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

Reply via email to