[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3973?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Bill Bejeck updated KAFKA-3973:
-------------------------------
Attachment: MemoryLRUCache.java
CachingPerformanceBenchmarks.java
Benchmark test and modified MemoryLRUCache for reference.
> Investigate feasibility of caching bytes vs. records
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-3973
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3973
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: streams
> Reporter: Eno Thereska
> Assignee: Bill Bejeck
> Fix For: 0.10.1.0
>
> Attachments: CachingPerformanceBenchmarks.java, MemoryLRUCache.java
>
>
> Currently the cache stores and accounts for records, not bytes or objects.
> This investigation would be around measuring any performance overheads that
> come from storing bytes or objects. As an outcome we should know whether 1)
> we should store bytes or 2) we should store objects.
> If we store objects, the cache still needs to know their size (so that it can
> know if the object fits in the allocated cache space, e.g., if the cache is
> 100MB and the object is 10MB, we'd have space for 10 such objects). The
> investigation needs to figure out how to find out the size of the object
> efficiently in Java.
> If we store bytes, then we are serialising an object into bytes before
> caching it, i.e., we take a serialisation cost. The investigation needs
> measure how bad this cost can be especially for the case when all objects fit
> in cache (and thus any extra serialisation cost would show).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
