Motivation:
We expose no methods in ByteBuf to directly write a CharSequence into it. This leads to have the user either convert the CharSequence first to a byte array or use CharsetEncoder. Both cases have some overheads and we can do a lot better for well known Charsets like UTF-8 and ASCII.
Modifications:
Add ByteBufUtil.writeAscii(...) and ByteBufUtil.writeUtf8(...) which can do the task in an optimized way. This is especially true if the passed in ByteBuf extends AbstractByteBuf which is true for all of our implementations which not wrap another ByteBuf.
Result:
Writing an ASCII and UTF-8 CharSequence into a AbstractByteBuf is a lot faster then what the user could do by himself as we can make use of some package private methods and so eliminate reference and range checks. When the Charseq is not ASCII or UTF-8 we can still do a very good job and are on par in most of the cases with what the user would do.
The following benchmark shows the improvements:
Result: 2456866.966 ?(99.9%) 59066.370 ops/s [Average]
Statistics: (min, avg, max) = (2297025.189, 2456866.966, 2586003.225), stdev = 78851.914
Confidence interval (99.9%): [2397800.596, 2515933.336]
Benchmark Mode Samples Score Score error Units
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeAscii thrpt 50 9398165.238 131503.098 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeAsciiString thrpt 50 9695177.968 176684.821 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeAsciiStringViaArray thrpt 50 4788597.415 83181.549 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeAsciiStringViaArrayWrapped thrpt 50 4722297.435 98984.491 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeAsciiStringWrapped thrpt 50 4028689.762 66192.505 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeAsciiViaArray thrpt 50 3234841.565 91308.009 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeAsciiViaArrayWrapped thrpt 50 3311387.474 39018.933 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeAsciiWrapped thrpt 50 3379764.250 66735.415 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeUtf8 thrpt 50 5671116.821 101760.081 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeUtf8String thrpt 50 5682733.440 111874.084 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeUtf8StringViaArray thrpt 50 3564548.995 55709.512 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeUtf8StringViaArrayWrapped thrpt 50 3621053.671 47632.820 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeUtf8StringWrapped thrpt 50 2634029.071 52304.876 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeUtf8ViaArray thrpt 50 3397049.332 57784.119 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeUtf8ViaArrayWrapped thrpt 50 3318685.262 35869.562 ops/s
i.n.m.b.ByteBufUtilBenchmark.writeUtf8Wrapped thrpt 50 2473791.249 46423.114 ops/s
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 1,387.417 sec - in io.netty.microbench.buffer.ByteBufUtilBenchmark
Results :
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
Results :
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
The *ViaArray* benchmarks are basically doing a toString().getBytes(Charset) which the others are using ByteBufUtil.write*(...).
61a5e60513