Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

nietras.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#141

Post by mappu »

sitkack wrote: post #49
chao- wrote: post #38

It feels crazy to me that Intel spent years dedicating die space on consumer SKUs to "make fetch happen" with AVX-512, and as more and more libraries are finally using it, as Intel's goal is achieved, they have removed AVX-512 from their consumer SKUs. It isn't that AMD has better AVX-512 support, which would be an impressive upset on it's own. Instead, it is only that AMD has AVX-512 on consumer CPUs, because Intel…

That is what Intel does, they build up a market (Optane) and then do a rug pull (Depth Cameras). They continue to do this thing where they do a huge push into a new technology, then don't see the uptake and let it die. Instead of building slowly and then at the right time, doing a big push. Optane support was just getting mature in the Linux kernel when they pulled it. And they focused on some weird cost cutting move…

Being right at the wrong time, is the same as being wrong

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#142

Post by gaadd33 »

bobmcnamara wrote: post #132
Gud wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Octane/3dxpoint was mind blowing futuristic stuff but it was just gone after 5 years? On the market? Talk about short sighted.

They got caught is what happened.

Caught doing what? Can you provide some context or links to search?

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#143

Post by bobmcnamara »

gaadd33 wrote: post #142
bobmcnamara wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got caught is what happened.

Caught doing what? Can you provide some context or links to search?

When Energy Conversion Devices went bankrupt, it appears Intel pirated the technology, and never bothered to pay the royalties for the PCM memory in Optane.

Case No. 12-43166 is what killed Optane.

Or, in a manner of speaking, Intel being Intel killed Optane.

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#144

Post by EasyMark »

elteto wrote: post #131
raron wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For better or worse, CSV is easy to produce via printf. Easy to read by breaking lines and splitting by the delimiter. Escaping delimiters part of the content is not hard, though often added as an afterthought. Based on the amount of software I seen producing broken CSV or can't parse (more-or-less) valid CSV, I don't think that is true. It seems to be easy, because just printf("%s,%d,%d\n", ...) but it is full of…

Not an issue when you control both ends of the pipe. CSV is a great interchange format for tabular data, especially so if it's only/mostly numeric. If you need to pass tabular data from internal service X to internal service Y it's great. And it's really fast.

yep use it a lot for internal stuff and I can't recall the last time we had an issue with parsing or using it. It just works for us as a data interchange file format for tabular data. Of course our character set is basically just ascii letter and numbers, we don't even need commas or quotation marks.

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#145

Post by wtallis »

bobmcnamara wrote: post #143
gaadd33 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caught doing what? Can you provide some context or links to search?

When Energy Conversion Devices went bankrupt, it appears Intel pirated the technology, and never bothered to pay the royalties for the PCM memory in Optane. Case No. 12-43166 is what killed Optane. Or, in a manner of speaking, Intel being Intel killed Optane.

The legal risks were at most the last straw. If Optane had a promising future, Intel could have made the investments necessary to make the legal issues go away. If Optane had a promising future, Micron would have helped Intel secure that future. The long-term value of a persistent memory technology capable of taking a big chunk out of both the DRAM and NAND flash markets is huge.

Optane did not have a promising future. The $/GB gap between 3D XPoint memory and 3D NAND flash memory was only going to keep growing. Optane was doomed to only be appealing to the niche of workloads where flash memory is too slow and DRAM is too expensive. But even DRAM was increasing in density faster than 3D XPoint, and flash (especially the latency-optimized variants that are still cheaper than 3D XPoint) is fast enough for a lot of workloads. Optane needed a breakthrough improvement to secure a permanent place in the memory hierarchy, and Intel couldn't come up with one.

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#146

Post by inkyoto »

paddy_m wrote: post #74
sitkack wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Itanium worked as intended.

So far as killing HP PA-Risc, SGI MIPS, DEC Alpha, and seriously hurting the chance for adoption of Sparc, and POWER outside of their respective parents (did I miss any)? Thing is, they could have killed it by 1998, without ever releasing anything, that would have killed the other architectures it was trying to compete with. Instead they waited until 2020 to end support. What the VLIW of Itanium needed and never real…

> So far as killing HP PA-Risc, SGI MIPS, DEC Alpha, and seriously hurting the chance for adoption of Sparc, and POWER outside of their respective parents (did I miss any)?

I would argue that it was bound to happen one way or another eventually, and Itanium just happened to be a catalyst for the extinction of nearly all alternatives.

