concurrent_qps measures swap-thrashing, not throughput, for single-process engines (introduced in #860)

未關閉
#946 6 則留言 1 個 reaction 已指派 1 人 在 GitHub 檢視

維護者通常 1 天內回覆

@george-larionov 已經在處理了。

開始於 2026年6月15日。

  • #3109 來自 @alexey-milovidov —— 未關閉

評估

這個 Issue 還沒有評估資料。

描述

Summary

The concurrent_qps test introduced in #860 produces misleading, non-reproducible numbers for single-process / in-process engines (embedded CLIs and dataframe-server systems). For these systems it spawns N independent full-machine processes that collectively oversubscribe RAM, so on memory-constrained instances the metric measures swap-thrashing throughput, not query throughput — and whether it completes at all depends on the runner environment rather than the engine.

This surfaced in #943 (DataFusion), but the root cause is in lib/benchmark-common.sh (bench_concurrent_qps) and affects a whole class of systems.

Evidence

bench_concurrent_qps launches BENCH_CONCURRENT_CONNECTIONS (default 10) workers for BENCH_CONCURRENT_DURATION (default 600s). For BENCH_DURABLE=no engines like datafusion-cli, each worker's ./query spawns a fresh process that assumes it owns the whole machine. 10 × ~7 GB RSS ≈ 70 GB against 32 GB RAM.

Checked-in DataFusion (single) results, concurrent_qps vs. machine RAM:

Machine vCPU / RAM concurrent_qps err
c6a.xlarge 4 / 8 GB 0.025 0
c6a.2xlarge 8 / 16 GB 0.042 0
c6a.4xlarge 16 / 32 GB 0.11 0
c8g.4xlarge 16 / 32 GB 0.092 0
c6a.metal 192 / 384 GB 4.017 0
c8g.metal-48xl 192 / 384 GB 5.388 0
c7a.metal-48xl 192 / 384 GB 5.888 0

(datafusion-partitioned shows the same shape: 0.025–0.097 on the small boxes, 4.9–7.0 on the metals.)

The QPS tracks RAM, not core count — the metric on the sub-RAM machines is reporting how fast the box can page, not how fast the engine runs queries. err=0 everywhere, so nothing crashed in the automated runs; the processes just crawled through swap.

Why the same instance type gives different outcomes

cloud-init.sh.in adds a 16 GB swapfile and installs earlyoom on launch. In the automated fleet run a c6a.4xlarge therefore thrashes through swap and finishes at ~0.11 qps. A contributor running ./benchmark.sh on a bare c6a.4xlarge (no swap) gets the kernel OOM-killing datafusion-cli outright (see #943). So a published number depends on the presence of swap in the runner environment — a reproducibility problem independent of any one engine.

Scope

The same dynamic applies to every BENCH_DURABLE=no single-process / in-process system where N independent processes oversubscribe RAM — e.g. duckdb (and dataframe/memory variants), sqlite, hyper, chdb, pandas, polars-dataframe, daft, sirius. Any of these on a sub-RAM machine will show the same artifact.

Options

  1. Run the concurrent test at concurrency = 1 for single-process engines. Measures real serial throughput, stays comparable, never oversubscribes RAM. (Suggested by @alamb in #943.)
  2. Disable concurrent_qps for the whole single-process / in-process class. #943 does this for DataFusion only (BENCH_CONCURRENT_DURATION=0); make it class-wide so the dashboard isn't uneven (one embedded engine reporting null while peers report swap artifacts).
  3. Add a "fit in RAM" guard analogous to the partial-load >= 5 GB check: if the concurrent test's working set exceeds available RAM, record null instead of a thrashing number.
  4. Pin the environment: document/encode whether swap is part of the canonical setup so the same instance type reproduces the same result. (Weakest on its own — a number that only completes because of swap shouldn't be published regardless.)

Recommendation: option 1 or 2 for the single-process class (subsumes #943 into a consistent, class-wide fix), plus nulling the existing swap-artifact concurrent_qps values already checked in for these systems on the RAM-constrained machines.

Related

  • #860 — introduced the concurrent QPS test
  • #943 — DataFusion-specific workaround that prompted this
主要語言
Shell
星號
1.2k
分支
334
平均合併
3 小時 50 分鐘
30 天內合併 PR
710

環境準備

  • 沒有 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 檔案
  • 有 Pull Request 範本
  • 沒有貢獻指南

從這裡開始

  1. 先讀完整個 Issue,再讀專案的貢獻指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言說明你要接手 —— 這能避免兩個人做同樣的事。
  3. Fork 儲存庫,在一個分支上完成修改。
  4. 送出 Pull Request,並在描述裡引用這個 Issue 編號。

ClickHouse/ClickBench 的其他 Issue

查看 ClickHouse/ClickBench 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Shell/Bash Issue

把新 issue 寄到你的電子郵件信箱

精選適合新手參與的 GitHub issue 摘要。