[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9091?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13724566#comment-13724566
]
Nick Dimiduk commented on HBASE-9091:
-------------------------------------
[~stack] yes, the tight-loop considerations are the same. I've already done
some perf benchmarking for HBASE-8694, I can run a similar benchmark for this
piece if that's desirable. In my opinion, database correctness trumps
performance.
Refactoring the existing patches off of {{ByteBuffer}} and into the structure
[~stack] and I discussed earlier is probably going to take me the rest of the
afternoon. [~mcorgan] if you'd like to take a stab at measuring the performance
impact of the condition checks, maybe you can bootstrap off of
[encoding-benchmark|https://github.com/ndimiduk/encoding-microbench].
> Update ByteRange to maintain consumer's position
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-9091
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9091
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Client
> Reporter: Nick Dimiduk
> Assignee: Nick Dimiduk
> Fix For: 0.95.2
>
> Attachments: 0001-HBASE-9091-Extend-ByteRange.patch
>
>
> ByteRange is a useful alternative to Java's ByteBuffer. Notably, it is
> mutable and an instance can be assigned over a byte[] after instantiation.
> This is valuable as a performance consideration when working with byte[]
> slices in a tight loop. Its current design is such that it is not possible to
> consume a portion of the range while performing activities like decoding an
> object without altering the definition of the range. It should provide a
> position that is independent from the range's offset and length to make
> partial reads easier.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
