[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15367673#comment-15367673
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on TINKERPOP-1254:
-------------------------------------------
GitHub user twilmes opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/358
TINKERPOP-1254 Support dropping traverser path information when it is no
longer needed
This PR adds support for path retraction to increase the likelihood of
bulking in OLTP and OLAP modes. Traversal analysis is performed during the
application of the PrunePathStrategy to identify labels that may be dropped at
various points in the traversal. MatchStep also performs runtime analysis to
determine which labels it can drop in addition to the labels identified during
traversal strategy application.
Here is a set of profiles showing the benefit of path dropping. These were
generated with `TinkerGraphComputer` first against 3.2 and then TinkerPop-1254.
**Note** that the times should not be compared here. The first was run on my
anemic macbook which, and the second was run on an 8 core AWS m3.2xlarge
instance that I've been using for testing. I'll be following up with more
numbers on the same hardware but you can see here the dramatic drop in
traversers with path pruning enabled.
**TP 3.2**
```
gremlin> g.V().match(__.as('a').out().as('b'), __.as('b').out().as('c'),
__.as('c').out().as('d')).select('d').count().profile()
==>Traversal Metrics
Step Count
Traversers Time (ms) % Dur
=============================================================================================================
TinkerGraphStep(vertex,[]) 808
808 21.205 0.02
MatchStep(AND,[[MatchStartStep(a), ProfileStep,... 14465066
14465066 110317.813 85.88
MatchStartStep(a) 808
808 10975.797
VertexStep(OUT,vertex) 8049
8049 6953.071
MatchEndStep(b) 8049
8049 6727.167
MatchStartStep(b) 8049
7957 5461.242
VertexStep(OUT,vertex) 327370
327370 6782.024
MatchEndStep(c) 327370
327370 6238.268
MatchStartStep(c) 327370
326983 1771.773
VertexStep(OUT,vertex) 14465066
14465066 11489.228
MatchEndStep(d) 14465066
14465066 14301.313
SelectOneStep(d) 14465066
14465066 13752.966 10.71
CountGlobalStep 1
1 4363.667 3.40
>TOTAL -
- 128455.652 -
```
**TinkerPop-1254**
```
gremlin> g.V().match(__.as('a').out().as('b'), __.as('b').out().as('c'),
__.as('c').out().as('d')).select('d').count().profile()
==>Traversal Metrics
Step Count
Traversers Time (ms) % Dur
=============================================================================================================
GraphStep(vertex,[]) 808
808 32.453 19.96
MatchStep(AND,[[MatchStartStep(a), ProfileStep,... 14465066
7510 89.463 55.01
MatchStartStep(a) 808
808 22.388
VertexStep(OUT,vertex) 8049
7957 85.493
MatchEndStep(b) (profiling ignored)
0.000
MatchStartStep(b) 8049
563 7.488
VertexStep(OUT,vertex) 327370
7561 19.548
MatchEndStep(c) (profiling ignored)
0.000
MatchStartStep(c) 327370
452 4.247
VertexStep(OUT,vertex) 14465066
7510 14.812
MatchEndStep(d) (profiling ignored)
0.000
SelectOneStep(d) 14465066
452 40.711 25.03
CountGlobalStep 1
1 0.001 0.00
>TOTAL -
- 162.630 -
```
One thing that I did want to call out. I was seeing some strange errors in
the `MutablePath.retract` method that I traced to multiple threads attempting
to do a retract at the same time. I did not think this should happen or would
be possible but I may be misunderstanding how `GraphComputer` executes. To fix
this, I added a `synchronized` block. I was hesitant to do this but it fixed
the problem and appears to have not slowed things down appreciably. There may
be a better way around this though so any input would be welcome.
Tests pass and I got a passing integration test last night but made a few
changes since then. I'll follow up with new integration test results when they
finish running today.
VOTE: +1
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop TINKERPOP-1254
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/358.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #358
----
commit 88c5d27bd4d0e2bb898be7f4c3a86007d6422174
Author: Ted Wilmes <twil...@gmail.com>
Date: 2016-07-08T12:37:41Z
TINKERPOP-1254 Support dropping traverser path information when it is no
longer needed
This commit adds support for path retraction to increase the likelihood of
bulking in OLTP and OLAP modes. Traversal analysis is performed during the
application of the PrunePathStrategy to identify labels that may be dropped at
various points in the traversal. MatchStep also performs runtime analysis to
determine which labels it can drop in addition to the labels identified during
traversal strategy application.
----
> Support dropping traverser path information when it is no longer needed.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP-1254
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1254
> Project: TinkerPop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: process
> Affects Versions: 3.1.1-incubating
> Reporter: Marko A. Rodriguez
> Assignee: Ted Wilmes
>
> The most expensive traversals (especially in OLAP) are those that can not be
> "bulked." There are various reasons why two traversers at the same object can
> not be bulked, but the primary reason is {{PATH}} or {{LABELED_PATH}}. That
> is, when the history of the traverser is required, the probability of two
> traversers having the same history is low.
> A key to making traversals more efficient is to do as a much as possible to
> remove historic information from a traverser so it can get bulked. How does
> one do this?
> {code}
> g.V.as('a').out().as('b').out().where(neq('a').and().neq('b')).both().name
> {code}
> The {{LABELED_PATH}} of "a" and "b" are required up to the {{where()}} and at
> which point, at {{both()}}, they are no longer required. It would be smart to
> support:
> {code}
> traverser.dropLabels(Set<String>)
> traverser.dropPath()
> {code}
> We would then, via a {{TraversalOptimizationStrategy}} insert a step between
> {{where()}} and {{both()}} called {{PathPruneStep}} which would be a
> {{SideEffectStep}}. The strategy would know which labels were no longer
> needed (via forward lookahead) and then do:
> {code}
> public class PathPruneStep {
> final Set<String> dropLabels = ...
> final boolean dropPath = ...
> public void sideEffect(final Traverser<S> traverser) {
> final Traverser<S> start = this.starts.next();
> if(this.dropPath) start.dropPath();
> else start.dropLabels(labels);
> }
> }
> {code}
> Again, the more we can prune historic path data no longer needed, the higher
> the probability of bulking. Think about this in terms of {{match()}}.
> {code}
> g.V().match(
> a.out.b,
> b.out.c,
> c.neq.a,
> c.out.b,
> ).select("a")
> {code}
> All we need is "a" at the end. Thus, once a pattern has been passed and no
> future patterns require that label, drop it!
> This idea is related to TINKERPOP-331, but I don't think we should deal with
> manipulating the species. Thus, I think 331 is too "low level."
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
