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

[DRAFT] update evaluate to be concurrent #1345

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

isahers1
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@@ -642,6 +651,61 @@ async def astart(self) -> _AsyncExperimentManager:
upload_results=self._upload_results,
)

async def awith_predictions_and_evaluators(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could probably do something similar to what we do in the sync version to avoid having to duplicate logic here (basically share a semaphor)

evaluators = _resolve_evaluators(evaluators)

if not hasattr(self, "_evaluator_executor"):
self._evaluator_executor = cf.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=4)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ooc where's the 4 come from?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I copied the value from _ascore - not really sure beyond that

)
async with lock:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

could we just return the selected_results in _run_single_evaluator and construct the eval_results after the asycio.gather? to avoid needing to lock?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should be fixed, but someone should check I did it correctly

{
name: {
"presigned_url": value["presigned_url"],
"reader": io.BytesIO(value["reader"].getvalue()),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

would love @agola11's input on this bit

new_attachments[name] = {
"presigned_url": attachment["presigned_url"],
"reader": io.BytesIO(
self._attachment_raw_data_dict[str(example.id) + name]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you're sure this doesn't copy the bytes?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, you are correct. io.BytesIO copies the underlying bytes. This is wrong, I am working on a fix rn.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ehh actually I am going to walk back my statement. based on testing I don't think bytesIO copies the data.

python/langsmith/evaluation/_arunner.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants