[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-853?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13674181#comment-13674181
]
Michael Dürig commented on OAK-853:
-----------------------------------
bq. Our recent work in on the MemoryNodeBuilder in OAK-781 suggests thought
that such unwrapping might be unnecessary in most typical cases...
That's not entirely correct. Rather did the work on OAK-781 bring up a similar
issue where {{ModifiedNodeState}} instance would pop up in unexpected places
due to the unwrapping. In the meanwhile I used a different approach to solve
that problem. OAK-781 thus shouldn't be affected by unwrapping or not
unwrapping.
Re. unwrapping I suggest we check whether the original use case for introducing
it still holds. If not, I suggest to remove it since this is the 2nd time in a
week it creates problems.
> Many child nodes: Diffing causes many calls to MicroKernel.getNodes
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-853
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-853
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: Thomas Mueller
> Attachments: OAK-853.patch
>
>
> Creating a flat hierarchy of the following form causes many calls to
> MicroKernel.getNodes and is thus slow.
> {code}
> for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
> root.addNode("test" + i, "nt:folder");
> if (i % 1000 == 0) {
> session.save();
> }
> }
> {code}
> As far as I see, this isn't just the case for MicroKernel based storage, but
> also for the SegmentNodeStore. The reason seems to be that the optimization
> for many child nodes in KernelNodeState.compareAgainstBaseState and
> SegmentNodeState.compareAgainstBaseState that avoids iterating over all
> children doesn't work.
> The optimization uses:
> {code}
> if (base instanceof SegmentNodeState) ...
> if (base instanceof KernelNodeState) ...
> {code}
> Ideally, the instanceof should be avoided, but I'm not sure how to do that
> yet. Anyway, the problem is that "base" is a ModifiedNodeState so no
> optimization can be used.
> I was thinking, couldn't the ModifiedNodeState do a reverse diff in this
> case? That is, inside ModifiedNodeState.compareAgainstBaseState, check if the
> "base" parameter is a ModifiedNodeState, and the "base" field is not, then do
> a reverse diff, which would be efficient. (We should probably not use "base"
> for both the field name and the parameter; well that's a change for another
> time.)
--
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
