lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adrien Grand (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4322) Can we make oal.util.packed.BulkOperation* smaller?
Date Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:48:07 GMT


Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-4322:

These numbers depend on so many factors (docFreq distribution, order in which documents have
been indexed, etc.) that it sounds strange to me to only pick a few bits per value we would
like to keep specialized based on these benchmarks. I think it would make more sense to specialize
a full range?

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

I have the same concerns but on the other hand if we pick too few numbers of bits per value,
BlockFor might show very disappointing performance with different datasets.

Maybe something more conservative would be to specialize the [1-24] range. It would already
make the JAR ~350kb smaller (if we removed all specialized impls, the JAR would be ~500kb
smaller). Removing all encoder specializations would probably help us save another 50kb.
> 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
For more information on JIRA, see:

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

View raw message