Let's not fall prey to status quo bias, nobody performed an exhaustive analysis of agrona in November. If Branimir had proposed fastutils at the time that's what we'd be using today.
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:50 AM Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > Given they provide no data or explanation, and that benchmarking is hard, > I’m not inclined to give much weight to their analysis. > > Agrona was favoured in large part due to the perceived quality of the > library. I’m not inclined to swap it out without proper evidence the > fastutils is both materially faster in a manner care about and of similar > quality. > > On 25 May 2023, at 16:43, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Try it out and see, the only data point I have is that the company who has > spent more effort here than anyone else I could find likes fastutil better. > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:33 AM Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > On May 25, 2023, at 6:14 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Any objections to adding the concurrent wrapper and switching out >> agrona for fastutil? >> >> How does fastutil compare to agrona in terms of memory profile and >> runtime performance? How invasive would it be to switch? > > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced > > -- Jonathan Ellis co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
