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

Forward-merge branch-24.04 into branch-24.06 [skip ci] #2235

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 20, 2024

Conversation

rapids-bot[bot]
Copy link

@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot commented Mar 20, 2024

Forward-merge triggered by push to branch-24.04 that creates a PR to keep branch-24.06 up-to-date. If this PR is unable to be immediately merged due to conflicts, it will remain open for the team to manually merge. See forward-merger docs for more info.

This PR is a followup to #2169. To enable IVF-flat with k>256 we need an additional select_k invocation which was unexpectedly slow. There are two reasons for that:

First problem is the data handed to select_k: The valid data length per row is much smaller than the conservative maximum that could be achieved by probing the N largest probes. Therefore each query row contains roughly ~50% dummy values. This is also the case for IVF-PQ, but did not show up as prominent due to the second reason.

The second problem, and also a difference to the IVF-PQ algorithm - is that a 64bit payload data type is used for selectK. The performance of selectK with 64bit index type is significantly slower than with 32bit, especially when many elements are in the same range:
```
Benchmark                                                           Time             CPU   Iterations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SelectK/float/uint32_t/kRadix11bitsExtraPass/1/manual_time       1.68 ms         1.74 ms          413 1357#200000#512
SelectK/float/uint32_t/kRadix11bitsExtraPass/3/manual_time       2.31 ms         2.37 ms          302 1357#200000#512#same-leading-bits
SelectK/float/int64_t/kRadix11bitsExtraPass/1/manual_time        5.92 ms         5.98 ms          116 1357#200000#512
SelectK/float/int64_t/kRadix11bitsExtraPass/3/manual_time        83.7 ms         83.8 ms            8 1357#200000#512#same-leading-bits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```
The data distribution within a IVF-flat benchmark resulted in a select_k time of ~24ms. 

### scope:
* additional parameter added to select_k to optionally pass individual row lengths for every batch entry. This parameter is utilized by both IVF-Flat and IVF-PQ and results in a ~2x speedup (50 nodes out of 5000) of the final `select_k`. 
* refactor ivf-flat search to work with 32bit indices by storing positions instead of actual indices. This allows to utilize 32bit index type select_k for ~10x speedup in the final `select_k`.

FYI @tfeher @achirkin 

### not in scope:
* General optimization of select_k: In the current implementation there is no difference in the type of the payload and the actual index type. Especially the type of the histogram has a large effect on performance (due to the atomics).

Authors:
  - Malte Förster (https://github.com/mfoerste4)

Approvers:
  - Tamas Bela Feher (https://github.com/tfeher)

URL: #2221
@rapids-bot rapids-bot bot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 20, 2024 14:08
@github-actions github-actions bot added the cpp label Mar 20, 2024
Copy link
Author

rapids-bot bot commented Mar 20, 2024

FAILURE - Unable to forward-merge due to an error, manual merge is necessary. Do not use the Resolve conflicts option in this PR, follow these instructions https://docs.rapids.ai/maintainers/forward-merger/

IMPORTANT: When merging this PR, do not use the auto-merger (i.e. the /merge comment). Instead, an admin must manually merge by changing the merging strategy to Create a Merge Commit. Otherwise, history will be lost and the branches become incompatible.

@AyodeAwe AyodeAwe merged commit 034e5d1 into branch-24.06 Mar 20, 2024
35 of 36 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants