+1 The output looks great! Looking forward to it. On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:39 AM Hang Chen <chenh...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 > > Looking forward to this feature. > > Thanks, > Hang > > Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> 于2023年8月20日周日 21:24写道： > > > > Hello, > > The proposal is well written, I have no questions. > > We have been waiting for this feature for long time. > > > > I am supporting it > > > > Thanks > > Enrico > > > > Il Mar 15 Ago 2023, 04:28 horizonzy <horizo...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > > > Hi, everyone: > > > There is a proposal about batched reading( > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4051), to introduce it to > > > improve > > > read performance. > > > > > > The objective of this proposal is to enhance the performance of entry > > > reading by introducing a batch entry reading protocol that takes into > > > account the expected count and size of entries. > > > 1. Optimize entry reading performance: By reading multiple entries in a > > > single RPC request, the network communication and RPC call > > > overhead can be reduced, thereby optimizing the reading performance. > > > 2. Minimize CPU resource consumption: The aggregation of multiple > entries > > > into a single RPC request can help in reducing the number of requests > and > > > responses, which in turn can lower the CPU resource consumption. > > > 3. Streamline client code: The ability to read entries based on the > > > anticipated count or size, such as Apache Pulsar's approach of > calculating > > > the start and end entry IDs for each read request based on the average > size > > > of past entries, can add unnecessary complexity to the implementation > and > > > can't guarantee reliable behavioral outcomes. > > > > > > Here is the output of the BookKeeper perf tool with ensemble=1, > write=1, > > > and ack=1. > > > Batch(100): Read 1000100 entries in 8904ms > > > Batch(500): Read 1000500 entries in 12182ms > > > Non-Batch: Read 1000130 entries in 199928ms > > > > > > If you have any questions, feel free to talk about it. Thanks! > > > >
