1. Ack, thanks. 2. Sounds good, thanks for clarifying. On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 9:50 AM ShunKang Lin <linshunkang....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Guozhang, > > Thanks for your comments! > > 1. We can reduce memory allocation if the key/value types happen to be > ByteBuffer or String. > 2. I would like to add `default ByteBuffer serializeToByteBuffer(String > topic, Headers headers, T data)` in Serializer to reduce memory copy in > `KafkaProducer#doSend(ProducerRecord, Callback)`, but this change is a bit > big, I prefer to submit another one KIP to do the job. > > Thanks. > ShunKang > > Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> 于2022年9月20日周二 06:32写道： > > > Hello ShunKang, > > > > Thanks for filing the proposal, and sorry for the late reply! > > > > I looked over your KIP proposal and the PR, in general I think I agree > that > > adding an overloaded function with `ByteBuffer` param is beneficial, but > I > > have a meta question regarding it's impact on Kafka consumer: my > > understanding from your PR is that, we can only save memory allocations > if > > the key/value types happen to be ByteBuffer as well, otherwise we would > > still do the `return deserialize(topic, headers, Utils.toArray(data));` > > from default impls unless the user customized deserializers is augmented > to > > handle ByteBuffer directly, right? > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 9:56 AM ShunKang Lin <linshunkang....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all， > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion on KIP-863 which is Reduce > > > Fetcher#parseRecord() memory copy. This KIP can reduce Kafka Consumer > > > memory allocation by nearly 50% during fetch records. > > > > > > Please check > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=225152035 > > > and https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12545 for more details. > > > > > > Any feedbacks and comments are welcomed. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > -- -- Guozhang
