[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-20428?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18086477#comment-18086477
 ] 

Nitsan Wakart commented on CASSANDRA-20428:
-------------------------------------------

[~rustyrazorblade]  CASSANDRA-20918 is now merged. In that sense I guess 
optimizations to the compaction should be re-evaluated. It does not support to 
full set of scenarios (e.g. secondary indexes/TRI format. Some bugs have been 
found and fixed, but: "There are circumstances under which the system works". 
AFAIK, with the new feature the allocation concerns at least on the compaction 
path should be gone (data to the contrary is very welcome).

> Eliminate byte array allocation in ByteArrayAccessor.read
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-20428
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-20428
>             Project: Apache Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Jon Haddad
>            Priority: Normal
>         Attachments: allocation-reverse.html, 
> image-2025-03-11-11-05-55-378.png
>
>
> During compaction we allocate a new byte[] in ByteArrayAccessor.read.  This 
> is one of the hottest paths in the codebase, hit during writes, compaction, 
> creating tables, and possibly others.  In my performance tests using default 
> compaction settings of 64MB I see this responsible for 40% of allocations.  
> This is largely what drives GC pause frequency and duration.  If we are able 
> to eliminate the O(N) allocations performed here, this might be one of the 
> best optimizations we could do for the number of things it touches.
> Allocation profile attached.
> !image-2025-03-11-11-05-55-378.png|width=514,height=269!
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to