Awesome! Regards, Pierre-Arnaud
On 3 août 2013, at 02:35, Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I applied one of the modifications I suggested in one of my previous > mail : we pre-compte the set of candidates in the count() method, attach > the set to the filter node (thanks god, we have a way to attach anything > to the Node structure !) and use this set instead of constructing it > again in the computeEquality() method. The gain is clear : > > CoreSession > =========== > > Mavibot 10K entries > ------------------- > Add : 80s, 125/s > Search : 5091/s ---> 15000/s > > Jdbm 10k entries > ---------------- > Add : 167s, 59/s > Search : 654/s --- 10009/s > > > NetworkeSession > =============== > > Mavibot 10K entries > ------------------- > Add : 85s, 117/s > Search : 1802/s ---> 3467/s > > Jdbm 10k entries > ---------------- > Add : 176s, 56/s > Search : 506/s --- 3009/s > > That more than doubled the server's performance... > > We have many more ways to improve the server... But still, this was a > second easy improvement after the previous 45% gain ! > > Side note 1 : the old JDBM performances were horribly low. It seems > really strange that we are now able to get 6 times better result. I will > re-run the tests without my last change to see what I get. > > Side note 2 : for the network tests, the cost of the encoding/decoding > is high, and is paid twice (on the server and on the client). This is > why we have much lower performances compared to the CoreSession tests. > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com >
