[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-753?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12989331#comment-12989331
]
Scott Carey commented on AVRO-753:
----------------------------------
Yup, that is a bug. The below is the correct form. It doesn't change the
performance.
{code:java}
@Override
public void writeFixed(byte[] bytes, int start, int len) throws IOException {
if (len > (limit >> 2)) {
//greater than 25% of the buffer, write direct
flushBuffer();
out.write(bytes, start, len);
return;
}
ensureBounds(len);
System.arraycopy(bytes, start, buf, pos, len);
pos+=len;
}
{code}
> Java: Improve BinaryEncoder Performance
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-753
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-753
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: java
> Reporter: Scott Carey
> Assignee: Scott Carey
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
> Attachments: AVRO-753.v1.patch
>
>
> BinaryEncoder has not had a performance improvement pass like BinaryDecoder
> did. It still mostly writes directly to the underlying OutputStream which is
> not optimal for performance. I like to use a rule that if you are writing to
> an OutputStream or reading from an InputStream in chunks smaller than 128
> bytes, you have a performance problem.
> Measurements indicate that optimizing BinaryEncoder yields a 2.5x to 6x
> performance improvement. The process is significantly simpler than
> BinaryDecoder because 'pushing' is easier than 'pulling' -- and also because
> we do not need a 'direct' variant because BinaryEncoder already buffers
> sometimes.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
