Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FLINK-24459] Performance improvement of file sink #17416

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Oct 11, 2021

Conversation

trushev
Copy link
Contributor

@trushev trushev commented Oct 6, 2021

What is the purpose of the change

This pull request improves performance of file sink on Nexmark q10.

Brief change log

  • Use more efficient Integer.toHexString instead of String.format
  • Do not allocate new string when there is no escapable char in the original string
  • Allocate StringBuilder depending on the original string length instead of the default value

Verifying this change

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

  • Added test PartitionPathUtilsTest.testEscapeChar verifying the original behavior of String.format is kept

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
  • The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
  • The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Oct 6, 2021

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 0807e52 (Wed Oct 06 07:52:55 UTC 2021)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!
  • This pull request references an unassigned Jira ticket. According to the code contribution guide, tickets need to be assigned before starting with the implementation work.

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.


The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Oct 6, 2021

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

Comment on lines 119 to 130
if (needsEscaping(c)) {
sb.append('%');
sb.append(String.format("%1$02X", (int) c));
} else {
if (sb == null) {
sb = new StringBuilder(path.length() + 2);
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++) {
sb.append(path.charAt(j));
}
}
escapeChar(c, sb);
} else if (sb != null) {
sb.append(c);
}
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will an incorrect result be returned if the character need to be escaped is in the middle?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It works correctly. I added several units that cover the scenarios of head, middle, tail, missing, and combined control characters

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

u were right.

Copy link
Contributor

@KurtYoung KurtYoung left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the useful improvement @trushev

@KurtYoung KurtYoung merged commit 6243723 into apache:master Oct 11, 2021
niklassemmler pushed a commit to niklassemmler/flink that referenced this pull request Feb 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants