Hi Greg, Thanks for your feedback. I would like to answer your questions here.
Q: Do I understand correctly that the generated code is only dependent on the length of the sort key? A: Yes, you're right. The generated code is mainly dependent on the length of the sort key. However, I'm not sure whether we can reuse the generated code for 2 different types of key even they have the same length. Q: How do you propose computing indexEntriesPerSegment? Is the improved performance not dependent on this value being a power-of-2? A: This improvement doesn't change the way indexEntriesPerSegment is computed. What we did here is replacing indexEntriesPerSegment at expressions that indexEntriesPerSegment is a divisor with its value [1]. As a result, it does not require value of indexEntriesPerSegment to be an exponent of 2. More information related to this technique can be found at [2]. Q: Are you able to compare with FLINK-3722? A: We're planning to do that as well, however, it might take some time due to exams. Also, could you please elaborate more why DividedByConstant and UsingBitwiseOperators use only half of sort memory when indexEntriesPerSegment is power of 2? [1] https://github.com/heytitle/flink-sorter-performance-evaluation/blob/master/src/main/java/org/evaluation/sorter/individual/optimization/DividedByConstant.java#L353 [2] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devdev/2005/12/12/integer-division-by-constants/ -- View this message in context: http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/FLINK-5734-Code-Generation-for-NormalizedKeySorter-tp15804p15860.html Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
