pnowojski commented on a change in pull request #31:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink-benchmarks/pull/31#discussion_r710784796
##########
File path: src/main/java/org/apache/flink/benchmark/MultipleInputBenchmark.java
##########
@@ -82,10 +98,85 @@ public void
multiInputOneIdleMapSink(FlinkEnvironmentContext context) throws Exc
env.execute();
}
+ @Benchmark
+ @OperationsPerInvocation(CHAINED_IDLE_RECORDS_PER_INVOCATION)
+ public void
multiInputIdleSourcesChainedWithInput(FlinkEnvironmentContext context) throws
Exception {
Review comment:
too long benchmark name
`multiInputChainedIdleSource`?
##########
File path: src/main/java/org/apache/flink/benchmark/MultipleInputBenchmark.java
##########
@@ -36,18 +50,20 @@
import org.openjdk.jmh.runner.options.OptionsBuilder;
import org.openjdk.jmh.runner.options.VerboseMode;
-public class MultipleInputBenchmark extends BenchmarkBase {
+import java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture;
+public class MultipleInputBenchmark extends BenchmarkBase {
public static final int RECORDS_PER_INVOCATION =
TwoInputBenchmark.RECORDS_PER_INVOCATION;
public static final int ONE_IDLE_RECORDS_PER_INVOCATION =
TwoInputBenchmark.ONE_IDLE_RECORDS_PER_INVOCATION;
+ public static final int CHAINED_IDLE_RECORDS_PER_INVOCATION = 3000;
Review comment:
Why only 3000? That's 5000 times less then the other benchmarks here, so
something sound very wrong here.
Also are you sure https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/17303 is fixing the
issue? I've tried it locally and couldn't see a difference in this benchmark
with/without this change. What are the results that you have meassured?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
