Rafi, I had a closer look at the code, put it on trunk and ran your benchmark. I see quite an improvement with respect to writing lists, maps and strings.
Simply put the writeList and writeMap methods in the old encorder is about ~10 times slower than the new encorder. If I run with a sufficiently large set of strings, the old encorder is about ~2 times slower than the new encorder. I'm now focusing on hooking it up with the engine. Once that is done we can look at tweaking it further. But as it is, the new codec is a real improvement over the existing one. Great job Rafi! Rajith On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Rafi, for the link. > I agree that any work should use this as a basis. > > I plan to take a closer look at this in the next week or so. > > Rajith > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Rafael Schloming <r...@alum.mit.edu> > wrote: > >> A while back I implemented a relatively complete standalone codec here: >> >> >> >> https://github.com/rhs/qpid-proton-old/tree/codec/proton-j/src/main/java/org/apache/qpid/proton/codec2 >> >> It's quite a bit faster than the existing codec. I believe any new codec >> work should probably be based on this. It's relatively standalone, so >> should be easy to import into the tree, and then it's just a matter of >> modifying the rest of the engine to use it. Note that my qpid-proton-old >> repo is a clone of the pre-migration repo. >> >> --Rafael >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Rajith Muditha Attapattu < >> rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I'm starting to look at improving this areas as I was told a few folks >> have >> > noted some concerns. >> > >> > I would appreciate some input on these concerns and hope to have a >> > discussion to figure out how best to proceed. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Rajith >> > >> > >
