I wish to note, that the results of benchmarking shows metrics from stress-testing. I mean in real scenarios, for example business operations, which take milliseconds or seсonds, increase in time of put-get-operation will be insignificant.
2017-06-06 14:48 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > Conclusion: > Provided solution allows reduce size of an object in IgniteCache at the > cost of throughput reduction (small - in some cases), it depends on part of > object which will be compressed and compression algorithm. > I mean, we can make more effective use of memory, and in some cases it can > reduce loading of the interconnect. (replication, rebalancing) > > Especially, it will be particularly useful for object's fields which are > large text (>~ 250 bytes) and can be effectively compressed. > > 2017-06-06 12:00 GMT+03:00 Антон Чураев <churaev...@gmail.com>: > >> Vyacheslav, thank you! But could you please provide a conclusions or >> proposals based on this benchmarks? >> >> 2017-06-06 11:28 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: >> >> > Dmitry, >> > >> > Excel-pages: >> > >> > 1). "Compression ratio (2)" - shows object size, with compression and >> > without compression. (Conditions: literal text) >> > 1st graph shows compression ratios of using different compression >> algrithms >> > depending on size of compressed field. >> > 2nd graph shows evaluation of size of objects depending on sizes and >> > compression algorithms. >> > >> > 2). "Compression ratio (1)" - shows object size, with compression and >> > without compression. (Conditions: badly compressed character sequence) >> > 1st graph shows compression ratios of using different compression >> > algrithms depending on size of compressed field. >> > 2nd graph shows evaluation of size of objects depending on sizes and >> > compression algorithms. >> > >> > 3) 'put-avg" - shows average time of the "put" operation depending on >> size >> > and compression algorithms. >> > >> > 4) 'put-thrpt" - shows throughput of the "put" operation depending on >> size >> > and compression algorithms. >> > >> > 5) 'get-avg" - shows average time of the "get" operation depending on >> size >> > and compression algorithms. >> > >> > 6) 'get-thrpt" - shows throughput of the "get" operation depending on >> size >> > and compression algorithms. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2017-06-06 10:59 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: >> > >> > > Vladimir, I am not sure how to interpret the graphs? What are we >> looking >> > > at? >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur < >> daradu...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi, Igniters. >> > > > >> > > > I've prepared some benchmarking. Results [1]. >> > > > >> > > > And I've prepared the evaluation in the form of diagrams [2]. >> > > > >> > > > I hope that helps to interest the community and accelerates a >> reaction >> > to >> > > > this improvment :) >> > > > >> > > > [1] >> > > > https://github.com/daradurvs/ignite-compression/tree/ >> > > > master/src/main/resources/result >> > > > [2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2CeUAOgrHkoMklyZ25YTEdKcEk >> /view >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 2017-05-24 9:49 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: >> > > > >> > > > > Guys, any thoughts? >> > > > > >> > > > > 2017-05-16 13:40 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur < >> daradu...@gmail.com>: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi guys, >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I've prepared the PR to show my idea. >> > > > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1951/files >> > > > >> >> > > > >> About querying - I've just copied existing tests and have >> annotated >> > > the >> > > > >> testing data. >> > > > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/1951/files#diff-c19a9d >> > > > >> f4058141d059bb577e75244764 >> > > > >> >> > > > >> It means fields which will be marked by @BinaryCompression will >> be >> > > > >> compressed at marshalling via BinaryMarshaller. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> This solution has no effect on existing data or project >> > architecture. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I'll be glad to see your thougths. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> 2017-05-15 19:18 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur < >> daradu...@gmail.com >> > >: >> > > > >> >> > > > >>> Dmitriy, >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> I have ready prototype. I want to show it. >> > > > >>> It is always easier to discuss on example. >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> 2017-05-15 19:02 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> > dsetrak...@apache.org >> > > >: >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>>> Vyacheslav, >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> I think it is a bit premature to provide a PR without getting a >> > > > >>>> community >> > > > >>>> consensus on the dev list. Please allow some time for the >> > community >> > > to >> > > > >>>> respond. >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> D. >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur < >> > > > >>>> daradu...@gmail.com> >> > > > >>>> wrote: >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>>> > I created the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira >> > > > >>>> /browse/IGNITE-5226 >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > I'll prepare a PR with described solution in couple of days. >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > 2017-05-15 15:05 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur < >> > > daradu...