avro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Doug Cutting (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (AVRO-388) Using ResolvingDecoder in GenericDatumReader
Date Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:42:29 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-388?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12828216#action_12828216

Doug Cutting commented on AVRO-388:

> 5. Add a new field called "name" to Schema.Field class.

This seems reasonable to me.

> Using ResolvingDecoder in GenericDatumReader
> --------------------------------------------
>                 Key: AVRO-388
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-388
>             Project: Avro
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: java
>            Reporter: Thiruvalluvan M. G.
>            Assignee: Thiruvalluvan M. G.
>         Attachments: AVRO-388-test.patch, AVRO-388.patch
> This patch removes GenericDatumReader's own logic for schema resolution by relying on
ResolvingDecoder. The code has become somewhat compact. The duplication logic we were concerned
about in AVRO-383 is gone.
> There are three changes to the public interface of GenericDatumReader:
>    * readInt() and readString() functions no longer provide the writer's schema. I think
it is reasonable that code outside GenericDatumReader should not worry about schema resolution
and thus don't have to know about writer's schema.
>    * setSchema() function of DatumReader may throw IOException.
> None in Avro codebase is affected by these changes.
> In terms of performance:
>    * When there is no resolution required, that is reader's and writer's schemas are
identical, there is no change in performance. In fact, ResolvingEncoder is not used in this
case. Use Perf -G to measuer.
>    * If the resolution involves only promotions (from int to long)  the new code is about
5% faster. User Perf -Gp
>    * If the resolution involves supplying default values from the reader's schema because
writer's schema does have a field, the node is faster about 15%. This improvement is probably
due to AVRO-383. User Perf -Gd to measure this.
>    * If the resolution involves field reordering (reader's and writer's schema have the
same fields, but in different order) the new code is _slower_ by about 20%. This is because,
ResolvingDecoder provides information on field reordering through a vector of Schema.Field
objects. The Field class has the field position but not the field name. But GenericDatumWriter's
setField() function needs the field name. getFieldName() function introduced in this patch
does a linear search to find the name from the reader's schema. This is inefficient. We can
handle this problem in any of the following ways:
>       1. Do nothing claiming that field reordering is rare and we can live with this
inefficiency. I tried this and saw that the new code performs about 5-10% faster than the
>       2. Change the signature of the setField() so that it does not require the field
name. This is an incomaptible change to the GenericDatumReader's public interface. None of
the code in the current Avro will need field name. But if somebody has extended GenericDatumReader,
they will be affected.
>       3. Have a new class FieldInfo which has the name and position of the field and
make ResolvingDecoder return an array of FieldInfo instead of Field. It's not obvious, which
package/class this new class would go to. If one wants a clean dependencies, probably it belongs
to io package. I'm not confortable adding another class into the io package at the present.
Keeping it as an inner class of ResolvingDecoder will create circular dependencies between
the io.parsing package and ResolvingDecoder class.
>      4. Instead of a new class FieldInfo above use Map.Entry<String, Field>.
>      5. Add a new field called "name" to Schema.Field class. It will be somewhat redundant
because the key of the fields map of RecordSchema is the field name. With this, the field
name will be available both as the key and as a part of value of the map.
>      My personal preference is 5 followed by 4.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

View raw message