3 ms·

Author here, I'm away from my computer atm, but I can cook up a repo with each test in a few hours when I get home. I designed the tests as a drag race because

• cowwoc 2y ago
  Hi, Please add https://github.com/apache/fury https://github.com/apache/fury to the benchmark. It claims to be a drop-in replacement for the built-in serialization mechanism so it should be easy to try.
  • marginalia_nu 2y ago
    Will do!
• antonhag 2y ago
  That's nice - I'd encourage you to play around with attaching e.g. JMC [1] to the process to better understand why things are as they are. I tried recreating your DataInputStream + BufferedInputStream (wrote the 1brc data to separate output files, read using your code - I had to guess at ResultObserver implementation though). On my machine it roughly in the same time frame as yours - ~1min. According to Flight Recorder: - ~49% of the time is spent in reading the strings (city names). Almost all of it in the DataInputStream.readUTF/readFully methods. - ~5% of the time is spent reading temperature (readShort) - ~41% of the time is spent doing hashmap look-ups for computeIfAbsent() - About 50GB of memory is allocated - %99.9 of it for Strings (and the wrapped byte[] array in them). This likely causes quite a bit of GC pressure. Hash-map lookups are not de-serialization, yet the lookup likely affected the benchmarks quite a bit. The rest of the time is mostly spent in reading and allocating strings. I would guess that that is true for some of the other implementations in the original post as well. [1] https://github.com/openjdk/jmc https://github.com/openjdk/jmc edit: better link to JMC
  • marginalia_nu 2y ago
    JMC is indeed a valuable tool, though what you see in any java profiler is to be taken with a grain of salt. The string parsing and hash lookups are present in most of the implementations, yet some of them are up to 10 times faster than the DataInputStream + BufferedInputStream code. It doesn't seem like it can be true that 90% of the time is spent in string parsing and hash lookups if the same operation takes 10% of the time when reading from a filechannel and bytebuffer.
    • antonhag 2y ago
      Aren't the versions that take 10% of the time only reading each city name once, and then doing an array lookup rather than a hashmap lookup?
      • marginalia_nu 2y ago
        Nope, see for example "Custom 1": var buffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(4096); try (var fc = (FileChannel) Files.newByteChannel(tempFile, StandardOpenOption.READ)) { buffer.flip(); for (int i = 0; i < records; i++) { if (buffer.remaining() < 32) { buffer.compact(); fc.read(buffer); buffer.flip(); } int len = buffer.get(); byte[] cityBytes = new byte[len]; buffer.get(cityBytes); String city = new String(cityBytes); int temperature = buffer.getShort(); stats.computeIfAbsent(city, k -> new ResultsObserver()) .observe(temperature / 100.); } }
        • antonhag 2y ago
          My bad - I got confused as the original DIS+BIS took ~60s on my machine. I reproducing the Custom 1 implementation locally (before seeing your repo) and it took ~48s on the same machine. JFR (which you honestly can trust most of the time) says that the HashMap lookup now is ~50% of the time and the String constructor call being ~35%.
  • haglin 2y ago