ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: BinaryObject pros/cons
Date Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:37:18 GMT
Vova,

Why do we need to write zeros and nulls in the first place? What's the
value of having them in the byte array?

-Val

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Valya,
>
> Currently null value is written as one byte, while zero value of long type
> is written as 9 bytes. I want to improve that and write zeros as one byte
> as well.
>
> As per var-length encoding, I am strongly against it. It saves IO and
> memory at the cost of CPU. If we encode numbers in this way we will
> slowdown SQL (which is already not very fast, to be honest). Because
> instead of a single read memory read, we will have to perform multiple
> reads and then apply some mechanics to restore original value. We already
> have such problem with Strings - Java stores them as UTF-16, but we encode
> them as UTF-8. As a result every read of a string field in SQL results in
> decoding overhead.
>
> Vladimir.
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cross-posting this to dev list.
>>
>> Vladimir,
>>
>> To be honest, I don't see much difference between null values for objects
>> and zero values for primitives. From BinaryObject semantics standpoint,
>> both are default values for corresponding types. These values will be
>> returned from the BinaryObject.field() method regardless of whether we
>> actually save then in the byte array or not. Having said that, why don't we
>> just skip them during write?
>>
>> You optimization will be still useful though, because there are often a
>> lot of ints and longs that are not zeros, but still small and can fit 1-2
>> bytes. We already added such compaction in direct message marshaling and it
>> reduced overall traffic by around 30%.
>>
>> -Val
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am not very concerned with null fields overhead, because usually it
>>> won't be significant. However, there is a problem with zeros. User object
>>> might have lots of int/long zeros, this is not uncommon. And each zero will
>>> consume 4-8 additional bytes. We probably will implement special
>>> optimization which will write such fields in special compact format.
>>>
>>> Vladimir.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:55 PM, vkulichenko <
>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, null values consume memory. I believe this can be optimized, but I
>>>> haven't seen issues with this so far. Unless you have hundreds of fields
>>>> most of which are nulls (very rare case), the overhead is minimal.
>>>>
>>>> -Val
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.705
>>>> 18.x6.nabble.com/BinaryObject-pros-cons-tp8541p8563.html
>>>> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message