I’m far less inclined to take that approach to fundamental libraries, where quality is far more important than presentation.
On 25 May 2023, at 17:29, David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> wrote:
Agrona isn’t going anywhere due to the library being more than basic collections.
Now, with regard to single-threaded collections… honestly I dislike Agrona as I always fight to avoid boxing; carrot was far better with this regard…. Didn’t look at the fastutil versions to see if they are better here, but I do know I am personally not happy with Agrona primitive collections…
I do believe the main motivator for this is that fastutil has a concurrent version of their collections, so you gain access to concurrent primitive collections; something we do not have today… Given the desire for concurrent primitive collections, I am cool with it.
I’m not inclined to swap it out
When it came to random testing libraries, I believe the stance taken before was that we should allow multiple versions and the best one will win eventually… so I am cool having the same stance for primitive collections... On May 25, 2023, at 8:50 AM, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote:
Given they provide no data or explanation, and that benchmarking is hard, I’m not inclined to give much weight to their analysis.
Agrona was favoured in large part due to the perceived quality of the library. I’m not inclined to swap it out without proper evidence the fastutils is both materially faster in a manner care about and of similar quality. On 25 May 2023, at 16:43, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Try it out and see, the only data point I have is that the company who has spent more effort here than anyone else I could find likes fastutil better.
> On May 25, 2023, at 6:14 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Any objections to adding the concurrent wrapper and switching out agrona for fastutil?
How does fastutil compare to agrona in terms of memory profile and runtime performance? How invasive would it be to switch?
|
