and Erling, "TPC-H Analyzed", TPCTC 2013). | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Nit: could we link the Boncz et al. and Melnik et al. (Dremel) papers? (The Dremel citation is on line 49.) |
||
|
|
||
| Real data is often nested. Event logs, JSON, Avro and Protobuf records, and many data lake tables are full of structs and arrays, which Parquet stores with the record shredding scheme from Dremel (Melnik et al., VLDB 2010). Nested data adds work that flat benchmarks never exercise: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Reading.** Rebuilding list offsets and validity bitmaps from repetition and definition levels, and decoding only the fields a query uses. | ||
| - **Planning.** Nested column pruning and predicate pushdown through `explode`. | ||
| - **Operators.** `explode`, field access, and sort, join and exchange over wide variable-size values. | ||
| - **Memory and spilling.** Variable-size values make memory use and spill volume harder to predict. | ||
| - **Conversion.** Moving nested values between a JVM and a native representation. | ||
|
|
||
| Comet hit the shuffle case in [#5397](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/issues/5397), where native shuffle writes of wide nested fields were two to three times slower than Spark's. The issue notes that it was "invisible for TPC-* benchmarks because of historical flat schema". | ||
|
|
||
| We needed a benchmark that filled the gap between academic benchmarking and real user workloads. | ||
|
|
||
| ## How: an adapter that nests TPC-H | ||
|
|
||
| We did not want to invent a new benchmark from scratch. TPC-H is well understood, widely published and easy to generate, and its business shape (customers, orders, line items, suppliers and parts) is what makes its results meaningful. The goal was to preserve that shape and those questions while making every query process nested data. | ||
|
|
||
| The idea turned out to be surprisingly simple: a transformation of both the data and the queries that leaves the key and partition columns at the top level and nests everything else. The partition columns are `p_brand`, `c_mktsegment`, `o_orderdate` and `l_shipdate`, and every other non-key column moves into one `array<struct>` named `<table>_data`. Each array holds exactly one element, so exploding it never changes the row count and the queries return the same answers as TPC-H. For `lineitem`: | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| -- flat -- nested | ||
| l_orderkey BIGINT l_orderkey BIGINT | ||
| l_partkey BIGINT l_partkey BIGINT | ||
| l_suppkey BIGINT l_suppkey BIGINT | ||
| l_linenumber INT l_shipdate DATE -- partition column | ||
| l_quantity DECIMAL(12,2) lineitem_data ARRAY<STRUCT< | ||
| l_extendedprice DECIMAL(12,2) l_linenumber: INT, | ||
| l_discount DECIMAL(12,2) l_quantity: DECIMAL(12,2), | ||
| l_tax DECIMAL(12,2) l_extendedprice: DECIMAL(12,2), | ||
| l_returnflag STRING l_discount: DECIMAL(12,2), | ||
| l_linestatus STRING l_tax: DECIMAL(12,2), | ||
| l_shipdate DATE l_returnflag: STRING, | ||
| l_commitdate DATE l_linestatus: STRING, | ||
| l_receiptdate DATE l_commitdate: DATE, | ||
| l_shipinstruct STRING l_receiptdate: DATE, | ||
| l_shipmode STRING l_shipinstruct: STRING, | ||
| l_comment STRING l_shipmode: STRING, | ||
| l_comment: STRING>> | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Each of the 22 queries is rewritten to unnest only the arrays it needs. The queries are in [`benchmarks/nested/queries`](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/tree/main/benchmarks/nested/queries). | ||
|
|
||
| ```sql | ||
| from (select l_orderkey, l_partkey, l_suppkey, l_shipdate, | ||
| explode(lineitem_data) as lineitem_data from lineitem) as lineitem | ||
| where lineitem_data.l_quantity < 24 | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| [`nest_tpch.scala`](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/blob/main/benchmarks/nested/scripts/nest_tpch.scala) converts an existing flat TPC-H dataset to the nested layout. The source and the target can each be Parquet or Iceberg. The script runs under `spark-shell` on a laptop or a cluster, casts columns to fixed types, writes zstd-compressed Parquet with 512 MiB row groups, partitions by the columns above and checks row counts: | ||
|
|
||
| ```bash | ||
| spark-shell -i scripts/nest_tpch.scala \ | ||
