Details

    • Type: Improvement Improvement
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Minor Minor
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      I have found some minor optimization issues in the codebase, which I would like to rectify and contribute. Specifically, these are:

      The optimizations that could be applied to Hive's code base are as follows:

      1. Use StringBuffer when appending strings - In 184 instances, the concatination operator (+=) was used when appending strings. This is inherintly inefficient - instead Java's StringBuffer or StringBuilder class should be used. 12 instances of this optimization can be applied to the GenMRSkewJoinProcessor class and another three to the optimizer. CliDriver uses the + operator inside a loop, so does the column projection utilities class (ColumnProjectionUtils) and the aforementioned skew-join processor. Tests showed that using the StringBuilder when appending strings is 57% faster than using the + operator (using the StringBuffer took 122 milliseconds whilst the + operator took 284 milliseconds). The reason as to why using the StringBuffer class is preferred over using the + operator, is because

      String third = first + second;

      gets compiled to:

      StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder( first );
      builder.append( second );
      third = builder.toString();

      Therefore, when building complex strings, that, for example involve loops, require many instantiations (and as discussed below, creating new objects inside loops is inefficient).

      2. Use arrays instead of List - Java's java.util.Arrays class asList method is a more efficient at creating creating lists from arrays than using loops to manually iterate over the elements (using asList is computationally very cheap, O(1), as it merely creates a wrapper object around the array; looping through the list however has a complexity of O since a new list is created and every element in the array is added to this new list). As confirmed by the experiment detailed in Appendix D, the Java compiler does not automatically optimize and replace tight-loop copying with asList: the loop-copying of 1,000,000 items took 15 milliseconds whilst using asList is instant.

      Four instances of this optimization can be applied to Hive's codebase (two of these should be applied to the Map-Join container - MapJoinRowContainer) - lines 92 to 98:

      for (obj = other.first(); obj != null; obj = other.next()) {
      ArrayList<Object> ele = new ArrayList(obj.length);
      for (int i = 0; i < obj.length; i++)

      { ele.add(obj[i]); }

      list.add((Row) ele);
      }

      3. Unnecessary wrapper object creation - In 31 cases, wrapper object creation could be avoided by simply using the provided static conversion methods. As noted in the PMD documentation, "using these avoids the cost of creating objects that also need to be garbage-collected later."

      For example, line 587 of the SemanticAnalyzer class, could be replaced by the more efficient parseDouble method call:

      // Inefficient:
      Double percent = Double.valueOf(value).doubleValue();
      // To be replaced by:
      Double percent = Double.parseDouble(value);

      Our test case in Appendix D confirms this: converting 10,000 strings into integers using Integer.parseInt(gen.nextSessionId()) (i.e. creating an unnecessary wrapper object) took 119 on average; using parseInt() took only 38. Therefore creating even just one unnecessary wrapper object can make your code up to 68% slower.

      4. Converting literals to strings using + "" - Converting literals to strings using + "" is quite inefficient (see Appendix D) and should be done by calling the toString() method instead: converting 1,000,000 integers to strings using + "" took, on average, 1340 milliseconds whilst using the toString() method only required 1183 milliseconds (hence adding empty strings takes nearly 12% more time).

      89 instances of this using + "" when converting literals were found in Hive's codebase - one of these are found in the JoinUtil.

      5. Avoid manual copying of arrays - Instead of copying arrays as is done in GroupByOperator on line 1040 (see below), the more efficient System.arraycopy can be used (arraycopy is a native method meaning that the entire memory block is copied using memcpy or mmove).

      // Line 1040 of the GroupByOperator
      for (int i = 0; i < keys.length; i++)

      { forwardCache[i] = keys[i]; }

      Using System.arraycopy on an array of 10,000 strings was (close to) instant whilst the manual copy took 6 milliseconds.
      11 instances of this optimization should be applied to the Hive codebase.

      6. Avoiding instantiation inside loops - As noted in the PMD documentation, "new objects created within loops should be checked to see if they can created outside them and reused.".

      Declaring variables inside a loop (i from 0 to 10,000) took 300 milliseconds
      whilst declaring them outside took only 88 milliseconds (this can be explained by the fact that when declaring a variable outside the loop, its reference will be re-used for each iteration. However when declaring variables inside a loop, new references will be created for each iteration. In our case, 10,000 references will be created by the time that this loop finishes, meaning lots of work in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection). 1623 instances of this optimization can be applied.

      To summarize, I propose to modify the code to address issue 1 and issue 6 (remaining issues (2 - 5) will be addressed later). Details are specified as sub-tasks.

        Activity

          People

          • Assignee:
            Benjamin Jakobus
            Reporter:
            Benjamin Jakobus
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            4 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:

              Time Tracking

              Estimated:
              Original Estimate - 48h
              48h
              Remaining:
              Remaining Estimate - 48h
              48h
              Logged:
              Time Spent - Not Specified
              Not Specified

                Development