[jira] [Updated] (AVRO-1428) Schema.computeHash() to add if check to avoid unnecessary hashcode computation

["Tie Liu (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1428?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Tie Liu updated AVRO-1428:
--------------------------

    Attachment: AVRO-1428.patch

This patch is to be applied on Schema.java under org.apache.avro package.

> Schema.computeHash() to add if check to avoid unnecessary hashcode computation
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: AVRO-1428
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1428
>             Project: Avro
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: java
>            Reporter: Tie Liu
>         Attachments: AVRO-1428.patch
>
>
> In current Schma.java we have following implementation:
>   public final int hashCode() {
>     if (hashCode == NO_HASHCODE)
>       hashCode = computeHash();
>     return hashCode;
>   }
>   int computeHash() { return getType().hashCode() + props.hashCode(); }
>   While hashCode is doing the checking of "if (hashCode == NO_HASHCODE)", the computeHash method is not. But the computeHash method is being called from Schema$Field.hashCode and the subclasses hashCode implementation like following:
> public int hashCode() { return name.hashCode() + schema.computeHash(); }  //this is from Schema$Field class
>   This is causing the the calculation of hashCode getting called unnecessarily extensively. The proposed changed is to add the "if" check inside the computeHash method instead:
>     int computeHash()
>     {
>         if (hashCode == NO_HASHCODE)
>         {
>             hashCode = getType().hashCode() + props.hashCode();
>         }
>         return hashCode;
> }
> We did a simple test to compare the performance difference, below is a summary of the heap snapshot of comparing the difference:
> As a test I wrote a small program that creates a HashMap<Schema.Field, Integer>() and enters a loop simply identifying whether various Schema.Field instances are keys in the map. Obviously this is a pathological test case, but when running with the current implementation of Schema.Field it has (in about 30 seconds) used up nearly 8 GBytes of heap in instantiating intermediate objects associated with calling Schema.computeHash():
> Heap
> PSYoungGen      total 17432576K, used 8666481K [0x0000000340000000, 0x0000000800000000, 0x0000000800000000)
>   eden space 14942208K, 58% used [0x0000000340000000,0x0000000550f5c650,0x00000006d0000000)
>   from space 2490368K, 0% used [0x0000000768000000,0x0000000768000000,0x0000000800000000)
>   to   space 2490368K, 0% used [0x00000006d0000000,0x00000006d0000000,0x0000000768000000)
> ParOldGen       total 1048576K, used 0K [0x0000000300000000, 0x0000000340000000, 0x0000000340000000)
>   object space 1048576K, 0% used [0x0000000300000000,0x0000000300000000,0x0000000340000000)
> PSPermGen       total 21504K, used 5782K [0x00000002fae00000, 0x00000002fc300000, 0x0000000300000000)
>   object space 21504K, 26% used [0x00000002fae00000,0x00000002fb3a5818,0x00000002fc300000)
> When running with the modified implementation (and no other change) all the object allocation vanishes:
> Heap
> PSYoungGen      total 17432576K, used 896532K [0x0000000340000000, 0x0000000800000000, 0x0000000800000000)
>   eden space 14942208K, 6% used [0x0000000340000000,0x0000000376b852d0,0x00000006d0000000)
>   from space 2490368K, 0% used [0x0000000768000000,0x0000000768000000,0x0000000800000000)
>   to   space 2490368K, 0% used [0x00000006d0000000,0x00000006d0000000,0x0000000768000000)
> ParOldGen       total 1048576K, used 0K [0x0000000300000000, 0x0000000340000000, 0x0000000340000000)
>   object space 1048576K, 0% used [0x0000000300000000,0x0000000300000000,0x0000000340000000)
> PSPermGen       total 21504K, used 5768K [0x00000002fae00000, 0x00000002fc300000, 0x0000000300000000)
>   object space 21504K, 26% used [0x00000002fae00000,0x00000002fb3a2240,0x00000002fc300000)
> As a side-effect the test runs x3 faster with the modified hashCode() implementation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)