[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11857?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16989717#comment-16989717
]
Alexei Scherbakov edited comment on IGNITE-11857 at 12/6/19 12:39 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[~alex_pl]
You have only measured heap allocation (GC pressure) which seems to be very low
for both implementation.
You also should measure resident size of both structures.
Long for value can be replaced with Integer because no tx with batch of size
close to or larger than Integer.MAX_VALUE is viable.
For most frequent use cases object creation will be handled by Integer boxing
cache.
I think I'm ok this proposed improvement, just make sure we couldn't do better.
was (Author: ascherbakov):
[~alex_pl]
You have only measured heap allocation (GC pressure) which seems to be very low
for both implementation.
You also should measure resident size of both structures.
Long for value can be replaced with Integer because no tx with batch of size
Integer.MAX_VALUE is viable.
For most frequent use cases object creation will be handled by Integer boxing
cache.
I think I'm ok this proposed improvement, just make sure we couldn't do better.
> Investigate performance drop after IGNITE-10078
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-11857
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11857
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Alexei Scherbakov
> Assignee: Aleksey Plekhanov
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: ignite-config.xml,
> run.properties.tx-optimistic-put-b-backup
>
> Time Spent: 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> After IGNITE-10078 yardstick tests show performance drop up to 8% in some
> scenarios:
> * tx-optim-repRead-put-get
> * tx-optimistic-put
> * tx-putAll
> Partially this is due new update counter implementation, but not only.
> Investigation is required.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
