Hello, Igniters. Alexey, please, include one more Python thin client fix [1] into the 2.9 release It fixes kinda major issue - "Python client returns fields in wrong order since the 2 row when fields_count>10"
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12809 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/38025ee4167f05eaa2d6a2c5c2ab70c83a462cfc > 31 авг. 2020 г., в 19:23, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > написал(а): > > Alexey, thanks, got it. I am not sure we can optimize anything out of the > message factory with suppliers (at least I have no ideas right now), so > most likely the only move here is to switch back to the switch approach > somehow preserving the metrics part. Probably, inlining the Ignite messages > to the IgniteMessageFactoryImpl should do the trick. Let me explore the > code a bit. > > P.S. I am surprised by the impact this part makes for the performance. > Message creation is indeed on the hot path, but a single virtual call > should not make that much of a difference given the amount of other work > happening during the message processing. > > пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 18:33, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > >> Alexey, sorry, I wrongly interpreted our benchmark results. Actually, we >> were looking for a drop using bi-sect in the range between e6a7f93 (first >> commit in the 2.9 branch after 2.8 branch cut) and 6592dfa5 (last commit in >> the 2.9 branch). And we found these two problematic commits. >> >> Perhaps only IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) is responsible for a drop between >> 2.8.1 and 2.9 (we have benchmarked 2.8.1 vs 2.9 with reverted IGNITE-13060 >> now and performance looks the same) >> >> Ticket IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) is not related to drop >> between 2.8.1 and 2.9, but still has some performance problem, and we can >> win back IGNITE-13060 drop by this ticket. >> >> Do we need more investigation on IGNITE-13060 or we leave it as is? >> >> What should we do with IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring)? >> >> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 13:25, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >>> : >> >>> Alexey, >>> >>> While investigating, I found that IGNITE-12568 has an incorrect fix >>> version and is actually present in ignite-2.8.1 branch [1], so it cannot be >>> the source of the drop against 2.8.1. >>> >>> P.S. Looks like we need to enforce a more accurate work with fix versions >>> or develop some sort of tooling to verify the fix versions. >>> >>> --AG >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/3e492bd23851856bbd0385c6a419892d0bba2a34 >>> >>> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 12:42, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >>>> : >>> >>>> пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 11:16, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> Guys, >>>>> >>>>> We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and IGNITE-12568 (reverted >>>>> it >>>>> locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1 >>>>> >>>>> IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot paths, to trace >>>>> these >>>>> hot paths, it's clear why we have performance drop here. >>>>> >>>>> IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) - switch/case block was >>>>> refactored to an array of message suppliers. The message factory is on >>>>> the >>>>> hot path, which explains why this commit has an impact on total >>>>> performance. >>>>> I've checked JIT assembly output, done some JMH microbenchmarks, and >>>>> found >>>>> that old implementation of MessageFactory.create() about 30-35% faster >>>>> than >>>>> the new one. The reason - approach with switch/case can effectively >>>>> inline >>>>> message creation code, but with an array of suppliers relatively heavy >>>>> "invokeinterface" cannot be skipped. I've tried to rewrite the code >>>>> using >>>>> an abstract class for suppliers instead of an interface (to >>>>> replace "invokeinterface" with the "invokevirtual"), but it gives back >>>>> only >>>>> 10% of method performance and in this case, code looks ugly (lambdas >>>>> can't >>>>> be used). Currently, I can't find any more ways to optimize the current >>>>> approach (except return to the switch/case block). Andrey Gura, as the >>>>> author of IGNITE-12568, maybe you have some ideas about optimization? >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we should revert IGNITE-12568, but there are some metrics >>>>> already >>>>> created, which can't be rewritten using old message factory >>>>> implementation >>>>> (IGNITE-12756). Guys, WDYT? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Alexey, >>>> >>>> I see that IGNITE-12756 (metrics improvements) is already released in >>>> Ignite 2.8.1 while IGNITE-12568 (message factory) is only present in Ignite >>>> 2.9. Let's revert both IGNITE-12568 and whichever new metrics created for >>>> 2.9 that depend on the new message factory to unblock the release and deal >>>> with the optimizations in 2.10? >>>> >>>
