Hi Vadim, Which method implements the approach described in the ticket? From what I see, all writeToStringX versions are still encoding into an intermediate array and then call out.writeByteArray. What we need to test is the approach where bytes are written directly into the stream during encoding. Encoding algorithm itself should stay the same for now, otherwise we will not know how to interpret the result.
It looks like there is some misunderstanding here, so please let me know anything is still unclear. I will be happy to answer your questions. -Val On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Vadim, > > Thanks, I will review this week. > > -Val > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Вадим Опольский <vaopols...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Valentin! >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13 >> >> I created BinaryWriterExImplNew (extended of BinaryWriterExImpl) and >> added new methods with changes described in the ticket >> >> https://github.com/javaller/MyBenchmark/blob/master/src/main >> /java/org/sample/BinaryWriterExImplNew.java >> >> I created a benchmark for BinaryWriterExImplNew >> >> https://github.com/javaller/MyBenchmark/blob/master/src/main >> /java/org/sample/ExampleTest.java >> >> I run benchmark and compared results >> >> https://github.com/javaller/MyBenchmark/blob/master/totalstat.txt >> >> # Run complete. Total time: 00:10:24 >> Benchmark Mode Cnt >> Score Error Units >> ExampleTest.binaryHeapOutputStream1 avgt 50 1114999,207 ± >> 16756,776 ns/op >> ExampleTest.binaryHeapOutputStream2 avgt 50 1118149,320 ± >> 17515,961 ns/op >> ExampleTest.binaryHeapOutputStream3 avgt 50 1113678,657 ± >> 17652,314 ns/op >> ExampleTest.binaryHeapOutputStream4 avgt 50 1112415,051 ± >> 18273,874 ns/op >> ExampleTest.binaryHeapOutputStream5 avgt 50 1111366,583 ± >> 18282,829 ns/op >> ExampleTest.binaryHeapOutputStreamACSII avgt 50 1112079,667 ± >> 16659,532 ns/op >> ExampleTest.binaryHeapOutputStreamUTFCustom avgt 50 1114949,759 ± >> 16809,669 ns/op >> ExampleTest.binaryHeapOutputStreamUTFNIO avgt 50 1121462,325 ± >> 19836,466 ns/op >> >> Is it OK? Whats the next step? Do I have to move this JMH benchmark to >> the Ignite project ? >> >> Vadim Opolski >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2017-02-21 1:06 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < >> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi Vadim, >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand your benchmarks and how they verify the >>> optimization discussed here. Basically, here is what needs to be done: >>> >>> 1. Create a benchmark for BinaryWriterExImpl#doWriteString method. >>> 2. Run the benchmark with current implementation. >>> 3. Make the change described in the ticket. >>> 4. Run the benchmark with these changes. >>> 5. Compare results. >>> >>> Makes sense? Let me know if anything is unclear. >>> >>> -Val >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Вадим Опольский <vaopols...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello everybody! >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13 >>>> >>>> Valentin, I just have finished benchmark (with JMH) - >>>> https://github.com/javaller/MyBenchmark.git >>>> >>>> It collect data about time working of serialization. >>>> >>>> For instance - https://github.com/javaller/My >>>> Benchmark/blob/master/out200217.txt >>>> >>>> To start it you have to do next: >>>> >>>> 1) clone it - git colne https://github.com/javaller/MyBenchmark.git >>>> >>>> 2) install it - mvn install >>>> >>>> 3) run benchmarks - java -Xms1024m -Xmx4096m -jar >>>> target\benchmarks.jar >>>> >>>> Vadim Opolski >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-02-15 0:52 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < >>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> Vladimir, >>>>> >>>>> I think we misunderstood each other. My understanding of this >>>>> optimization is the following. >>>>> >>>>> Currently string serialization is done in two steps (see >>>>> BinaryWriterExImpl#doWriteString): >>>>> >>>>> strArr = BinaryUtils.strToUtf8Bytes(val); // Encode string into byte >>>>> array. >>>>> out.writeByteArray(strArr); // Write byte array >>>>> into stream. >>>>> >>>>> What this ticket suggests is to write directly into stream while >>>>> string is encoded, without intermediate array. This both reduces memory >>>>> consumption and eliminates array copy step. >>>>> >>>>> I updated the ticket and added this explanation there. >>>>> >>>>> Vadim, can you create a micro benchmark and check if it gives any >>>>> improvement? >>>>> >>>>> -Val >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < >>>>> voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> It is hard to say whether it makes sense or not. No doubt, it could >>>>>> speed up marshalling process at the cost of 2x memory required for >>>>>> strings. >>>>>> From my previous experience with marshalling micro-optimizations, we will >>>>>> hardly ever notice speedup in distributed environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> But, there is another sied - it could speedup our queries, because we >>>>>> will not have to unmarshal string on every field access. So I would try >>>>>> to >>>>>> make this optimization optional and then measure query performance with >>>>>> classes having lots of strings. It could give us interesting results. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:37 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Vladimir, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please take a look and provide your thoughts? Can this be >>>>>>> applied to binary marshaller? From what I recall, it serializes string a >>>>>>> bit differently from optimized marshaller, so I'm not sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Hi Vadim, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I don't think it makes much sense to invest into >>>>>>>> OptimizedMarshaller. >>>>>>>> > However, I would check if this optimization is applicable to >>>>>>>> > BinaryMarshaller, and if yes, implement it. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Val, in this case can you please update the ticket? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > -Val >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Вадим Опольский < >>>>>>>> vaopols...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > Dear sirs! >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > I want to resolve issue IGNITE-13 - >>>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13 >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Is it actual? >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > Vadim Opolski >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
