accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Keith Turner (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-2345) Improve ConstraintChecker.check
Date Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:15:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2345?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13897970#comment-13897970
] 

Keith Turner commented on ACCUMULO-2345:
----------------------------------------

[~vickyuec] avoiding allocation of a Violations Object was intentional.  The reasoning was
that constraint checking was on the write path for every mutation and want constraint checking
to have as little impact as possible when no constraints are violated.  I am not sure if this
was worthwhile, it does complicate the code.  Do you know if this change makes a difference
in performance?    I wonder if  there would be a difference between the versions calling the
check function10,000,000 times in a standalone program for mutations that pass,.

> Improve ConstraintChecker.check
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-2345
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2345
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: tserver
>    Affects Versions: 1.7.0
>            Reporter: Vikram Srivastava
>            Assignee: Vikram Srivastava
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>         Attachments: ACCUMULO-2345.v1.patch.txt
>
>
> The if-else condition inside {{for}} loop can be merged with try-catch since {{throwable}}
is not null only if code goes inside the catch section.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)

Mime
View raw message