[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10112?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17417423#comment-17417423
 ] 

Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-10112:
--------------------------------------

just to clarify, AFAIK using these varhandle methods doesn't do magic "without 
bounds checks". just maybe less of them? e.g., if i want to read a {{long}} out 
of a {{byte[]}}, there really needs to only be one range check, instead of 
eight.

so using VH may not speed up all usages. If hotspot compiler is already 
eliminating the bounds checks for the existing code, I expect no speedup. But 
in many cases this is probably not happening, and I like the 
clarity/consistency of using JDK conversion methods versus "hand-rolled" stuff.

+1 to Adrien's idea to just use LE converter here. I really think 
ByteOrder.nativeOrder() should be in forbidden APIs myself. The problem is that 
no jenkins is testing lucene on bigendian platforms: by using native order 
(even if we think it is safe), it introduces risks. So personally I would 
rather see explicit endianness.

> Improve LZ4 Compression performance with direct primitive read/writes
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-10112
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10112
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Tim Brooks
>            Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-10112.patch
>
>
> *Summary*
> Java9 introduced VarHandles as a tool to quickly read and write primitive 
> types directly to byte arrays without bound checks. The LZ4 compressor class 
> must consistently read ints from a byte array to analyze matches. The 
> performance can be improved by reading these using a VarHandle.
> Additionally, the LZ4 compressor/decompressor methods currently individually 
> read/write the bytes for LE shorts. Lucene's DataOutput/DataInput 
> abstractions already have dedicated methods for reading/writing LE shorts. 
> These methods are selectively optimized in certain implementations and will 
> provide superior performance than individual byte reads.
> *Concerns*
> The DataOutput/DataInput readShort() and writeShort() methods do not call out 
> that they are LE. It just looks to me that the DataOutput/DataInput are LE? 
> Since this particular change does not appear to provide significant 
> performance wins, maybe the patch is better leaving the explicit individual 
> byte reads?
> Additionally, this patch changes read ints to read them in the platform 
> native order which should be fine since it is just matching bytes. But I can 
> change it to only read in the order the previous version did.
> *Benchmarks*
> I created JMH benchmarks which compresses 1MB of highly compressible JSON 
> observability data. And compresses it 64KB at a time. In order to simulate 
> the "short" changes, I use a forked version `ByteArrayDataOutput` which 
> writes shorts using a VarHandle (to simulate fast writes that the ByteBuffer 
> versions would get.) I also ran a benchmark without the short changes, just 
> the reading ints using a VarHandle.
>  
>  
> {noformat}
> Benchmark                                          Mode  Cnt    Score   Error 
>  Units
> MyBenchmark.testCompressLuceneLZ4                 thrpt    9  712.430 ± 3.616 
>  ops/s
> MyBenchmark.testCompressLuceneLZ4Forked           thrpt    9  945.380 ± 4.776 
>  ops/s
> MyBenchmark.testCompressLuceneLZ4ForkedNoShort    thrpt    9  940.812 ± 3.868 
>  ops/s
> MyBenchmark.testCompressLuceneLZ4HC               thrpt    9  147.432 ± 4.730 
>  ops/s
> MyBenchmark.testCompressLuceneLZ4HCForked         thrpt    9  183.954 ± 2.534 
>  ops/s
> MyBenchmark.testCompressLuceneLZ4HCForkedNoShort  thrpt    9  188.065 ± 0.727 
>  ops/s{noformat}
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to