| --conf spark.nesttpch.source=parquet:/data/tpch/sf10 \ | ||
| --conf spark.nesttpch.target=parquet:/data/tpch-nested/sf10 | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| The [README](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/tree/main/benchmarks/nested) has the Iceberg variants and all settings. | ||
|
|
||
| The script and queries in the Comet repository also serve as an example. You can customize them to test any nested complexity, such as multi-element arrays, maps or deeper nesting. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Benchmark setup | ||
|
|
||
| - **Data**: nested TPC-H, scale factor 1000 (1 TB). | ||
| - **Tables**: Apache Iceberg tables with zstd-compressed Parquet data files on S3, created with `nest_tpch.scala`. Comet reads them with its native Iceberg scan, which is built on [iceberg-rust](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust). | ||
| - **Cluster**: Kubernetes with 16-core executors. | ||
| - **Method**: one run per configuration, three iterations per query. Figures are the fastest iteration, and totals are sums of the per-query times. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. With one run per configuration, a few queries come out slightly slower optimized than unoptimized (q05 47.4 s vs 45.7 s, q08 42.8 s vs 42.0 s). That's probably noise, but a short note on run-to-run variance would stop readers from reading too much into small differences. |
||
| - **Spark**: Spark 4.0 | ||
| - **Comet nested unoptimized**: Comet 1.1.0 snapshot (revision `a50fe3aea863`) | ||
|
comphead marked this conversation as resolved.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't think
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Also, why use 1.1.0 snapshot? 1.1.0 is already released. |
||
| - **Comet nested optimized**: Comet 1.3.0 snapshot (revision `330b29cf`) | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This commit is "chore: start 1.3.0 development (#7167)" so effectively it is the same as the 1.2.0 release. Again I think it is cleaner if we just refer to 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 releases. I plan on cutting 1.2.0 release candidate today.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. When this is re-run against 1.2.0, could we add a sentence saying which fixes are included? From what I can tell, 1.2.0 has #6698 and #6725, plus iceberg-rust #3384 and #3396 through the pinned iceberg-rust revision, but not #3467 (still open). That would make it clear what the improvement between the two runs comes from. |
||
|
|
||
| ## What nested benchmarks revealed | ||
|
|
||
| The nested schema is: single-element arrays of structs, with no maps for now. Even that was enough to expose issues that were invisible on flat TPC-H. In the unoptimized run, Comet was slower than Spark on q20 (32.9 s against 31.5 s) and q21 (490.6 s against 373.5 s), and barely faster on q02 (34.0 s against 34.9 s). Tracing those queries surfaced a lot of technical debt in how nested data is read, shuffled and spilled, in Comet and in the iceberg-rust reader underneath it. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Nit: the colon after "The nested schema is" is stray. |
||
|
|
||
| The issues fell into four groups: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Spilling.** Wide nested values made q21's sort spill several hundred GiB per iteration, and Comet wrote spill files uncompressed. | ||
| - **Reading only what a query needs.** Comet's native Iceberg scan decoded every field of a nested column, even when Spark had pruned it to one field. This is why q20 was no faster than Spark. | ||
| - **Shuffle.** Native shuffle wrote wide nested fields two to three times slower than Spark. | ||
| - **Nested reads in iceberg-rust.** Nested fields read as NULL, some list types could not be read at all, and projection cost grew with the number of nested leaves. | ||
|
|
||
| Spills and shuffle writes happen in flat workloads too. The nested schema changed the data volume or access pattern enough to expose them. | ||
|
|
||
| The issues and pull requests, with their measurements and details, are listed in [Issues and pull requests](#issues-and-pull-requests) at the end of the post. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Results | ||
|
|
||
| ### Total execution time | ||
|
|
||
