[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12904564#action_12904564
]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-1990:
-----------------------------------------
bq. One big problem with the unit-test is that it requires 2^30*4/8 bytes =
512MB of heap. I am guessing that this makes it impossible to run in the
standard test-suite.
Seems to be a bit high for a unittest but you can't help it, right? :)
bq. I am unsure as to how I should push this fix through. Should I create a new
JIRA issue? Make a patch against trunk? Or maybe a committer could just try the
test above and insert the fix in trunk?
I would suggest to create a new issue and attach a patch with the fix including
your unittest. Since the unittest might break hudson etc I would recommend to
add an @Ignore on top of it (JUnit 4) until we decided how to include tests
like that. Maybe we might introduce a special flag that enables tests like that
with a JUnit Assume call but that needs to be further discussed.
> Add unsigned packed int impls in oal.util
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1990
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1990
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: Flex Branch
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: generated_performance-te20100226.txt,
> LUCENE-1990-te20100122.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100210.patch,
> LUCENE-1990-te20100212.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100223.patch,
> LUCENE-1990-te20100226.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100226b.patch,
> LUCENE-1990-te20100226c.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100301.patch,
> LUCENE-1990.patch, LUCENE-1990.patch, LUCENE-1990.patch,
> LUCENE-1990_PerformanceMeasurements20100104.zip, perf-mkm-20100227.txt,
> performance-20100301.txt, performance-te20100226.txt
>
>
> There are various places in Lucene that could take advantage of an
> efficient packed unsigned int/long impl. EG the terms dict index in
> the standard codec in LUCENE-1458 could subsantially reduce it's RAM
> usage. FieldCache.StringIndex could as well. And I think "load into
> RAM" codecs like the one in TestExternalCodecs could use this too.
> I'm picturing something very basic like:
> {code}
> interface PackedUnsignedLongs {
> long get(long index);
> void set(long index, long value);
> }
> {code}
> Plus maybe an iterator for getting and maybe also for setting. If it
> helps, most of the usages of this inside Lucene will be "write once"
> so eg the set could make that an assumption/requirement.
> And a factory somewhere:
> {code}
> PackedUnsignedLongs create(int count, long maxValue);
> {code}
> I think we should simply autogen the code (we can start from the
> autogen code in LUCENE-1410), or, if there is an good existing impl
> that has a compatible license that'd be great.
> I don't have time near-term to do this... so if anyone has the itch,
> please jump!
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
