I wonder if AVRO-557 has made this faster?
On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Scott Carey wrote: > How has it changed in the sub sections of the benchmark? Is it slower all > around or only in encoding, decoding, or construction? > > I recall that Specific became an IndexedRecord in this release, along with > Generic. Maybe there is something going on there. > > In any event, I think there are significant opportunities to optimize left > all around. > > I want to plug it in to a profiler and have a look, but won't have time to do > so and act on my findings until May. I'd use a sampling profiler, as I have > found them significantly more accurate (but less precise) than an > instrumenting profiler. > > -Scott > > On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > >> Don't know if folks have seen this benchmark: >> >> http://code.google.com/p/thrift-protobuf-compare/wiki/Benchmarking >> >> It's a micro benchmark of Java serialization systems. I just posted a >> patch to update it to use Avro 1.3.0: >> >> http://code.google.com/p/thrift-protobuf-compare/issues/detail?id=23 >> >> Generic in 1.3.0 seems a bit faster than 1.2.0, but, unfortunately & >> surprisingly, specific seems a bit slower than in 1.2.0. I think the >> reason that generic is faster is perhaps the switch from a hashmap to an >> array. But I would have thought other optimizations would have made >> specific faster too, not slower. >> >> Any ideas? >> >> Doug >
