[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10627?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17563805#comment-17563805
 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-10627:
--------------------------------------

Yes we have to stop another PagedBytes/ByteBlockPool from entering our 
codebase. To me it doesn't matter if the performance improvement is 1000%

> Using CompositeByteBuf to Reduce Memory Copy
> --------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-10627
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10627
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/codecs, core/store
>            Reporter: LuYunCheng
>            Priority: Major
>
> Code: [https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/987]
> I see When Lucene Do flush and merge store fields, need many memory copies:
> {code:java}
> Lucene Merge Thread #25940]" #906546 daemon prio=5 os_prio=0 cpu=20503.95ms 
> elapsed=68.76s tid=0x00007ee990002c50 nid=0x3aac54 runnable  
> [0x00007f17718db000]
>    java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE
>     at 
> org.apache.lucene.store.ByteBuffersDataOutput.toArrayCopy(ByteBuffersDataOutput.java:271)
>     at 
> org.apache.lucene.codecs.compressing.CompressingStoredFieldsWriter.flush(CompressingStoredFieldsWriter.java:239)
>     at 
> org.apache.lucene.codecs.compressing.CompressingStoredFieldsWriter.finishDocument(CompressingStoredFieldsWriter.java:169)
>     at 
> org.apache.lucene.codecs.compressing.CompressingStoredFieldsWriter.merge(CompressingStoredFieldsWriter.java:654)
>     at 
> org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentMerger.mergeFields(SegmentMerger.java:228)
>     at org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentMerger.merge(SegmentMerger.java:105)
>     at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.mergeMiddle(IndexWriter.java:4760)
>     at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.merge(IndexWriter.java:4364)
>     at 
> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter$IndexWriterMergeSource.merge(IndexWriter.java:5923)
>     at 
> org.apache.lucene.index.ConcurrentMergeScheduler.doMerge(ConcurrentMergeScheduler.java:624)
>     at 
> org.elasticsearch.index.engine.ElasticsearchConcurrentMergeScheduler.doMerge(ElasticsearchConcurrentMergeScheduler.java:100)
>     at 
> org.apache.lucene.index.ConcurrentMergeScheduler$MergeThread.run(ConcurrentMergeScheduler.java:682)
>  {code}
> When Lucene *CompressingStoredFieldsWriter* do flush documents, it needs many 
> memory copies:
> With Lucene90 using {*}LZ4WithPresetDictCompressionMode{*}:
>  # bufferedDocs.toArrayCopy copy blocks into one continue content for chunk 
> compress
>  # compressor copy dict and data into one block buffer
>  # do compress
>  # copy compressed data out
> With Lucene90 using {*}DeflateWithPresetDictCompressionMode{*}:
>  # bufferedDocs.toArrayCopy copy blocks into one continue content for chunk 
> compress
>  # do compress
>  # copy compressed data out
>  
> I think we can use CompositeByteBuf to reduce temp memory copies:
>  # we do not have to *bufferedDocs.toArrayCopy* when just need continues 
> content for chunk compress
>  
> I write a simple mini benchamrk in test code ([link 
> |https://github.com/apache/lucene/blob/5a406a5c483c7fadaf0e8a5f06732c79ad174d11/lucene/core/src/test/org/apache/lucene/codecs/lucene90/compressing/TestCompressingStoredFieldsFormat.java#L353]):
> *LZ4WithPresetDict run* Capacity:41943040(bytes) , iter 10times: Origin 
> elapse:5391ms , New elapse:5297ms
> *DeflateWithPresetDict run* Capacity:41943040(bytes), iter 10times: Origin 
> elapse:{*}115ms{*}, New elapse:{*}12ms{*}
>  
> And I run runStoredFieldsBenchmark with doc_limit=-1:
> shows:
> ||Msec to index||BEST_SPEED ||BEST_COMPRESSION||
> |Baseline|318877.00|606288.00|
> |Candidate|314442.00|604719.00|



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to