From dev-return-40728-apmail-directory-dev-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org Wed Apr 11 14:56:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BD8C9577 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:56:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 57133 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2012 14:56:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 57075 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2012 14:56:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 57064 invoked by uid 99); 11 Apr 2012 14:56:15 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:56:15 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.50] (HELO mail-bk0-f50.google.com) (209.85.214.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:56:07 +0000 Received: by bkuw11 with SMTP id w11so1061573bku.37 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:55:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6JK5tlC0yeF7WJc3GbwYBRS/Li1ogy+bsw2udnM5Sgc=; b=VUc8wvSSbenNiN4GWMnEc2sBmIAzTa95jr1B+W6OzBAcVgWvf1lmNV7yWdVXAVu6Zs yFaWglYgogXVbkGcoXDcQo5QPpq1+B/L5NkuzxpO/1czyAwCz/mXQXv1NqS+9S2oEpxW aqg9bWZCWcTf1AqmQfXGhruS8SLZmCMEkh9KIiglo0XULWMaKtLIglOor5d35DB8KA/0 C3Jzbd8PgsLjrYyiX9YaJN6e0xc2gi3BuoP64CE8oUIjDVgYJMGydGcsR8Y+nXqXFutH 0PZCPRWSuFfmUbfGSMipnMIVB25J8PKCQ3jieRaH8jqXrrZfjTsgs0fsIJPJ+F3G/lri YWng== Received: by 10.204.150.73 with SMTP id x9mr5820436bkv.7.1334156146972; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Emmanuels-MacBook-Pro.local (lon92-10-78-226-4-211.fbx.proxad.net. [78.226.4.211]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r14sm5389100bkv.11.2012.04.11.07.55.45 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F859B71.8050906@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:55:45 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?RW1tYW51ZWwgTMOpY2hhcm55?= Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Apache Directory Developers List Subject: [Index] OneLevel index removal, performances Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi guys, Kiran and I conducted some quick performance tests to compare the numbers we get with the server with no OneLevel index compared to the trunk before the merge. It's quite interesting : Operation (before/after) per second Add : 222/264 (me) 649/746 (Kiran) Delete : 156/191 (me) 442/544 (Kiran) Search : 5215/5214 (me) 19932/20335 (Kiran) Move : 308/303 (me) Rename : 380/392 (me) MoveAndRename : 204/275 (me) My machine is an old Linux computer with an old CPU, Kiran has a quad core recent computer. The modifications are now around 20% faster (add/delete). The Move operation has been deeply modified and is not optimal in the new operation. We can most certainly improve it. The very nice point is that searches are not slowed down by the removal of the index. Let's expect that the subLevelIndex removal will carry some new perf improvements ! -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com