[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13560000#comment-13560000
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-4609:
------------------------------------
bq. and if we don't see net gains with it then I don't think we should pursue
packed ints encoder/decoder
That's right. But if we'll see net gains, it doesn't mean anything about how it
will perform on small set of integers.
That's why I think this test has nothing to do w/ the Encoder/Decoder.
But I don't mind if this experiment is done here anyway.
> Write a PackedIntsEncoder/Decoder for facets
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4609
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4609
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: modules/facet
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-4609.patch, LUCENE-4609.patch, LUCENE-4609.patch
>
>
> Today the facets API lets you write IntEncoder/Decoder to encode/decode the
> category ordinals. We have several such encoders, including VInt (default),
> and block encoders.
> It would be interesting to implement and benchmark a
> PackedIntsEncoder/Decoder, with potentially two variants: (1) receives
> bitsPerValue up front, when you e.g. know that you have a small taxonomy and
> the max value you can see and (2) one that decides for each doc on the
> optimal bitsPerValue, writes it as a header in the byte[] or something.
--
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: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
