Hi,
Bindings are useful for ScriptEngine-based Gremlin variants where the String
script can be compiled and ScriptEngine.bindings can be set. That is, this is
useful in parameterized scripts situations
(http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#parameterized-scripts
<http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/reference/#parameterized-scripts>).
In Gremlin-Java, bindings are not useful as Java reflection is leveraged to
construct the Traversal from Bytecode and it is already smokin’ fast to do so
relative to String parsing a script.
Here are the runtimes. As you can see, bindings are important w/ Gremlin-Groovy
and not so for Gremlin-Java.
gremlin> clock(1000){ JavaTranslator.of(g).translate(bytecode) } // reflection
(Gremlin-Java)
==>0.004768085
gremlin> clock(1000){ compiled.eval(bindings) } // caching (Gremlin-Groovy)
==>0.015168259
gremlin> clock(1000){ groovy.reset();
groovy.eval(GroovyTranslator.of('g').translate(bytecode), bindings) } // no
caching (Gremlin-Groovy)
==>40.790075693
gremlin>
HTH,
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I was looking at TINKERPOP-1444 and a conclusion was that Bytecode with
> Bindings can't be cached. If that's true, is there any advantage to using
> Bindings?
>
> Robert Dale
