> On May 1, 2015, 11:11 a.m., Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > I have mixed feelings about this sort of change in general. I don't like 
> > making the code more complicated without some evidence that it will have a 
> > measurable impact, particularly with code that is already quite dense and 
> > subtle such as this. Do we have more than just conjecture in this case, 
> > e.g. is this a well known technique, or have we measured the effect?
> > 
> > It's plausible to suggest that the benefit of this change may be limited 
> > since the resizing heuristics that control the load factor of the map will 
> > be working against the likelyhood of it ever triggering. I also suspect 
> > that soft deletes along with amortized rehashing would yield a much better 
> > optimization and render this one all but inert.

Conjecture by me. Do we have any performance benchmarks that could measure the 
impact of changes like this?


- Alan


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/33750/#review82242
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 1, 2015, 9:59 a.m., Gordon Sim wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33750/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 1, 2015, 9:59 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for qpid, Alan Conway, Andrew Stitcher, and Rafael Schloming.
> 
> 
> Repository: qpid-proton-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This implements the optimisation suggested by Alan. If the next entry in a 
> chain after the one being deleted is in the cellar (i.e. is non-addressable), 
> then there is no need to rehahs, that next entry can simply be copied into 
> the slot being deleted,and the next slot can be freed.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   proton-c/src/object/map.c 2e3b157 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33750/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> The second unit test covers this case (as well as some others). My stress 
> testing has also shown no issue with it.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gordon Sim
> 
>

Reply via email to