| Unoptimized Comet takes `1,087.5` s against `1,515.0` s for Spark (1.39x) and is slower on q20 and q21. Optimized Comet takes `777.2` s (1.95x), 29% less than unoptimized, and is faster than Spark on all 22 queries. | ||
|
|
||
| <img | ||
| src="../images/comet-nested-tpch/intro-total.svg" | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is repeating the first graphic, right?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. its repeating yes, the idea was to keep the first chart as the teaser, and results section replicates the same chart to keep all the results in a single section and avoid the user to scroll back to the beginning for checking the totals. WDYT? is it a good practice to repeat, or it should be structured some other way?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'd lean toward dropping the second copy of the chart. The paragraph above already gives the totals and speedups. I'd keep the per-query table, though, because people will want to cite specific numbers. |
||
| width="100%" | ||
| class="img-fluid" | ||
| alt="Total execution time at SF1000: Spark 1,515.0 s, Comet nested unoptimized 1,087.5 s, Comet nested optimized 777.2 s" | ||
| /> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Execution time by query | ||
|
|
||
| <img | ||
| src="../images/comet-nested-tpch/results-queries.svg" | ||
| width="100%" | ||
| class="img-fluid" | ||
| alt="Execution time by query for Spark, Comet nested unoptimized and Comet nested optimized" | ||
| /> | ||
|
|
||
| | Query | Spark (s) | Comet unoptimized (s) | Comet optimized (s) | | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Since you have the chart I think you can probably cut the table, unless you think someone will use it for something. |
||
| | ----- | ---: | ---: | ---: | | ||
| | q01 | 78.1 | 14.5 | 13.7 | | ||
| | q02 | 34.9 | 34.0 | 28.1 | | ||
| | q03 | 41.0 | 19.6 | 17.9 | | ||
| | q04 | 46.7 | 20.6 | 14.8 | | ||
| | q05 | 82.5 | 45.7 | 47.4 | | ||
| | q06 | 4.9 | 2.8 | 1.9 | | ||
| | q07 | 56.7 | 33.3 | 32.4 | | ||
| | q08 | 76.8 | 42.0 | 42.8 | | ||
| | q09 | 97.9 | 49.9 | 48.1 | | ||
| | q10 | 47.7 | 31.6 | 25.8 | | ||
| | q11 | 70.4 | 40.0 | 34.5 | | ||
| | q12 | 34.4 | 16.1 | 14.4 | | ||
| | q13 | 25.3 | 8.7 | 8.1 | | ||
| | q14 | 8.2 | 6.8 | 2.8 | | ||
| | q15 | 31.8 | 18.1 | 16.5 | | ||
| | q16 | 33.7 | 13.7 | 13.1 | | ||
| | q17 | 109.4 | 41.5 | 40.6 | | ||
| | q18 | 142.5 | 71.6 | 57.9 | | ||
| | q19 | 31.2 | 14.8 | 11.0 | | ||
| | q20 | 31.5 | 32.9 | 21.8 | | ||
| | q21 | 373.5 | 490.6 | 256.6 | | ||
| | q22 | 56.1 | 38.8 | 27.1 | | ||
| | **Total** | **1,515.0** | **1,087.5** | **777.2** | | ||
|
|
||
| ## What's next | ||
|
|
||
| - **Nested TPC-DS**, with the same rule: keys and partition columns stay at the top level, the rest moves into a single-element `array<struct>`. Open questions are which columns count as keys (surrogate keys end in `_sk` and many are nullable), which columns to partition by, and how to rewrite `ROLLUP` and window queries next to `explode`. | ||
| - **Other nested shapes**: multi-element arrays, maps and deeper nesting, at the cost of changing the questions the queries answer. | ||
| - **More engines**: results for other engines on the same data. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Issues and pull requests | ||
|
|
||
| Each item links to the pull request that fixed it, or to the open pull request or issue that tracks it. | ||
|
|
||
| ### In Comet | ||
|
|
||
| - **q21 spills uncompressed ([#6467](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/issues/6467), fixed by [#6698](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/pull/6698)).** Spark pushes the `EXISTS` and `NOT EXISTS` predicates below the `explode`, so the whole unpruned `lineitem_data` column goes through the shuffle, sort and joins. The sort spilled several hundred GiB per iteration, and DataFusion writes spill files uncompressed by default. #6698 adds `spark.comet.exec.spill.compression.codec`, which defaults to `lz4`. This is behind q21's regression in the results above. The investigation in #6467 used a separate run on Spark 4, where q21 went from 380 s to 250 s against 367 s for Spark. | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. "used a separate run on Spark 4" is confusing. I thought that all the runs were using Spark 4.0?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Separately from the Spark version question, the numbers here (380 s → 250 s, against 367 s for Spark) don't match the results table (490.6 s → 256.6 s, against 373.5 s). Readers will probably try to reconcile them. I'd either drop them or explain why they're different. |
