[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4542?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15365854#comment-15365854
]
Vikas Saurabh commented on OAK-4542:
------------------------------------
{{PerfLogger}} currently tries best to return early if log level isn't DEBUG or
TRACE. So, if a client wants to utilize this improvement, they'd probably need
to flag the intent at PerfLogger.start() too ... but I think it'd be still be a
bad idea to log message in start() for INFO intent.
So, for DEBUG and TRACE, the behavior shall remain the same. BUT, for
start(msg, true /*logAtInfoToo*/), we'd just return time but not log message --
so, the alternative start would simply be start(true /*logAtInfoToo*/).
Updating end() is rather simple.
[~chetanm], does this seem like a fair way to move forward?
> PerfLogger should also allow a threshold to log at INFO
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-4542
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4542
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Vikas Saurabh
> Assignee: Vikas Saurabh
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: candidate_oak_1_0, candidate_oak_1_2, candidate_oak_1_4,
> monitoring, performance
>
> Currently, {{PerfLogger}} logs at DEBUG if time spent in operation is more
> that threshold ms.
> We should also be able to have a second level threshold of time, beyond which
> the log should happen at INFO. It helps to catch cases for which the timing
> gets too poor at the onset of some performance issue and by the time of
> investigation (opportunity to add DEBUG logger) is too late already.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
