This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 14, 2024. It is now read-only.
Optimize JacksonPersister#hydrateFromBytes#6750
Merged
bulldozer-bot[bot] merged 2 commits intodevelopfrom Sep 25, 2023
Merged
Conversation
Optimize to avoid allocation of heap ByteBuffer via InputStreamReader. Remove after upgrade to Jackson 2.16. see: FasterXML/jackson-core#1081 and FasterXML/jackson-benchmarks#9
Generate changelog in
|
jeremyk-91
approved these changes
Sep 25, 2023
Contributor
jeremyk-91
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Fair enough, this is faithful to the change made in https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core/pull/1081/files. Thanks!
Collaborator
|
Released 0.937.0 |
Contributor
Author
After Jackson 2.16 is released and we bump, I'll put up a PR to remove the couple places we worked around this. |
bulldozer-bot bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 1, 2024
Now that AtlasDB has upgraded to Jackson 2.16.1, remove performance workaround that landed upstream in Jackson 2.16.0. See FasterXML/jackson-core#1081 Removes changes from #6750
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
General
Before this PR:
Similar to #6739 , in AtlasDB heavy services deserializing values persisted as JSON via
JacksonPersistercan allocate significant (~135GB/s) java.nio.HeapByteBuffer. See FasterXML/jackson-core#1081 and FasterXML/jackson-benchmarks#9 for more details as we've improved this upstream in Jackson 2.16; however, we should mitigate these allocations until we 2.16 is released and we upgrade.After this PR:
==COMMIT_MSG==
Optimize to avoid allocation of heap ByteBuffer via InputStreamReader. Remove after upgrade to Jackson 2.16.
see: FasterXML/jackson-core#1081 and FasterXML/jackson-benchmarks#9
==COMMIT_MSG==
Priority:
Concerns / possible downsides (what feedback would you like?):
Is documentation needed?:
Compatibility
Does this PR create any API breaks (e.g. at the Java or HTTP layers) - if so, do we have compatibility?:
Does this PR change the persisted format of any data - if so, do we have forward and backward compatibility?:
The code in this PR may be part of a blue-green deploy. Can upgrades from previous versions safely coexist? (Consider restarts of blue or green nodes.):
Does this PR rely on statements being true about other products at a deployment - if so, do we have correct product dependencies on these products (or other ways of verifying that these statements are true)?:
Does this PR need a schema migration?
Testing and Correctness
What, if any, assumptions are made about the current state of the world? If they change over time, how will we find out?:
What was existing testing like? What have you done to improve it?:
If this PR contains complex concurrent or asynchronous code, is it correct? The onus is on the PR writer to demonstrate this.:
If this PR involves acquiring locks or other shared resources, how do we ensure that these are always released?:
Execution
How would I tell this PR works in production? (Metrics, logs, etc.):
Has the safety of all log arguments been decided correctly?:
Will this change significantly affect our spending on metrics or logs?:
How would I tell that this PR does not work in production? (monitors, etc.):
If this PR does not work as expected, how do I fix that state? Would rollback be straightforward?:
If the above plan is more complex than “recall and rollback”, please tag the support PoC here (if it is the end of the week, tag both the current and next PoC):
Scale
Would this PR be expected to pose a risk at scale? Think of the shopping product at our largest stack.:
Would this PR be expected to perform a large number of database calls, and/or expensive database calls (e.g., row range scans, concurrent CAS)?:
Would this PR ever, with time and scale, become the wrong thing to do - and if so, how would we know that we need to do something differently?:
Development Process
Where should we start reviewing?:
If this PR is in excess of 500 lines excluding versions lock-files, why does it not make sense to split it?:
Please tag any other people who should be aware of this PR:
@jeremyk-91
@sverma30
@raiju