Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

On 14/03/17 09:25, Uwe Schindler wrote: > * As there is a larger slowdown if Lucene uses the MMapDirectory > implementation on Java 9 in comparison to Java 8, we should really > look into the issues! So Andrew Haley is right, there is some > slowdown not only affecting HeapByteBuffers! Maybe it

RE: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

drew Haley <a...@redhat.com>; Lucene/Solr dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>; jdk9-...@openjdk.java.net; hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9? I reran the same test as before, this time using Lucene's NIOFSDirectory (java.nio's FileChanne

Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

I reran the same test as before, this time using Lucene's NIOFSDirectory (java.nio's FileChannel for positional reads). There is still some slowdown, though a bit less than with MMapDirectory: TaskQPS base StdDevQPS comp StdDevPct diff

Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

Hi Uwe, OK, I'll test with NIOFSDirectory as well ... that's a good idea. I do remember testing earlier Java 9 builds long ago, but I can't remember what the outcome was. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Uwe Schindler

RE: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

Hi Andrew, yes that was my impression, too. Just for cross-checking: Mike, is it possible to also add a perf comparison between Java 8 and Java 9 when using SimpleFSDirectory or NIOFSDirectory (which are both FileChannel based since Java 7, the name is just backwards-compatibility)? If we see

Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

On 13/03/17 08:37, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 12/03/17 21:15, Michael McCandless wrote: >> I compared Java 1.8.0_121 (base, below) and Java 9 ea 160 (comp), indexing >> and searching all Wikipedia English content, using MMapDirectory, and >> net/net there is some smallish slowdown, but it's not

Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

On 12/03/17 21:15, Michael McCandless wrote: > I compared Java 1.8.0_121 (base, below) and Java 9 ea 160 (comp), indexing > and searching all Wikipedia English content, using MMapDirectory, and > net/net there is some smallish slowdown, but it's not catastrophic. Right, but ByteBuffers were

Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

Hi Uwe, I ran the standard luceneutil Wikipedia benchmark (same as what's run nightly at https://home.apache.org/~mikemccand/lucenebench). I compared Java 1.8.0_121 (base, below) and Java 9 ea 160 (comp), indexing and searching all Wikipedia English content, using MMapDirectory, and net/net

Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

On 10/03/17 18:34, Uwe Schindler wrote: > Do you know in which build these problems were introduced, so we can have a > comparison: I have no idea. Andrew. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For

Re: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

On 10/03/17 18:18, Uwe Schindler wrote: > It would be good to get some information about your plans :-) Thanks! I believe you should not worry too much. The biggest performance drop seems to be heap-based ByteBuffers rather than off-heap ByteBuffers, which is what you use. The only problem

RE: ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

Hi Andrew, > > It would be good to get some information about your plans :-) Thanks! > > I believe you should not worry too much. The biggest performance drop > seems to be heap-based ByteBuffers rather than off-heap ByteBuffers, > which is what you use. The only problem you'll see is that

ByteBuffer performance issue in Java 9?

Hi, we just noticed this issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176513 As Apache Lucene relies heavily on performance of ByteBuffers (especially MappedByteBuffer), this would be a desaster if it would get even slower than Java 8. We were so happy that there was much work going on to