directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Inex branch merged into trunk...
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 09:49:59 GMT
Le 5/2/12 9:53 AM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecharny@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Le 5/1/12 3:05 PM, Alex Karasulu a écrit :
>>
>>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny<elecharny@gmail.com>**
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> o Object scope search (lookup) : 49 880 req/s compared to 23 081 on the
>>> previous trunk
>>> o One Level scope search (5 entries returned) : 68 715 entries returned
>>> per second, compared to 33 120/s
>>> o Sub Level scope search (10 entries returned ) : 70 830 entries returned
>>> per second, compared to 18 910/s
>>>
>>>
>>> This is great work Emmanuel. Nicely done!
>>>
>> I have some even better results, as of today :
>>
>> o Object scope search (lookup) : 52 712 req/s compared to 23 081 on the
>> previous trunk
>> o One Level scope search (5 entries returned) : 72 635 entries returned
>> per second, compared to 33 120/s
>> o Sub Level scope search (10 entries returned ) : 75 100 entries returned
>> per second, compared to 18 910/s
>>
>>
> This is just sick man! You've more than doubled the performance.

Some new idea this morning :

atm, we do clone the entries we fetch from the server, then we filter 
the Attributes and the values, modifying the cloned entries. This leads 
to useless create of the removed Attributes and Values. We suggested to 
accumulate the modifications and to apply them at the end, avoiding the 
cloning of AT which will not be returned.

First of all, we can avoid cloning the Values. The Value implementation 
are immutable classes. This save around 7% of the time.

But this is not all we can do : we can simply avoid the accumulation of 
modifications *and* avoid cloning the entry !

The idea is simple : when we get an entry in the cursor we have got 
back, we create a new empty entry, then we iterate over all the original 
entry's attributes and values, and for each one of those attributes and 
values, we check the filters, which will just tell if the 
Attribute/Value must be ditched or kept. This way, we don't do anything 
useless, like storing the modification or creating useless Attributes.

It will work to the extent we deal with the CollectiveAttributes which 
must be injected somewhere, before we enter the loop (a 
connectiveAttribute might perfectly be removed by the ACI filter...). 
But we can also inject those added collective attributes into the loop 
of filters.

I may miss something, but I do think that this solution is a clear 
winner, even in term of implementation...

thoughts ?
>


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com


Mime
View raw message