High to very high performance CPU manufacturing (NB: the emphasis is on the manufacturing) is a very expensive business, and back in the 1990's no-one was able (or willing) to invest in the manufacturing and commit to the continuous investment in keeping the CPU manufacturing facilities up to date. For HP, SGI, Digital Equipment, SUN, and IBM, a high performance RISC CPU was the single most significant enabler, yet not their core business. It was a truly odd situation where they all had a critical dependency on CPU's, yet none of them could manufacture them themselves and were all reliant on a third party[0].

Even Motorola that was in some very serious semicondutor business could not meet the market demands[1].

Look at how much it costs Apple to get what they want out of TSMC – it is tens of billions of dollars almost yearly, if not yearly. We can see very well today how expensive it is to manufacture a bleeding-edge, high-performing CPU – look no further than Samsung, GlobalFoundries, the beloved Intel, and many others. Remember the days when Texas Instruments used to make CPU's? Nope, they don't make them anymore.

[0] Yes, HP and IBM used to produced their own CPU's in-house for a while, but then that ceased as well.

[1] The actual reason why Motorola could not meet the market demand was, of course, an entirely different one – the company management did not consider the CPU's to be their core business as they primarily focused on other semiconductor products and on defence, which left the CPU production in an underinvested state. Motorola could have become a TSMC if they could see the future through a silicon dust shroud.

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#147

Post by hinkley »

haberman wrote: post #116

The article doesn't clearly define what this 21 GB/s code is doing. - What format exactly is it parsing? (eg. does the dialect of CSV support quoted commas, or is the parser merely looking for commas and newlines)? - What is the parser doing with the result (ie. populating a data structure, etc)?

There’s a calculation for ns/row in the article that is never translated into rows per second but is about 27 ns/row, which is about 37,000 per second. Which means these rows are 570k apiece if that’s 21GB. Which seems like an awfully cooked benchmark.

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#148

Post by pinoy420 »

Aurornis wrote: post #105
chao- wrote: post #38

It feels crazy to me that Intel spent years dedicating die space on consumer SKUs to "make fetch happen" with AVX-512, and as more and more libraries are finally using it, as Intel's goal is achieved, they have removed AVX-512 from their consumer SKUs. It isn't that AMD has better AVX-512 support, which would be an impressive upset on it's own. Instead, it is only that AMD has AVX-512 on consumer CPUs, because Intel…

In this article, they saw the following speeds: Original: 18 GB/s AVX2: 20 GB/s AVX512: 21 GB/s This is an AMD CPU, but it's clear that the AVX512 benefits are marginal over the AVX2 version. Note that Intel's consumer chips do support AVX2, even on the E-cores. But there's more to the story: This is a single-threaded benchmark. Intel gave up AVX512 to free up die space for more cores. Intel's top of the line consume…

[dead]

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#149

Post by aolo2 »

hinkley wrote: post #147
haberman wrote: post #116

The article doesn't clearly define what this 21 GB/s code is doing. - What format exactly is it parsing? (eg. does the dialect of CSV support quoted commas, or is the parser merely looking for commas and newlines)? - What is the parser doing with the result (ie. populating a data structure, etc)?

There’s a calculation for ns/row in the article that is never translated into rows per second but is about 27 ns/row, which is about 37,000 per second. Which means these rows are 570k apiece if that’s 21GB. Which seems like an awfully cooked benchmark.

That would be 37,000,000, not 37,000.

Re: 21 GB/s CSV Parsing Using SIMD on AMD 9950X

#150

Post by nickysielicki »

gnfargbl wrote: post #88
sitkack wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what Intel does, they build up a market (Optane) and then do a rug pull (Depth Cameras). They continue to do this thing where they do a huge push into a new technology, then don't see the uptake and let it die. Instead of building slowly and then at the right time, doing a big push. Optane support was just getting mature in the Linux kernel when they pulled it. And they focused on some weird cost cutting move…

The rugpull on Optane was incredibly frustrating. Intel developed a technology which made really meaningful improvements to workloads in an industry that is full of sticky late adopters (RDBMSes). They kept investing until the point where they had unequivocally made their point and the late adopters were just about getting it... and then killed it! It's hard to understand how they could have played that particular ha…

It’s especially hard to understand because so much of their management had a degree which conferred a mastery of business administration. I mean, it’s almost like you could take any tenured software engineeer at the company, and they would have been in a better position to manage the company more effectively. That’s very surprising, and might suggest that people with MBAs are total idiots who understand everything through GRE-friendly analogy rather than, well, actually understanding anything.
Post reply on HN