(no title)
lairv | 1 month ago
import polars as pl
from concurrent.futures import ProcessPoolExecutor
pl.DataFrame({"a": [1,2,3], "b": [4,5,6]}).write_parquet("test.parquet")
def read_parquet():
x = pl.read_parquet("test.parquet")
print(x.shape)
with ProcessPoolExecutor() as executor:
futures = [executor.submit(read_parquet) for _ in range(100)]
r = [f.result() for f in futures]
Using thread pool or "spawn" start method works but it makes polars a pain to use inside e.g. PyTorch dataloader
skylurk|1 month ago
ritchie46|1 month ago
However, this is not a Polars issue. Using "fork" can leave ANY MUTEX in the system process invalid (a multi-threaded query engine has plenty of mutexes). It is highly unsafe and has the assumption that none of you libraries in your process hold a lock at that time. That's an assumption that's not PyTorch dataloaders to make.
lairv|1 month ago
That said for PyTorch DataLoader specifically, switching from fork to spawn removes copy-on-write, which can significantly increase startup time and more importantly memory usage. It often requires non-trivial refactors, many training codebase aren't designed for this and will simply OOM. So in practice for this use case, I've found it more practical to just use pandas rather than doing a full refactor
schmidtleonard|1 month ago
Do they really still not have a good mechanism to toss a flag on a for loop to capture embarrassing parallelism easily?
ritchie46|1 month ago
skylurk|1 month ago
lairv|1 month ago