I will just close this one as no one has provided any positive ideas on making such a change. If someone thinks of something smart later we can discuss/re-open.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Daniel Kuppitz <[email protected]> wrote: > I would prefer to keep it like we have it now. A barrier size of 1000 mean > doesn't necessarily mean, that we will get a lot of traversers. In fact, it > will mostly be way fewer in a good traversal executed on a well-modeled > graph. Thus I'd say let's better keep the memory footprint low. However, I > might underestimate the cost of resizing, so this is purely based on my > opinion / gut feeling, not on any kind of benchmarks. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I came across this JIRA: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1503 > > > > which wonders about the initial size of TraverserSet instances for a > given > > barrier size. Anyone have any opinion about how to size that? > > >
