[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-753?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12991511#comment-12991511
]
Doug Cutting commented on AVRO-753:
-----------------------------------
I think you mean that BinaryEncoder would *extend* BufferedOutputStream, not
implement it, right? That seems fine to me since BinaryEncoder's public
methods already all come from the Encoder interface and we don't lose any
abstraction. But it could get tricky to also have DirectBinaryEncoder extend
OutputStream, since it couldn't also then extend BinaryEncoder. It might be
easier if OutputStream was an interface... Am I missing something?
> 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
