Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "EmfIndex Comparison"
m |
|||
(24 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | This page is intended to compare the two index implementations form different viewpoints.<br> | + | This page is intended to compare the two index implementations form different viewpoints.<br> |
= Performance = | = Performance = | ||
+ | Performance measurement was done on a T61 laptop. | ||
== Indexing == | == Indexing == | ||
Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
=== Indexing time === | === Indexing time === | ||
− | This test measured the time which is needed to index x-times the content of Ecore.ecore. (Containing 393 instances of EObject and 520 references)<br> | + | This test measured the time which is needed to index x-times the content of Ecore.ecore. (Containing 393 instances of EObject and 520 references)<br> |
− | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | + | {| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" |
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:EmfIndex indexingTime.png|thumb]] | | [[Image:EmfIndex indexingTime.png|thumb]] | ||
Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
{| border="1" | {| border="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | <br> | + | | <br> |
− | | | + | | 1 |
− | | | + | | 2 |
− | | | + | | 4 |
+ | | 8 | ||
+ | | 16 | ||
+ | | 32 | ||
+ | | 64 | ||
+ | | 128 | ||
+ | | 256 | ||
+ | | 512 | ||
+ | | 1024 | ||
+ | | 2048 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | SAP | ||
+ | | 31 ms | ||
+ | | 33 ms | ||
+ | | 32 ms | ||
+ | | 62 ms | ||
+ | | 141 ms | ||
+ | | 249 ms | ||
+ | | 468 ms | ||
+ | | 1061 ms | ||
+ | | 1950 ms | ||
+ | | 3994 ms | ||
+ | | 7816 ms | ||
+ | | 16302 ms | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Itemis | ||
+ | | 31 ms | ||
+ | | 32 ms | ||
+ | | 31 ms | ||
+ | | 78 ms | ||
+ | | 125 ms | ||
+ | | 250 ms | ||
+ | | 640 ms | ||
+ | | 983 ms | ||
+ | | 2153 ms | ||
+ | | 4446 ms | ||
+ | | 8408 ms | ||
+ | | 16349 ms | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Index save time (logarithmic scale on x and y axis) === | ||
+ | |||
+ | This test measured the time which is needed to dump the index to file system.<br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | {| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | [[Image:EmfIndex indexSaveTime.png|thumb]] | ||
+ | | | ||
+ | {| border="1" | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | <br> | ||
+ | | 1 | ||
+ | | 2 | ||
+ | | 4 | ||
+ | | 8 | ||
+ | | 16 | ||
+ | | 32 | ||
+ | | 64 | ||
+ | | 128 | ||
+ | | 256 | ||
+ | | 512 | ||
+ | | 1024 | ||
+ | | 2048 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| SAP | | SAP | ||
− | | | + | | 12 ms |
− | | 29 | + | | 13 ms |
− | | | + | | 15 ms |
+ | | 29 ms | ||
+ | | 63 ms | ||
+ | | 94 ms | ||
+ | | 218 ms | ||
+ | | 390 ms | ||
+ | | 1139 ms | ||
+ | | 1809 ms | ||
+ | | 3697 ms | ||
+ | | 7519 ms | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Itemis | | Itemis | ||
− | | | + | | 15 ms |
− | | | + | | 15 ms |
− | | | + | | 16 ms |
+ | | 32 ms | ||
+ | | 62 ms | ||
+ | | 109 ms | ||
+ | | 203 ms | ||
+ | | 521 ms | ||
+ | | 843 ms | ||
+ | | 1670 ms | ||
+ | | 3808 ms | ||
+ | | 7877 ms | ||
|} | |} | ||
Line 35: | Line 118: | ||
=== Memory consumption === | === Memory consumption === | ||
− | This test measured the in memory size of the index. In the SAP case, paging was disabled<br> | + | This test measured the in memory size of the index by use of the Memory Analyzer Tool. In the SAP case, paging was disabled<br> |
− | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | + | {| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" |
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:EmfIndex AllInMemory.png|thumb]] | | [[Image:EmfIndex AllInMemory.png|thumb]] | ||
| | | | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
{| border="1" | {| border="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | <br> | + | | <br> |
| 1000 | | 1000 | ||
| 2000 | | 2000 | ||
Line 51: | Line 134: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| SAP | | SAP | ||
− | | | + | | 101 million bytes |
− | | | + | | 203 million bytes |
− | | | + | | 305 million bytes |
|- | |- | ||
| Itemis | | Itemis | ||
− | | | + | | 141 million bytes |
− | | | + | | 281 million bytes |
− | | | + | | 422 million bytes |
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
|} | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Required Memory on Disc<br> === | ||
+ | |||
+ | These values show the amount of kilobytes per Ecore content. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | [[Image:SizeOnDisc.png|thumb]] | ||
+ | | | ||
+ | {| border="1" | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | SAP | ||
+ | | 92 kB | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Itemis | ||
