lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From eks dev <eks...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: [jira] Created: (LUCENE-1172) Small speedups to DocumentsWriter
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:49:47 GMT
again, as long as you do not make one step forward into actual code, we will continue to have
 what we have today, as this is the best what we have. 

you made your statement:
"Clear code will allow for more radical improvements as more eyes will be able to easily understand
the inner workings and offer better algorithms",

Not a single person here would ever dispute this statement, but unfortunately there is no
compiler that executes such statements. Make a patch that utilizes this "clear-code" paradigm,
show us  these better algorithms on actual example  and than say: "without LUCENE-1172 I was
able to improve XYZ feature by using ABC algorithm". That would work smooth.

Anyhow, I am not going to write more on this topic, sorry for the noise... 

And Robert, please do not get this wrong, I see your point and I respect it! I just felt slight
unfairness to the people that make the hands dirty writing as clear and fast code as possible.




----- Original Message ----
From: robert engels <rengels@ix.netcom.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Monday, 11 February, 2008 9:55:02 AM
Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (LUCENE-1172) Small speedups to DocumentsWriter

I am not disputing that there is a speed improvement. I am disputing  
that the performance gain of many of these patches is not worth the  
additional complexity in the code. Clear code will allow for more  
radical improvements as more eyes will be able to easily understand  
the inner workings and offer better algorithms, not just micro  
improvements that the JVM (eventually) can probably figure out on its  
own.

It is a value judgement, and regretfully I don't have another 30  
years to pass down the full knowledge behind my reasoning.

Luckily, however, there are some very good books available on the  
subject...

It's not the fault of the submitter, but many of these timings are  
suspect due to difficulty in measuring the improvements accurately.

Here is a simple example:

You can configure the JVM to not perform aggressive garbage  
collection, and write a program that generates a lot garbage - but it  
runs very fast (not GCing), until the GC eventually occurs (if the  
program runs long enough). It may be overall much slower than an  
alternative that runs slower as it executes, but has code to manage  
the objects as they are created, and rarely if ever hits a GC cycle.   
But then, the JVM (e.g. generational GC) can implement improvements  
that makes choice A faster (and the better choice)... and the cycle  
continues...

Without detailed timings and other metrics (GC pauses, IO, memory  
utilization, native compilation, etc.) most benchmarks are not very  
accurate or useful.  There are a lot of variables to consider - maybe  
more so than can reasonably be considered.  That is why a 4% gain is  
highly suspect.  If the gain was 25%, or 50% or 100%, you have a  
better chance of it being an innate improvement, and not just the  
interaction of some other factors.

On Feb 11, 2008, at 2:32 AM, eks dev wrote:

> Robert,
>
> you may or may not be right, I do not know. The only way to prove  
> it would be to show you can do it better, no?
> If you are so convinced this is wrong, you could, much better than  
> quoting textbooks:
>
> a) write better patch, get attention with something you think is  
> "better bottleneck"
> b) provide realistic "performance tests" as you dispute the  
> measurement provided here
>
> It has to be that concrete, academic discussions are cool, but at  
> the end of a day, it is the code that executes that counts.
>
> cheers,
> eks
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: robert engels <rengels@ix.netcom.com>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February, 2008 9:15:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [jira] Created: (LUCENE-1172) Small speedups to  
> DocumentsWriter
>
> I am not sure these numbers matter. I think they are skewed because
> you are probably running too short a test, and the index is in memory
> (or OS cache).
>
> Once you use a real index that needs to read/write from the disk, the
> percentage change will be negligible.
>
> This is the problem with many of these "performance changes" - they
> just aren't real world enough.  Even if they were, I would argue that
> code simplicity/maintainability is worth more than 6 seconds on a
> operation that takes 4 minutes to run...
>
> There are many people that believe micro benchmarks are next to
> worthless. A good rule of thumb is that if the optimization doesn't
> result in 2x speedup, it probably shouldn't be done. In most cases
> any efficiency gains are later lost in maintainability issues.
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_(computer_science)
>
> Almost always there is a better bottleneck somewhere.
>
> On Feb 10, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Michael McCandless wrote:
>
>>
>> Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder how well a single generic quickSort(Object[] arr, int low,
>>> int high) would perform vs the type-specific ones?  I guess the main
>>> overhead would be a cast from Object to the specific class to do the
>>> compare?  Too bad Java doesn't have true generics/templates.
>>
>>
>> OK I tested this.
>>
>> Starting from the patch on LUCENE-1172, which has 3 quickSort methods
>> (one per type), I created a single quickSort method on Object[] that
>> takes a Comparator, and made 3 Comparators instead.
>>
>> Mac OS X 10.4 (JVM 1.5):
>>
>>     original patch --> 247.1
>>   simplified patch --> 254.9 (3.2% slower)
>>
>> Windows Server 2003 R64 (JVM 1.6):
>>
>>     original patch --> 440.6
>>   simplified patch --> 452.7 (2.7% slower)
>>
>> The times are best in 10 runs.  I'm running all tests with these JVM
>> args:
>>
>>   -Xms1024M -Xmx1024M -Xbatch -server
>>
>> I think this is a big enough difference in performance that it's
>> worth keeping 3 separate quickSorts in DocumentsWriter.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene..apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org






      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message