It's almost correct, I would like the new code to be more tested before it fully replaces the old - in large arrays there's a big memory advantage, so it makes sense to replace, in small array it's almost the same, so the old code can stay for a while ...Kris Jurka wrote:I'm not super impressed with these timing results. They are certainly showing some effects due to GC, consider the rise in time here at 10.5MB.The method isn't neccessarily much faster, especially when there are only a few megabytes involved. This is very difficult to benchmark in the presence of a garbage collector.I've committed this to CVS HEAD with a rather arbitrarily set MAX_3_BUFF_SIZE value of 2MB. Note that this is also the escaped size, so we may actually be dealing with output data a quarter of that size. If anyone could do some more testing of what a good crossover point would be that would be a good thing.AFAIK the MAX_3_BUFF_SIZE entry was a debug artifact. Not needed any
Not all memory accesses are created equal :-), the Buffer1 is the biggest buffer, and the new code pass one more time through it. The last copy from Buffer3 to Buffer2 in the old method is done through System.arraycopy, which I think is very, very fast (hardware based), so the methods are more balanced ...more. The new method is always faster or at least as fast as the old method, because it requires fewer memory accesses. 3 Buffers: Buffer1 zeroing (vm intern) Buffer1 filling Buffer2 zeroing (vm intern) Buffer1 reading Buffer2 writing Buffer3 zeroing (vm intern) Buffer2 reading Buffer3 writing Total: 8 memory accesses. Eventually Buffer3 reading, but that's not part of the driver. 2 Buffers: Buffer1 zeroing (vm intern) Buffer1 filling Buffer1 reading (the new pass) Buffer2 zeroing (vm intern) Buffer1 reading Buffer2 writing Total: 6 memory accesses. Conclusion: The new method uses less memory. It must be faster as well, since everything else is fast in comparison to memory access. Additionally, it requires only 2 allocations, and memory allocation have some overhead as well, and mean more work for the garbage collector in the end. Even if the VM can do some magic to avoid zeroing the buffers, the newer method has one less memory access. It is always the winner.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Luis Flores
Analista de Sistemas
Evolute - Consultoria
Informática
Email:
lflores@evolute.pt
Tel: (+351) 212949689