Avery Ching commented on GIRAPH-28:

Thank you for providing an interesting set of results.  I agree that this 
can/will be an issue when there are lots of outgoing edges (common in real 

The last grouping in your results especially is troubling:

Tiny:           10000   123592
Object:         10000   4290616
Primitive:      10000   4431744

It certainly appears that the edge relationship (dest id and edge value) data 
structure makes a big difference.  However, I don't understand why the object 
and primitive results are similar, nor why using a TreeMap or 
org.apache.mahout.math.map.OpenLongFloatHashMap is so much higher overhead than 
a pair of primitive arrays.  

> Introduce new primitive-specific MutableVertex subclasses
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: GIRAPH-28
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GIRAPH-28
>             Project: Giraph
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: graph
>    Affects Versions: 0.70.0
>            Reporter: Jake Mannix
>            Assignee: Jake Mannix
>         Attachments: GIRAPH-28.diff
> As discussed on the list, 
> MutableVertex<LongWritable,DoubleWritable,FloatWritable,DoubleWritable> (for 
> example) could be highly optimized in its memory footprint if the vertex and 
> edge data were held in a form which minimized Java object usage.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Reply via email to