accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vikram Srivastava (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-2345) Improve ConstraintChecker.check
Date Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:26:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2345?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13898188#comment-13898188
] 

Vikram Srivastava commented on ACCUMULO-2345:
---------------------------------------------

[~kturner] You are right. Always allocating a Violations object increased both time and memory
taken by 10M runs of check. (Both went up by 200%) So we should always do it lazily.

One alternative is that we pass the Violations object that we've already created in Tablet.prepareMutationsForCommit
to ContraintChecker.check() which would add to that Violations object instead of creating
a new one and returning it. Thoughts?

> 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