Skip to content

[#51] Fix performance issue with Object Store - #52

Merged
jacksondunstan merged 7 commits into
jacksondunstan:masterfrom
AustinSmith13:master
Jan 19, 2020
Merged

[#51] Fix performance issue with Object Store#52
jacksondunstan merged 7 commits into
jacksondunstan:masterfrom
AustinSmith13:master

Conversation

@AustinSmith13

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

When BaseMaxSimultaneous was set to a large number the object-store was
spending to much time finding the handle. This was fixed using a
dictionary where the keys have the objects full hash.

= added 2 commits January 13, 2020 22:01
When BaseMaxSimultaneous was set to a large number the object-store was
spending to much time finding the handle. This was fixed using a
dictionary where the keys have the objects full hash.
@AustinSmith13

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

After looking at this in the morning I realized I'm keying with hashcodes which is not guaranteed to be unique.

@jacksondunstan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

@AustinSmith13 let me know if you fix the uniqueness problem and I'll review. Thanks for the PR! 👍

@AustinSmith13

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@jacksondunstan After a little bit of research object.GetHashCode() returns a unique index assigned to the object by the CLR when the object is created and released from garbage collection.

So I don't think its likely to have a hash-code duplicate in the same app-domain but maybe after collection which I don't think is a problem.

I did implement a version with hash collision handling but it less nice looking and is probably slower. (but not by much)

I am thinking about keeping it the way it is, but microsoft advises against it here https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.object.gethashcode?view=netframework-4.8

public static int GetHandle(object obj)
{
	// Null is always zero
	if (object.ReferenceEquals(obj, null))
	{
		return 0;
	}
				
	lock (objects)
	{
		// Look up the handle in the hash table
		uint hash = (uint)obj.GetHashCode();
		List<int> handleBucket = null;

		if (handleBucketByHash.TryGetValue(hash, out handleBucket))
		{
			for (int i = 0; i < handleBucket.Count; i++)
			{
				int handleInBucket = handleBucket[i];
				object objectInBucket = objects[handleInBucket];
							
				if (object.ReferenceEquals(objectInBucket, obj))
				{
					return handleInBucket;
				}
			}
		}
	}
				
	// Object not found
	return Store(obj);
}

I've tried to cause hash collisions by creating and destroying thousands of objects per frame. No collisions.

If you are fine with whats there I would like to keep it the way it is without any collision handling for slight performance benefit.

@AustinSmith13

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Sorry about constantly changing this I can't help but try to make things perfect. I realize a better way of doing this would be to use a single dictionary Dictionary<object, int>. Dictionaries already consider hash collisions for there keys. I'll have this change ready for review later today.

…objects

Dictionary<object, int> will take care of hashing/collisions for us.
@AustinSmith13

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@jacksondunstan This is ready for review.

After looking into how dictionaries work, I realized they already do everything I was previously trying to do. Internally they call GetHashCode and check equality for collisions.

@jacksondunstan jacksondunstan left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey @AustinSmith13, thanks for the continued development on this PR. I just had a few comments and two of them are pretty minor.

Comment thread Unity/Assets/NativeScript/Bindings.cs Outdated
Comment thread Unity/Assets/NativeScript/Bindings.cs Outdated
Comment thread Unity/Assets/NativeScript/Bindings.cs Outdated
@jacksondunstan
jacksondunstan merged commit ddf585a into jacksondunstan:master Jan 19, 2020
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.

2 participants