In the most non-inflammatory way possible: I am not sure I'm convinced of the performance benefits of crossing a JNI boundary to invoke a method in another language, versus letting the JVM JIT and optimize native JVM code.
Would be interesting to see benchmarks here, do you know if there are any public ones available, specific to QuestDB's interop code?
In certain situations, crossing the JNI boundary can be advantageous. When data resides in "native" memory, outside the Java heap, the coordination of concurrent execution logic can be handled in Java, while the actual execution occurs in C++ or Rust. In this context, the negligible penalty for crossing the JNI boundary once per 10 million rows pales in comparison to the substantial benefits achievable through C++ optimization or CPU-specific assembly.
I see... but that seems a little weak considering it's a funded product, the first adjective they use to describe it is "fast", and good old C++ would totally slay it. The author has a C++ background, maybe he could spend an afternoon trying that?
I couldn't even try to count the number of great posts I've read about fast hash tables from e.g. Paul Khuong alone...
gavinray|2 years ago
Would be interesting to see benchmarks here, do you know if there are any public ones available, specific to QuestDB's interop code?
bluestreak|2 years ago
pixelpoet|2 years ago
I couldn't even try to count the number of great posts I've read about fast hash tables from e.g. Paul Khuong alone...