clustering vqsr tables by location #7656
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I was bugged by the fact that @rsasch calculated the latest callset read 1957 TB of data via the Read API when we knew the core extract tables were only ~100 TB. Turns out that 90% of that scanning was actually reading the various un-partitioned, un-clustered VQSR related tables. Each shard read the entire table (which is ~80 GB), multiplied by 20k shards --> is about 1600 TB of reads. The cost of that represents ~20% of the total cost of making the 100k callset, so a big cost savings.
Clustering and partitioning these tables allows each shard to just consume the data it needs.