[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-318?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12672076#action_12672076
]
Bryan Duxbury commented on THRIFT-318:
--------------------------------------
I will probably get rid of the Extent subclass all together. It was used mostly
as part of my first attempt that used a list of Extents instead of the extent
array.
I implemented the Set interface not just for the iterable-ness of it, but also
for the conceptual guarantee that it contains no duplicates and has a
contains() method. The fact that it has a bunch of unimplemented methods makes
it no different than a Set wrapped with Collections.unmodifiableSet(), except
that it's inherently unmodifiable.
> Performance of HashSet for enumeration VALID_VALUES seems poor
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-318
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-318
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Compiler (Java)
> Reporter: Bryan Duxbury
> Assignee: Bryan Duxbury
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.1
>
> Attachments: thrift-318.patch
>
>
> It looks like using a HashSet for the VALID_VALUES set we now put in
> enumerated types was a bad move, performance-wise. There's a fair amount of
> HashSet/HashMap/Integer overhead generated.
> I think that the VALID_VALUES should still be a Set, but we can make a
> TIntRangeSet or something internal to Thrift that's more efficient for our
> usecases and save some CPU.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
