Repository navigation
Read turbopuffer query result ids from the raw response - #879
Closed
owenhalpert wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
owenhalpert wants to merge 1 commit into
owenhalpert wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: owenhalpert The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Author
|
Closing this — my benchmark numbers were not measured rigorously enough. Re-running as a proper alternating A/B shows a much smaller difference than the PR claimed. Will revisit if it holds up. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The turbopuffer client builds a pydantic model per returned row, but only the ids are used. Interleaved A/B on the same queries, the model construction is about 28% of client CPU per query at top_k=100 (1.30ms -> 0.94ms), rising to 47% at top_k=1000.
Reading the ids off the raw response instead: 2,910 -> 3,700 QPS on Cohere 1M (768d), recall unchanged at 0.9045. No new dependencies,
loadsis already imported.Marking as draft while I confirm there are no edge cases with the multitenant and payload profile paths.