lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4322) Can we make oal.util.packed.BulkOperation* smaller?
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:46:42 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4322:

Even when removing the whole oal.util.packed package, the JAR size is still 2.1MB.

Right, I don't mean to complain about the packed package or single it out (though I have concerns
about the massive specialization),
I was pointing out the larger issue of bloat. There are definitely other problems too.

These classes are not only used to store large int arrays in memory but also to perform encoding/decoding
of short sequences, such as in BlockPF. If we want BlockPF to remain fast, 5 is probably too
low. Mike tested BlockPF with an unspecialized decoder and it showed a great performance loss

But I don't think an unspecialized decoder is necessarily fair. I think we could optimize
the low bpv that we would find in freqs/positions and then have a unspecialized fallback or

I have concerns that specializing every bpv just means that nothing is even getting JITd and
actually makes things worse.

> Can we make oal.util.packed.BulkOperation* smaller?
> ---------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4322
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>             Fix For: 5.0, 4.0
> These source files add up to a lot of sources ... it caused problems when compiling under
Maven and InteliJ.
> I committed a change to make separates files, but in aggregate this is still a lot ...
> EG maybe we don't need to specialize encode?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message