[carloea2]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Python tuple hashing now supports large binary fields by hashing their stored URI with the same nested hash structure used by the Java LargeBinary and Tuple implementations.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8243

How was this PR tested?

python -c "import sys,pytest; sys.path[:0]=[r'C:\Users\carlo\texera\texera-worktrees\investigate-bug58\amber\src\main\python',r'C:\Users\carlo\texera\texera\amber\src\main\python']; raise SystemExit(pytest.main(['amber/src/test/python/core/models/test_tuple.py::TestTuple::test_hash_large_binary_matches_java','amber/src/test/python/core/architecture/sendsemantics/test_partitioners.py','-q','-p','no:cacheprovider']))"
36 passed

ruff check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python
All checks passed

ruff format --check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python
213 files already formatted

Direct reproduction after the fix:

1754254834

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Codex

[github-actions]

Backport auto-label report

This fix: PR was checked against each actively-supported release branch. release/* labels drive the post-merge backport, so add or remove one to change where this fix lands.

Release branch	Analysis
⚠️ release/v1.3	Not labeled automatically — none of the files this PR modifies exist on this branch (amber/src/main/python/core/models/tuple.py, amber/src/test/python/core/models/test_tuple.py). The fix may target code that isn't on this release, or the files were moved/renamed after the branch was cut. Please check and add release/v1.3 by hand if this fix should be backported here.
✅ release/v1.2	Already labeled — this fix is queued to backport here.

Auto-label run.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

• Contributors with relevant context: @eugenegujing, @aglinxinyuan
  You can notify them by mentioning @eugenegujing, @aglinxinyuan in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.90%. Comparing base (50321e4) to head (cc8a2e7).
⚠️ Report is 100 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8244      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     93.93%   93.90%   -0.04%     
+ Complexity     4762     4761       -1     
============================================
  Files          1191     1191              
  Lines         48308    49051     +743     
  Branches       5377     5377              
============================================
+ Hits          45380    46059     +679     
- Misses         1494     1557      +63     
- Partials       1434     1435       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 50321e4
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 50321e4
amber	90.02% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 50321e4
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 50321e4
config-service	86.86% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 50321e4
file-service	87.91% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 50321e4
frontend	96.41% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 50321e4
notebook-migration-service	79.31% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 50321e4
pyamber	97.87% <100.00%> (-1.01%)	⬇️
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 50321e4

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 3 worse · ⚪ 12 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 50321e4 benchmarked on this same runner, so the delta is largely free of cross-runner hardware noise. The "7d avg" column still reflects the gh-pages dashboard. Treat <±5% as noise unless repeated.

Dashboard · Run

	config	throughput	MB/s	latency	max Δ latest / 7d
🔴	bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	411	0.251	23,461/34,873/34,873 us	🔴 -11.8% / 🔴 +123.8%
⚪	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	846	0.516	114,502/146,092/146,092 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +36.2%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	976	0.596	1,022,329/1,080,350/1,080,350 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 -6.3%

Baseline details

Latest main 50321e4 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	411 tuples/sec	466 tuples/sec	787.98 tuples/sec	-11.8%	-47.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.251 MB/s	0.284 MB/s	0.481 MB/s	-11.6%	-47.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	23,461 us	21,006 us	12,593 us	+11.7%	+86.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	34,873 us	34,550 us	15,579 us	+0.9%	+123.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	34,873 us	34,550 us	18,786 us	+0.9%	+85.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	846 tuples/sec	887 tuples/sec	1,008 tuples/sec	-4.6%	-16.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.516 MB/s	0.541 MB/s	0.615 MB/s	-4.6%	-16.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	114,502 us	113,198 us	100,701 us	+1.2%	+13.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	146,092 us	143,751 us	107,244 us	+1.6%	+36.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	146,092 us	143,751 us	116,122 us	+1.6%	+25.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	976 tuples/sec	981 tuples/sec	1,042 tuples/sec	-0.5%	-6.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.596 MB/s	0.599 MB/s	0.636 MB/s	-0.5%	-6.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,022,329 us	1,009,947 us	981,959 us	+1.2%	+4.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,080,350 us	1,086,015 us	1,023,080 us	-0.5%	+5.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,080,350 us	1,086,015 us	1,051,697 us	-0.5%	+2.7%

Raw CSV

config_idx,batch_size,schema_width,string_len,num_batches,total_ms,total_tuples,total_bytes,tuples_per_sec,mb_per_sec,lat_p50_us,lat_p95_us,lat_p99_us
0,10,10,64,20,486.95,200,128000,411,0.251,23460.54,34872.54,34872.54
1,100,10,64,20,2364.93,2000,1280000,846,0.516,114501.88,146091.56,146091.56
2,1000,10,64,20,20497.54,20000,12800000,976,0.596,1022329.39,1080349.87,1080349.87

[Yicong-Huang]

I am converting this PR to a draft: please follow our PR template and mark it ready for review.

[carloea2]

The description now follows the current template, and this is ready for review.

[carloea2]

Consolidated into #8955, which covers the same large-binary routing change plus UTF-16 URI hashing. All three URI regressions and 356 broader tests pass on current main. #8955 now closes both issues.