Skip to content

Operator flat map rewrite #3010

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

akarnokd
Copy link
Member

@akarnokd akarnokd commented Jun 8, 2015

An alternative to #2928 by using flatMap(o -> o) == merge() identity.

Benchmark:

image

It is slightly better than #2928 for flatMap() benchmarks and slightly worse than merge()

@akarnokd akarnokd force-pushed the OperatorFlatMapRewrite branch from 9de559e to fb6ee46 Compare June 8, 2015 08:34
@akarnokd akarnokd force-pushed the OperatorFlatMapRewrite branch from fb6ee46 to 971d209 Compare June 8, 2015 17:00
@benjchristensen
Copy link
Member

What do the columns represent in that benchmark?

@akarnokd
Copy link
Member Author

akarnokd commented Jun 9, 2015

1.x = current head,
1st try = rewrite but only with the scalar optimizations,
3rd try = rewrite+scalar optimizations + unbounded mode optimizations,
flatMap = merge implemented with flatMap instead the other way around so merge(map(func)) inlines func into merge and saves on a lift() call.

@davidmoten
Copy link
Collaborator

I made this comment on your tool's site but I think we can't assess whether the benchmarks indicate significant change unless the error value is taken into account and I assume these visualizations always ignore the error value (is that right?).

@akarnokd
Copy link
Member Author

I'm closing this in favor of the recent changes in #2928.

@akarnokd akarnokd closed this Jun 17, 2015
@akarnokd akarnokd deleted the OperatorFlatMapRewrite branch September 9, 2015 15:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants