Hi Greg, Thanks for the input. Please let me know If you need some help. Meanwhile, I will look into code of the tasks that you mentioned.
Best, Pat > On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> wrote: > > Pat, > > Thanks for running additional tests and continuing to work on this > contribution. > > My testing is also showing that the performance gains remain even when > multiple classes are used for sorting. > > I think we should proceed in the order of FLINK-3722, FLINK-4705, and > FLINK-5734. Gabor has reviewed FLINK-3722 and I’ve done so multiple times. > I’m looking into test coverage for FLINK-4705. Once these are reviewed and > FLINK-5734 rebased we can benchmark Flink’s performance to validate the > improvements. > > Greg > > >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 8:46 PM, Pattarawat Chormai <pat.chor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I have made an additional optimization[1] related to megamorphic call issue >> that Greg mentioned earlier. The optimization[2] improves execution time >> around ~13%, while the original code from FLINK-5734 is ~11%. >> >> IMHO, the improvement from metamorphic call optimization is very small >> compared to the code we have to introduce. So, I think we can just go with >> the PR that we currently have. What do you think? >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/heytitle/flink/commit/8e38b4d738b9953337361c62a8d77e909327d28f >> [2]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PcdCdFX4bGecO6Lb5dLI2nww2NoeaA8c3MgbEdsVmk0/edit#gid=598217386 >> >> Best, >> Pat >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-18-Code-Generation-for-improving-sorting-performance-tp16486p16923.html >> Sent from the Apache Flink Mailing List archive. mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >
