On 2 mai 2012, at 12:24, Kiran Ayyagari wrote: > this method has two extreme cases, > 1. best performance when no attributes are requested > 2. same overhead as cloning when all attributes are requested > > cause in real world scenario 1 will never be used,
Actually in Studio, scenario 1 is used a lot. That's exactly what happens do when opening a node and browsing the DIT in the UI (almost, because we do ask for the objectClass attribute). Regards, Pierre-Arnaud > we might end up > copying some attributes anyway > but still better than cloning all > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: >> Le 5/2/12 9:53 AM, Alex Karasulu a écrit : >>> >>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Emmanuel >>> Lécharny<[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Le 5/1/12 3:05 PM, Alex Karasulu a écrit : >>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny<[email protected]>** >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> o Object scope search (lookup) : 49 880 req/s compared to 23 081 on the >>>>> previous trunk >>>>> o One Level scope search (5 entries returned) : 68 715 entries returned >>>>> per second, compared to 33 120/s >>>>> o Sub Level scope search (10 entries returned ) : 70 830 entries >>>>> returned >>>>> per second, compared to 18 910/s >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is great work Emmanuel. Nicely done! >>>>> >>>> I have some even better results, as of today : >>>> >>>> o Object scope search (lookup) : 52 712 req/s compared to 23 081 on the >>>> previous trunk >>>> o One Level scope search (5 entries returned) : 72 635 entries returned >>>> per second, compared to 33 120/s >>>> o Sub Level scope search (10 entries returned ) : 75 100 entries returned >>>> per second, compared to 18 910/s >>>> >>>> >>> This is just sick man! You've more than doubled the performance. >> >> >> Some new idea this morning : >> >> atm, we do clone the entries we fetch from the server, then we filter the >> Attributes and the values, modifying the cloned entries. This leads to >> useless create of the removed Attributes and Values. We suggested to >> accumulate the modifications and to apply them at the end, avoiding the >> cloning of AT which will not be returned. >> >> First of all, we can avoid cloning the Values. The Value implementation are >> immutable classes. This save around 7% of the time. >> >> But this is not all we can do : we can simply avoid the accumulation of >> modifications *and* avoid cloning the entry ! >> >> The idea is simple : when we get an entry in the cursor we have got back, we >> create a new empty entry, then we iterate over all the original entry's >> attributes and values, and for each one of those attributes and values, we >> check the filters, which will just tell if the Attribute/Value must be >> ditched or kept. This way, we don't do anything useless, like storing the >> modification or creating useless Attributes. >> >> It will work to the extent we deal with the CollectiveAttributes which must >> be injected somewhere, before we enter the loop (a connectiveAttribute might >> perfectly be removed by the ACI filter...). But we can also inject those >> added collective attributes into the loop of filters. >> >> I may miss something, but I do think that this solution is a clear winner, >> even in term of implementation... >> >> thoughts ? >> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Cordialement, >> Emmanuel Lécharny >> www.iktek.com >> > > > > -- > Kiran Ayyagari
