Skip to content

Conversation

@olivialynn
Copy link
Member

Closes #957

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 19, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.67%. Comparing base (da0520e) to head (3b140b5).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1181      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.66%   96.67%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          44       44              
  Lines        2786     2801      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits         2693     2708      +15     
  Misses         93       93              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@review-notebook-app
Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 19, 2025

Before [da0520e] After [7472cc9] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
20.1±0.1s failed n/a benchmarks.time_save_big_catalog
44.2±0.6ms 45.3±0.7ms 1.03 benchmarks.time_polygon_search
828±1ms 834±7ms 1.01 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_default
26.9±0.3ms 26.9±0.07ms 1.00 benchmarks.time_box_filter_on_partition
98.2±1ms 98.6±1ms 1.00 benchmarks.time_kdtree_crossmatch
8.78±0.01s 8.79±0.01s 1.00 benchmarks.time_lazy_crossmatch_many_columns_overlapping_suffixes
4.26±0.01s 4.27±0.01s 1.00 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_all
630±3ms 628±5ms 1.00 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_list
6.97±0.01s 6.87±0s 0.99 benchmarks.time_create_large_catalog
1.05±0.01s 1.03±0s 0.99 benchmarks.time_create_midsize_catalog

Some benchmarks failed or their performance regressed significantly.

@github-actions
Copy link

Before [da0520e] After [e0cbb62] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
19.9±0.05s failed n/a benchmarks.time_save_big_catalog
8.66±0.01s 8.81±0.01s 1.02 benchmarks.time_lazy_crossmatch_many_columns_overlapping_suffixes
45.0±0.7ms 45.9±1ms 1.02 benchmarks.time_polygon_search
8.64±0.01s 8.69±0.01s 1.01 benchmarks.time_lazy_crossmatch_many_columns_all_suffixes
27.9±0.7ms 27.8±0.4ms 1.00 benchmarks.time_box_filter_on_partition
6.91±0s 6.91±0.01s 1.00 benchmarks.time_create_large_catalog
99.7±2ms 99.5±1ms 1.00 benchmarks.time_kdtree_crossmatch
4.24±0.01s 4.26±0.02s 1.00 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_all
830±6ms 834±5ms 1.00 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_default
1.05±0.01s 1.04±0s 0.99 benchmarks.time_create_midsize_catalog

Some benchmarks failed or their performance regressed significantly.

Copy link
Contributor

@delucchi-cmu delucchi-cmu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Check out benchmark time_save_big_catalog

@github-actions
Copy link

Before [da0520e] After [8f9a2bd] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
19.6±0.05s failed n/a benchmarks.time_save_big_catalog
24.3±0.6ms 24.9±0.4ms 1.02 benchmarks.time_box_filter_on_partition
6.48±0.01s 6.64±0.08s 1.02 benchmarks.time_create_large_catalog
974±6ms 995±20ms 1.02 benchmarks.time_create_midsize_catalog
42.0±0.6ms 42.5±0.7ms 1.01 benchmarks.time_polygon_search
605±4ms 603±3ms 1.00 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_list
89.0±1ms 87.6±2ms 0.99 benchmarks.time_kdtree_crossmatch
7.48±0.04s 7.44±0.02s 0.99 benchmarks.time_lazy_crossmatch_many_columns_all_suffixes
7.53±0.03s 7.48±0.03s 0.99 benchmarks.time_lazy_crossmatch_many_columns_overlapping_suffixes
3.62±0.02s 3.60±0.01s 0.99 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_all

Some benchmarks failed or their performance regressed significantly.

@github-actions
Copy link

Before [da0520e] After [ea18ff1] Ratio Benchmark (Parameter)
6.82±0.01s 6.89±0.08s 1.01 benchmarks.time_create_large_catalog
8.73±0s 8.82±0.04s 1.01 benchmarks.time_lazy_crossmatch_many_columns_all_suffixes
839±3ms 848±6ms 1.01 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_default
636±4ms 640±1ms 1.01 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_list
19.8±0.01s 20.1±0.05s 1.01 benchmarks.time_save_big_catalog
1.03±0.01s 1.03±0.02s 1 benchmarks.time_create_midsize_catalog
8.82±0.04s 8.84±0.01s 1 benchmarks.time_lazy_crossmatch_many_columns_overlapping_suffixes
4.29±0.01s 4.31±0s 1 benchmarks.time_open_many_columns_all
46.2±1ms 46.2±2ms 1 benchmarks.time_polygon_search
101±2ms 99.9±2ms 0.99 benchmarks.time_kdtree_crossmatch

Click here to view all benchmarks.

@olivialynn olivialynn merged commit 3714254 into main Dec 22, 2025
12 checks passed
@olivialynn olivialynn deleted the issue/957/partition_size_as_threshold_dataframe branch December 22, 2025 19:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support specifying partition size as a threshold for importing a catalog

3 participants