Pat, Thanks for running additional tests and continuing to work on this contribution.
My testing is also showing that the performance gains remain even when multiple classes are used for sorting. I think we should proceed in the order of FLINK-3722, FLINK-4705, and FLINK-5734. Gabor has reviewed FLINK-3722 and I’ve done so multiple times. I’m looking into test coverage for FLINK-4705. Once these are reviewed and FLINK-5734 rebased we can benchmark Flink’s performance to validate the improvements. Greg > On Apr 3, 2017, at 8:46 PM, Pattarawat Chormai <pat.chor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I have made an additional optimization[1] related to megamorphic call issue > that Greg mentioned earlier. The optimization[2] improves execution time > around ~13%, while the original code from FLINK-5734 is ~11%. > > IMHO, the improvement from metamorphic call optimization is very small > compared to the code we have to introduce. So, I think we can just go with > the PR that we currently have. What do you think? > > [1] > https://github.com/heytitle/flink/commit/8e38b4d738b9953337361c62a8d77e909327d28f > [2]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PcdCdFX4bGecO6Lb5dLI2nww2NoeaA8c3MgbEdsVmk0/edit#gid=598217386 > > Best, > Pat > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-18-Code-Generation-for-improving-sorting-performance-tp16486p16923.html > Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list archive at > Nabble.com.
