mikemccand commented on PR #15779:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/15779#issuecomment-3997465011
Sorry for all the ideas -- we can also pinch & ship what you already created
-- it looks like an amazing win as is -- PNP! ("progress not perfection").
I'm curious if this is needle moving for indexing overall? We can wait and
see what nightly benchy thinks, after we merge this.
I had another realization: we say the `ids` array stores the fingerprint
(high bits) of the key's hash code. Since these ids are actually ordinals
(assigned as 0, 1, 2, 3, ... as we see each unique `BytesRef` being added), we
have many free 0 high bits to use for fingerprint.
But I think it's not actually a fingerprint? I think it is the entire hash
code (when added to position in `ids` array, the lower hash bits)? We
shouldn't ever need to hash() on something already in the table (just the
incoming key being added/get'd)? There must always be enough free 0 high bits
in the ids, since they are compact ordinals, and we grow the hash table (which
stores lower k bits of hash, then k+1 its on rehash, ...) well before id value
gets to hash table size?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
