[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-753?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12992830#comment-12992830
]
Thiruvalluvan M. G. edited comment on AVRO-753 at 2/10/11 1:44 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We just write (positive) 1 for item-count and no byte-count (line 602 in
BlockedBinaryEncoder.java) for overflow blocks. Since the reader is not
supposed to expect byte-count when it encounters a positive item-count, it
works.
was (Author: thiru_mg):
We just write 1 (line 602 in BlockedBinaryEncoder) for overflow blocks. We
use positive 1 to indicate that we have a single item in the block and
byte-count is unknown.
> 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
