[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8238?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16601936#comment-16601936
]
Rob Godfrey commented on QPID-8238:
-----------------------------------
[~alex.rufous] Did you test the performance after your patch? I started
looking at the same sort of change, but then also expanded it because for the
broker the FieldTable really doesn't need to be mutable... and then I was
looking at maybe only decoding fields that were actually queried (the advantage
there being you could potentially skip decoding fields that were never looked
at, and you could also actually avoid creating a String instance, e.g.
something like this massively simplified pseudo code:
{code:java}
Object get(String key)
{
Object value = _map.get(key);
if(value == null && !_map.containsKey(key))
{
byte[] bytesKey = getUTF8Value(key);
value = getValueForKey(bytesKey);
_map.put(key, value);
}
return value;
}
{code}
> [Broker-J] Improve performance of asynchronous publishing of transient
> messages into topic exchange having queues bound using non-overlapping
> selectors
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-8238
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-8238
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Broker-J
> Affects Versions: qpid-java-broker-7.0.6
> Reporter: Alex Rudyy
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: qpid-java-broker-7.1.0
>
> Attachments:
> 0001-QPID-8238-Use-java.lang.String-for-keys-and-values-i.patch
>
>
> The performance of asynchronous publishing of transient messages into topic
> exchange which routes messages into queues bound using non-overlapping
> selectors is 2-3 times slower than performance of 0.32 broker. The
> performance degradation is observed with AMQP 0.9, though, I suspect that the
> AMQP 0-10 protocol could be affected as well.
> I was running tests with 10 concurrent producers publishing messages on
> separate connections using the same routing key into 10 different queues
> (subscribers queues) bound to the exchange using non-overlapping selectors.
> My testing showed that performance of 7.0 broker for this particular use case
> was 2-3 times worse than performance of 0.32 broker.
> The following factors contributed to degradation of performance:
> • Copying data from direct memory into heap memory whilst decoding
> message headers. Due to this factor, the decoding of message headers is
> around twice slower. It seems it contributes around 70% to total performance
> degradation
> • The message routing algorithm is slower due to need to support a new
> feature to route messages into bound exchanges (in addition to queues) using
> replacement routing key.
> • AMQ short strings caching contributes 5-10% to total performance
> degradation. The caching was added to manage heap space more efficiently.
> The numbers provided here could be inaccurate due instrumentation overhead
> whilst profiling the issue.
> Potentially, caching can be turned off but that will not improve performance
> much.
> On other hand, adding of additional caching of strings to amqp-short-strings
> would improve the performance a bit. Whilst evaluating selectors, the fields
> used in selector expressions are represented as java strings but they get
> converted every time into amqp-short-strings when looking up for message
> header values. If 10 queues are bound to the exchange using the same binding
> key, the selector expression is evaluated 10 times for the incoming message.
> Thus, all selector field names are get converted into amqp-short-strings 10
> times as well. It seems adding caching here can improve the performance.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
