[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-535?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12836529#action_12836529
]
Zheng Shao commented on HIVE-535:
---------------------------------
Some external evaluations of memory-saving hashmaps:
http://b010.blogspot.com/2009/05/speed-comparison-of-1-javas-built-in.html
> Memory-efficient hash-based Aggregation
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: HIVE-535
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-535
> Project: Hadoop Hive
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.4.0
> Reporter: Zheng Shao
>
> Currently there are a lot of memory overhead in the hash-based aggregation in
> GroupByOperator.
> The net result is that GroupByOperator won't be able to store many entries in
> its HashTable, and flushes frequently, and won't be able to achieve very good
> partial aggregation result.
> Here are some initial thoughts (some of them are from Joydeep long time ago):
> A1. Serialize the key of the HashTable. This will eliminate the 16-byte
> per-object overhead of Java in keys (depending on how many objects there are
> in the key, the saving can be substantial).
> A2. Use more memory-efficient hash tables - java.util.HashMap has about 64
> bytes of overhead per entry.
> A3. Use primitive array to store aggregation results. Basically, the UDAF
> should manage the array of aggregation results, so UDAFCount should manage a
> long[], UDAFAvg should manage a double[] and a long[]. The external code
> should pass an index to iterate/merge/terminal an aggregation result. This
> will eliminate the 16-byte per-object overhead of Java.
> More ideas are welcome.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
