Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cassandra-commits-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-commits-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 78A2F104C6 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 14958 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2013 08:47:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cassandra-commits-archive@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 14942 invoked by uid 500); 30 Oct 2013 08:47:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commits-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list commits@cassandra.apache.org Received: (qmail 14934 invoked by uid 99); 30 Oct 2013 08:47:25 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:47:25 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:47:25 +0000 (UTC) From: "Benedict (JIRA)" To: commits@cassandra.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-6271) Replace SnapTree in AtomicSortedColumns MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Benedict updated CASSANDRA-6271: -------------------------------- Description: On the write path a huge percentage of time is spent in GC (>50% in my tests, if accounting for slow down due to parallel marking). SnapTrees are both GC unfriendly due to their structure and also very expensive to keep around - each column name in AtomicSortedColumns uses > 100 bytes on average. I suggest using a sorted array; changes are supplied at-once, as opposed to one at a time, and if < 10% of the values in the array change (and data equal to < 10% of the size of the key array) we simply overlay a new array of changes only over the top. Otherwise we rewrite the array. This method should ensure much less GC overhead, and also save approximately 80% of the current memory overhead. TreeMap is similarly difficult object for the GC, and a related task might be to remove it where not strictly necessary, even though we don't keep them hanging around for long. TreeMapBackedSortedColumns, for instance, seems to be used in a lot of places where we could simply sort the columns. was: On the write path a huge percentage of time is spent in GC (>50% in my tests, if accounting for slow down due to parallel marking). SnapTrees are both GC unfriendly due to their structure and also very expensive to keep around - each column name in AtomicSortedColumns uses > 100 bytes on average. I suggest using a sorted array; changes are supplied at-once, as opposed to one at a time, and if < 10% of the values in the array change we simply overlay a new array of changes only over the top. Otherwise we rewrite the array. This method should ensure much less GC overhead, and also save approximately 80% of the current memory overhead. TreeMap is similarly difficult object for the GC, and a related task might be to remove it where not strictly necessary, even though we don't keep them hanging around for long. TreeMapBackedSortedColumns, for instance, seems to be used in a lot of places where we could simply sort the columns. > Replace SnapTree in AtomicSortedColumns > --------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6271 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Benedict > Assignee: Benedict > > On the write path a huge percentage of time is spent in GC (>50% in my tests, if accounting for slow down due to parallel marking). SnapTrees are both GC unfriendly due to their structure and also very expensive to keep around - each column name in AtomicSortedColumns uses > 100 bytes on average. > I suggest using a sorted array; changes are supplied at-once, as opposed to one at a time, and if < 10% of the values in the array change (and data equal to < 10% of the size of the key array) we simply overlay a new array of changes only over the top. Otherwise we rewrite the array. This method should ensure much less GC overhead, and also save approximately 80% of the current memory overhead. > TreeMap is similarly difficult object for the GC, and a related task might be to remove it where not strictly necessary, even though we don't keep them hanging around for long. TreeMapBackedSortedColumns, for instance, seems to be used in a lot of places where we could simply sort the columns. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1#6144)