vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-1035710408
@cadonna , done.
--
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 specif
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-917365748
hey @guozhangwang , that makes perfect sense to me. Based upon the
discussion me and @patrickstuedi had on this thread, I think to reap the real
benefits, the optimisation
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-915194995
> > Okay, let me re-trigger the tests.
>
> Thanks.. This time there's a compilation error due to benchmarks. I will
remove that class.
@guozhangwang , i remove
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-915026729
> Okay, let me re-trigger the tests.
Thanks.. This time there's a compilation error due to benchmarks. I will
remove that class.
--
This is an automated message fr
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-911592247
@guozhangwang , these errors are not due to the changes in this PR:
`imported `Named` is permanently hidden by definition of type Named in
package kstream`
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-907668633
Thanks @guozhangwang , I have made changes to the PR. I think it could be
reviewed now and hence moved the PR from draft to Ready to Review.
--
This is an automated messa
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-898433681
@cadonna , @guozhangwang plz review the numbers whenever you get the
chance...
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, pl
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-887703246
hey @guozhangwang / @cadonna .. sorry for being nosey here but did you get a
chance to look at these numbers?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-876082875
@guozhangwang , @cadonna did you get a chance to look at the numbers? Any
tweaks/other tests you would suggest ?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Serv
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-872399579
> You were referring to this commit
[68a947c](https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/68a947c0eb6a5cc4bdde24083c83f4638e708edb)
as for the tweaks right?
>
> BTW it's
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-872398600
@guozhangwang , thats the commit i was referring to. Setting a byte order
and seems to have an impact on performance. Also, earlier i was calling put
first and then calling
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-866823035
@guozhangwang / @cadonna I made some tweaks to the code and also started
testing with 1M keys. Now I see differences in terms of throughput for both
range and putAll queri
vamossagar12 commented on pull request #10798:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10798#issuecomment-864174533
@cadonna , @guozhangwang I ran some jmh benchmarks on this. I ran the 2
tests with G1GC and prof gc=> 1 for putAll and the other one for range query.
Here are the results
13 matches
Mail list logo