[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12776588#action_12776588
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2056:
-------------------------------------
Will be interesting to see what you come up with. I replaced the byte buffer in
BufferedIndexInput with a direct buffer a year or two ago and it slowed things
down. Then I read a bunch about how there were various issues with direct
buffers - they really got NIO right on the first go or two ;) They are supposed
to be much faster in java 7.
Who knows though - I was lazy and went with a pretty much straight port to
direct buffers. Can prob get a much better kick with some pooling or something.
> Should NIOFSDir use direct ByteBuffers?
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2056
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
>
> I'm trying to test NRT performance, and noticed when I dump the thread stacks
> that the darned threads often seem to be in
> {{java.nio.Bits.copyToByteArray(Native Method)}}... so I wondered whether we
> could/should use direct ByteBuffers, and whether that would gain performance
> in general. We currently just use our own byte[] buffer via
> BufferedIndexInput.
> It's hard to test since it's likely platform specific, but if it does result
> in gains it could be an easy win.
--
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
