Le 5/2/12 3:21 PM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny<[email protected]>wrote:
Le 5/2/12 12:33 PM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:49 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 ?
We talked about using a wrapper around the entry to encapsulate these
matters making it happen automatically behind the scenes. This does not
affect the surrounding code.
How is this proposal now different? Why would you not use a wrapper?
Because the wrapper is useless in this case !
The beauty of the solution is that we either create a new entry with all
the requested AT and values, accordingly to the filters (if the user embeds
the server), or if this is a network request, we directly generates the
encoded message without having to create the intermediate entry at all !
I don't know how you'll pull that off considering that the interceptors
which cause side effects are expecting an entry to alter or from which to
read information from to do their thang.
This is why I'm a bit confused. Maybe its a matter of description and the
language where I'm failing to understand.
Probably...
Just forgot to mention that the filters have to be modified : they won't
take an Entry as a parameter, but an Attribute, and the accept(
Attribute ) method will just return something telling if the Attribute
should be removed or not. If at least one filter says 'remove this
atttribute', then it will not be added to the resulting entry.
For values (ie, the ACI filter), as we will proceed with some fine
granilarity (ie values), we can consider that the passed Attribute will
be cloned and modified internally, so we can fill the entry with the
correct Attribute (or the original one)
For the CollectiveAttribute attribute, the filter will require the full
entry to be able to return the added attributes, but the mechanism is a
bit different there. I was thinking that we could also get all the added
ConnectiveAttributes, and inject them in the other filters.
At this point, it's more ideas than implementation, but I definitively
see how it could work well.
Btw, some more perfs have been added into the server :
o Object scope search (lookup) : 57 191/s compared to 23 081 on the previous
trunk (148% more)
o One Level scope search (5 entries returned) : 76 250 entries returned per
second, compared to 33 120/s (130% more)
o Sub Level scope search (10 entries returned ) : 77 200/s entries returned per
second, compared to 18 910/s (308% more)
The values are not any more cloned (the Value classes are immutable)
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
