Stupid performance trick in Java

By
ByteBuffer has a compact() method which is useful for re-using a buffer if it is not full consumed. However, in the likely case it is consumed, it can perform surprising badly. 

while (in.read(buf) >= 0 || buf.position != 0) {
     buf.flip();
     out.write(buf);
     buf.compact();    // In case of partial write
}

In my application, the throughput increased by 6% by replacing compact() with this method. 

public static void compact(ByteBuffer bb) {
    if (bb.remaining() == 0)
        bb.clear();
    else
        bb.compact();
}

Note: this is not the increase in a micro-benchmark, but across the entire application!

Your Mileage May Vary of course

Comments

  1. robert16 December 2011 at 15:33

    I wonder whether your app does anything else (i.e. real IO). Tested on Windows with -server JVM: https://gist.github.com/1486476

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter Lawrey16 December 2011 at 16:57

    What may not have been clear is that the ByteBuffer is typically empty. In this situation, calling clear() instead of compact() it makes a big difference.

    BTW: Using direct memory also appears to make more of a difference.

    private static long test(int[] writes, Compactor cn) {
    final ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocateDirect(PAGE);
    long written = 0;

    for (int i = 0; i < writes.length; ++i) {
    b.limit(i % PAGE);
    b.position(i % PAGE);
    cn.compact(b);
    }
    return written;
    }

    prints

    Run: 2

    norm : 906624000ns
    opt : 307983000ns
    Factor norm/opt : 2.944

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Java is Very Fast, If You Don’t Create Many Objects

By
Image
  You still have to watch how many objects you create. This article looks at a benchmark passing events over TCP/IP at 4 billion events per minute using the net.openhft.chronicle.wire.channel package in Chronicle Wire and why we still avoid object allocations..  One of the key optimisations is creating almost no garbage. Allocation is a very cheap operation and collection of very short-lived objects is also very cheap. Does this really make a difference? What difference does one small object per event (44 bytes) make to the performance in a throughput test where GC pauses are amortised? While allocation is as efficient as possible, it doesn’t avoid the memory pressure on the L1/L2 caches of your CPUs and when many cores are busy, they are contending for memory in the shared L3 cache.  Results Benchmark on a Ryzen 5950X with Ubuntu 22.10. JVM Vendor, Version No objects Throughput, Average Latency* One object per event Throughput, Average Latency* Azul Zulu 1.8.0_322 60.6 M event/s, 528
Read more

System wide unique nanosecond timestamps

By
A Unique Identifier can be very useful for tracing. Those ids are even more useful when they contain a high-resolution timestamp.  Not only do they record the time of an event, but if unique can help trace events as they pass through the system. Such unique timestamps however can be expensive depending on how they are implemented.   This post explores a lightweight means of producing a unique, monotonically increasing system-wide nano-second resolution timestamp available in our open-source library. Uses for Unique Identifiers Unique identifiers can be useful to associate with a piece of information so that information can be referred to later unambiguously. This could be an event, a request, an order id, or a customer id. They can naturally be used as a primary key in a database or key/value store to retrieve that information later. One of the challenges of generating these identifiers is avoiding creating duplicates while not having an increasing cost.  You could record every identi
Read more

Comparing Approaches to Durability in Low Latency Messaging Queues

By
Image
  A significant feature of Chronicle Queue Enterprise is support for TCP replication across multiple servers to ensure the high availability of application infrastructure. I generally believe that replicating data to a secondary system is faster than syncing to disk, assuming the round trip network delay wasn’t high due to quality networks and co-located redundant servers. This is the first time I have benchmarked it with a realistic example. Little’s Law and Why Latency Matters In many cases, the assumption is that the latency won't be a problem as long as throughput is high enough. However, latency is often a key factor in why the throughput isn’t high enough. Little’s law states, “ the long-term average number  L  of customers in a  stationary  system is equal to the long-term average effective arrival rate  λ  multiplied by the average time  W  that a customer spends in the system”. In computer terminology, the level of concurrency or parallelism a system has to support must be
Read more