[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12836267#action_12836267
]
Toke Eskildsen commented on LUCENE-1990:
----------------------------------------
I am sorry, but personal issues sapped my time and energy this week, so Lucene
got bumped down my priority-list. I am going to code4lib next week and I'll try
and get some hacking done in the plane from Denmark to USA, but that depends on
whether or not there is a power socket near my seat. If I don't upload a patch
late monday, it will be early march before I'll get it done
{quote}
But, now that we have getMutable, can we make the concrete impls
package private? Javadocs for Mutable.set should note that the size
is fixed once you allocate it.
{quote}
Agreed on both.
{quote}
We have no way to save a Mutable... should we add that?
{quote}
I dont know enough about persistence in Lucene to make that call. Since the
writer is tied to Lucene, it would not work for general purposes, so making a
writer for Mutables only seems to make sense if the user uses it to build
index-structures?
{quote}
Maybe we should just merge Mutable & Reader, then? (LongStore?
LongArray? PackedLongs?)
{quote}
I don't understand that one? You made a compelling argument for returning
immutables to readers earlier (problems with concurrency and having all back
ends support writes).
As for the name... I don't know. None of the sound right, but I have no other
suggestion.
{quote}
We should state clearly that these are all unsigned ints storage.
Maybe rename PackedDirectInt to PackedDirect32 (and Short to 16,
Byte to 8). Because... while it is using a direct int[] under the hood,
it's really using all 32 bits for the full positive int range.
{quote}
Good point. The rest of your suggestions are also very valid.
> 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
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-1990-te20100122.patch,
> LUCENE-1990-te20100210.patch, LUCENE-1990-te20100212.patch,
> LUCENE-1990.patch, LUCENE-1990_PerformanceMeasurements20100104.zip
>
>
> 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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