@gmail.com >> > > > >: >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > > Hi, Igniters! >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > Apache 2.0 is released. >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > Let's continue the discussion about a compression design. >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > At the moment, I found only one solution which is >> compatible >> > > with >> > > > >>>> > querying >> > > > >>>> > > and indexing, this is per-objects-field compression. >> > > > >>>> > > Per-fields compression means that metadata (a header) of an >> > > object >> > > > >>>> won't >> > > > >>>> > > be compressed, only serialized values of an object fields >> (in >> > > > bytes >> > > > >>>> array >> > > > >>>> > > form) will be compressed. >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > This solution have some contentious issues: >> > > > >>>> > > - small values, like primitives and short arrays - there >> isn't >> > > > >>>> sense to >> > > > >>>> > > compress them; >> > > > >>>> > > - there is no possible to use compression with >> java-predefined >> > > > >>>> types; >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > We can provide an annotation, @IgniteCompression - for >> > example, >> > > > >>>> which can >> > > > >>>> > > be used by users for marking fields to compress. >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > Any thoughts? >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > Maybe someone already have ready design? >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > 2017-04-10 11:06 GMT+03:00 Vyacheslav Daradur < >> > > > daradu...@gmail.com >> > > > >>>> >: >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > >> Alexey, >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> Yes, I've read it. >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> Ok, let's discuss about public API design. >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> I think we need to add some a configure entity to >> > > > >>>> CacheConfiguration, >> > > > >>>> > >> which will contain the Compressor interface implementation >> > and >> > > > some >> > > > >>>> > usefull >> > > > >>>> > >> parameters. >> > > > >>>> > >> Or maybe to provide a BinaryMarshaller decorator, which >> will >> > be >> > > > >>>> compress >> > > > >>>> > >> data after marshalling. >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> 2017-04-10 10:40 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov < >> > > > akuznet...@apache.org >> > > > >>>> >: >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >>> Vyacheslav, >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >>> Did you read initial discussion [1] about compression? >> > > > >>>> > >>> As far as I remember we agreed to add only some >> "top-level" >> > > API >> > > > in >> > > > >>>> > order >> > > > >>>> > >>> to >> > > > >>>> > >>> provide a way for >> > > > >>>> > >>> Ignite users to inject some sort of custom compression. >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >>> [1] >> > > > >>>> > >>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble. >> > com/Data-c >> > > > >>>> > >>> ompression-in-Ignite-2-0-td10099.html >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:19 PM, daradurvs < >> > > daradu...@gmail.com >> > > > > >> > > > >>>> > wrote: >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >>> > Hi Igniters! >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > I am interested in this task. >> > > > >>>> > >>> > Provide some kind of pluggable compression SPI support >> > > > >>>> > >>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3592> >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > I developed a solution on BinaryMarshaller-level, but >> > > reviewer >> > > > >>>> has >> > > > >>>> > >>> rejected >> > > > >>>> > >>> > it. >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > Let's continue discussion of task goals and solution >> > design. >> > > > >>>> > >>> > As I understood that, the main goal of this task is to >> > store >> > > > >>>> data in >> > > > >>>> > >>> > compressed form. >> > > > >>>> > >>> > This is what I need from Ignite as its user. >> Compression >> > > > >>>> provides >> > > > >>>> > >>> economy >> > > > >>>> > >>> > on >> > > > >>>> > >>> > servers. >> > > > >>>> > >>> > We can store more data on same servers at the cost of >> > > > >>>> increasing CPU >> > > > >>>> > >>> > utilization. >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > I'm researching a possibility of implementation of >> > > compression >> > > > >>>> at the >> > > > >>>> > >>> > cache-level. >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > Any thoughts? >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > -- >> > > > >>>> > >>> > Best regards, >> > > > >>>> > >>> > Vyacheslav >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> > -- >> > > > >>>> > >>> > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- >> > > > >>>> > >>> > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Data-compression-in- >> > > > >>>> > >>> > Ignite-2-0-tp10099p16317.html >> > > > >>>> > >>> > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list >> > archive >> > > at >> > > > >>>> > >>> Nabble.com. >> > > > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >>> -- >> > > > >>>> > >>> Alexey Kuznetsov >> > > > >>>> > >>> >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > >> -- >> > > > >>>> > >> Best Regards, Vyacheslav >> > > > >>>> > >> >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > > -- >> > > > >>>> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > -- >> > > > >>>> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> -- >> > > > >>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav >> > > > >>> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> -- >> > > > >> Best Regards, Vyacheslav >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best Regards, Anton Churaev >> > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav > -- Best Regards, Vyacheslav