+ | | 30 kB | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
== Query response time == | == Query response time == | ||
− | === Query All EObject and all EReferences<br> | + | === Query All Resources, EObject and all EReferences<br> === |
− | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | + | {| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" |
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:EmfIndex ResponseTimeAllEObjects.png|thumb]] | | [[Image:EmfIndex ResponseTimeAllEObjects.png|thumb]] | ||
Line 75: | Line 180: | ||
{| border="1" | {| border="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | <br> | + | | <br> |
− | | | + | | 1 |
− | | | + | | 2 |
− | | | + | | 4 |
+ | | 8 | ||
+ | | 16 | ||
+ | | 32 | ||
+ | | 64 | ||
+ | | 128 | ||
+ | | 256 | ||
+ | | 512 | ||
+ | | 1024 | ||
+ | | 2048 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| SAP | | SAP | ||
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,5 ms |
− | | | + | | 1,2 ms |
+ | | 2 ms | ||
+ | | 5 ms | ||
+ | | 8 ms | ||
+ | | 15 ms | ||
+ | | 28 ms | ||
+ | | 58 ms | ||
+ | | 119 ms | ||
+ | | 227 ms | ||
+ | | 453 ms | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Itemis | | Itemis | ||
− | + | | 2 ms | |
− | | 2 | + | | 3 ms |
− | | 3 | + | | 5 ms |
+ | | 8 ms | ||
+ | | 16 ms | ||
+ | | 33 ms | ||
+ | | 64 ms | ||
+ | | 137 ms | ||
+ | | 262 ms | ||
+ | | 510 ms | ||
+ | | 1030 ms | ||
+ | | 2049 ms | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
− | === Query all references targeting a certain resource (logarithmic scale on x and y axis)<br> | + | === Query all references targeting a certain resource (logarithmic scale on x and y axis)<br> === |
− | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | + | {| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" |
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:EmfIndex ResponseTimeBackwardNavi.png|thumb]] | | [[Image:EmfIndex ResponseTimeBackwardNavi.png|thumb]] | ||
Line 105: | Line 237: | ||
{| border="1" | {| border="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | <br> | + | | <br> |
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| 2 | | 2 | ||
Line 114: | Line 246: | ||
| 64 | | 64 | ||
| 128 | | 128 | ||
+ | | 256 | ||
+ | | 512 | ||
+ | | 1024 | ||
+ | | 2048 | ||
|- | |- | ||
| SAP | | SAP | ||
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,4 ms |
+ | | 0,4 ms | ||
+ | | 0,4 ms | ||
+ | | 0,4 ms | ||
+ | | 0,4 ms | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Itemis | | Itemis | ||
− | | | + | | 1,2 ms |
− | | | + | | 2,3 ms |
− | | | + | | 4,8 ms |
− | | | + | | 9,3 ms |
− | | | + | | 17,4 ms |
− | | | + | | 35 ms |
− | | | + | | 71 ms |
+ | | 177 ms | ||
+ | | 279 ms | ||
+ | | 553 ms | ||
+ | | 1108 ms | ||
+ | | 2222 ms | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
− | === Query all instances of "EClass" (logarithmic scale on x and y axis)<br> | + | === Query all instances of "EClass" (logarithmic scale on x and y axis)<br> === |
− | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | + | {| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" |
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:EmfIndex ResponseTimeTypeQuery.png|thumb]] | | [[Image:EmfIndex ResponseTimeTypeQuery.png|thumb]] | ||
Line 149: | Line 294: | ||
{| border="1" | {| border="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | <br> | + | | <br> |
+ | | 1 | ||
+ | | 2 | ||
+ | | 4 | ||
+ | | 8 | ||
+ | | 16 | ||
+ | | 32 | ||
+ | | 64 | ||
| 128 | | 128 | ||
| 256 | | 256 | ||
Line 157: | Line 309: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| SAP | | SAP | ||
− | | 0, | + | | 0,03 ms |
− | | 0, | + | | 0,03 ms |
− | | 1, | + | | 0,04 ms |
− | | | + | | 0,05 ms |
− | | | + | | 0,06 ms |
+ | | 0,1 ms | ||
+ | | 0,16 ms | ||
+ | | 0,3 ms | ||
+ | | 0,6 ms | ||
+ | | 1,1 ms | ||
+ | | 2,9 ms | ||
+ | | 6 ms | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Itemis | | Itemis | ||
− | | | + | | 0,3 ms |
− | | | + | | 0,5 ms |
− | | | + | | 1,1 ms |
− | | | + | | 2,2 ms |
− | | | + | | 4,3 ms |
+ | | 8,8 ms | ||
+ | | 18,2 ms | ||
+ | | 37,5 ms | ||
+ | | 70 ms | ||
+ | | 141 ms | ||
+ | | 282 ms | ||
+ | | 568 ms | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
− | === Navigation Query required for convenient API<br> | + | === Navigation Query required for convenient API<br> === |
− | These values show how fast the queries respond required to simulate interconnected descriptors. | + | These values show how fast the queries respond that are required to simulate interconnected descriptors. |
− | {| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" | + | {| class="FCK__ShowTableBorders" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" |
|- | |- | ||