||
| - **Nested columns are read in full ([#6724](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/issues/6724), fixed by [#6725](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/pull/6725)).** Comet's native Iceberg scan decoded every field of a nested column even when Spark pruned it. In q20 the `partsupp` scan read 26.4 GiB for a query that needs one field, and #6724 found that scan to be the main cost of Comet's q20. This is why q20 was no faster than Spark in the unoptimized run. #6725 passes the pruned schema, and a microbenchmark of that read went from 624 ms to 62 ms, against 413 ms for Spark. The follow-up [#7019](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/issues/7019) covers a partition column nested inside a pruned struct. | ||
| - **Nested shuffle writes ([#5397](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/issues/5397)).** The motivating issue above. Related work is tracked in [#6855](https://github.com/apache/datafusion-comet/issues/6855). | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Shuffle is listed as one of the four groups of issues in the earlier section, but there's no fix linked here. #5397 is closed and #6855 is still open. Does the optimized run include any shuffle improvement? If not, it might be worth saying this is still open work. |
||
|
|
||
| ### In iceberg-rust | ||
|
|
||
| Comet's native Iceberg scan reads data files through iceberg-rust's Arrow reader, so the work on nested reads continued there. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Nested fields of migrated files read as NULL ([apache/iceberg-rust#3374](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3374), fixed by [#3384](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/3384)).** For data files without embedded field IDs, the reader applied the table's name mapping to top-level columns only. Fields inside a struct, list or map got no ID, so the projection never selected them. #3384 applies the mapping at every depth, as Iceberg Java does. | ||
| - **Projection mask cost grows with the number of leaves ([#3394](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3394), fixed by [#3396](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/3396)).** The reader built a projection mask for every file scan task and hashed every Arrow leaf twice to do it. Nested columns add leaves, so this cost grows with the schema. For a file with 1,000 columns and 10 projected, one call went from 318 µs and 3,976 allocations to 95 µs and 178 allocations. | ||
| - **List view columns read as NULL ([#3393](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3393), fix in review in [#3467](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/pull/3467)).** When a file's embedded Arrow schema asks for `ListView`, the projection treats the whole list as one leaf. The column reads as NULL, and a list view of structs shifts every later column to the wrong Parquet leaf. #3467 reads list views as lists. | ||
| - **Fixed-size list columns fail to read ([#3471](https://github.com/apache/iceberg-rust/issues/3471), open).** This is the same kind of problem for `FixedSizeList`. The reader cannot convert it to Iceberg's `list` type. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Credits | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This section doesn't credit anyone. Maybe list the people who worked on the fixes in Comet and iceberg-rust, or rename it to something like "Get involved"? |
||
|
|
||
| Issues, pull requests and results from other engines and scale factors are welcome. See the [Comet contributor guide](https://datafusion.apache.org/comet/contributor-guide/index.html). | ||
|
|
||
| TPC-H is a trademark of the TPC. The queries are derived from TPC-H under the TPC Fair Use Policy, and results from them are not TPC-H results. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Announcing a derived TPC-H, a benchmark" seems a little awkward to me. Maybe this would be better? Feel free to ignore.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thiis would also be more consistent with the opening paragraph, which says "Nested TPC-H is a TPC-H derived benchmark ..."