| [[Image:EmfIndex ResponseTimeNavigationQueries.png|thumb]] | | [[Image:EmfIndex ResponseTimeNavigationQueries.png|thumb]] | ||
Line 200: | Line 366: | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
|} | |} | ||
− | <br> <br> | + | <br> |
+ | |||
+ | <br><br> | ||
= Convenient query API = | = Convenient query API = | ||
Line 213: | Line 381: | ||
public class ConvenientIndexQueryFactory { | public class ConvenientIndexQueryFactory { | ||
− | + | public ConvenientEObjectQuery<?> createEObjectQuery() { | |
− | + | ... | |
− | + | } | |
− | + | public ConvenientEReferenceQuery<?> createEReferenceQuery() { | |
− | + | ... | |
− | + | } | |
− | + | public ConvenientResourceQuery<ConvenientResourceDescriptor> createResourceQuery() { | |
− | + | return new ConvenientResourceQueryImpl<ConvenientResourceDescriptor>(); | |
− | + | } | |
</source> | </source> | ||
Line 231: | Line 399: | ||
public class ConvenientResourceQueryImpl<T> extends ResourceQueryImpl<T> implements ConvenientResourceQuery<T> { | public class ConvenientResourceQueryImpl<T> extends ResourceQueryImpl<T> implements ConvenientResourceQuery<T> { | ||
− | + | @Override | |
− | + | public QueryResult<T> createQueryResult(QueryExecutorInternal queryExecutor, Iterable<ResourceDescriptor> result) { | |
− | + | return ...; // new QueryResult implementation | |
− | + | } | |
} | } | ||
Line 244: | Line 412: | ||
public class ConvenientUser { | public class ConvenientUser { | ||
− | + | public void test() { | |
− | + | final ConvenientResourceQuery<ConvenientResourceDescriptor> query = new ConvenientIndexQueryFactory().createResourceQuery(); | |
− | + | query.uri("hallo"); | |
− | + | Index index = ...; | |
− | + | index.executeQueryCommand(new QueryCommand() { | |
− | + | @Override | |
− | + | public void execute(QueryExecutor queryExecutor) { | |
− | + | QueryResult<ConvenientResourceDescriptor> execute = queryExecutor.execute(query); | |
− | + | } | |
− | + | }); | |
− | + | } | |
} | } | ||
</source> | </source> |
Latest revision as of 10:00, 15 September 2009
This page is intended to compare the two index implementations form different viewpoints.
Performance
Performance measurement was done on a T61 laptop.
Indexing
Indexing time
This test measured the time which is needed to index x-times the content of Ecore.ecore. (Containing 393 instances of EObject and 520 references)
|
Index save time (logarithmic scale on x and y axis)
This test measured the time which is needed to dump the index to file system.
|
Memory consumption
This test measured the in memory size of the index by use of the Memory Analyzer Tool. In the SAP case, paging was disabled
|
Required Memory on Disc
These values show the amount of kilobytes per Ecore content.
|
Query response time
Query All Resources, EObject and all EReferences
|
Query all references targeting a certain resource (logarithmic scale on x and y axis)
|
Query all instances of "EClass" (logarithmic scale on x and y axis)
|
These values show how fast the queries respond that are required to simulate interconnected descriptors.
|
Convenient query API
The following proposal can be implemented on top of the low level API to provide a more convenient query API as proposed by Itemis. The basic idea would be to provide a specialized query factory for the convenient queries, which returns wrappers around the low level query objects. The query wrapper would also return a wrapped QueryResult object which in turn wraps the low level descriptors. The following snippet shows an example of the query factory.
public class ConvenientIndexQueryFactory { public ConvenientEObjectQuery<?> createEObjectQuery() { ... } public ConvenientEReferenceQuery<?> createEReferenceQuery() { ... } public ConvenientResourceQuery<ConvenientResourceDescriptor> createResourceQuery() { return new ConvenientResourceQueryImpl<ConvenientResourceDescriptor>(); }
The returned resource query needs to subclass our ResourceQueryImpl class and override the createQueryResult() method. This method gets an iterable with low level descriptors. The QueryResult only implements the Iterable interface and has no further methods.
public class ConvenientResourceQueryImpl<T> extends ResourceQueryImpl<T> implements ConvenientResourceQuery<T> { @Override public QueryResult<T> createQueryResult(QueryExecutorInternal queryExecutor, Iterable<ResourceDescriptor> result) { return ...; // new QueryResult implementation } }
A convenient user may use this API as like as the low level API:
public class ConvenientUser { public void test() { final ConvenientResourceQuery<ConvenientResourceDescriptor> query = new ConvenientIndexQueryFactory().createResourceQuery(); query.uri("hallo"); Index index = ...; index.executeQueryCommand(new QueryCommand() { @Override public void execute(QueryExecutor queryExecutor) { QueryResult<ConvenientResourceDescriptor> execute = queryExecutor.execute(query); } }); } }