On May 6, 2006, at 3:40 AM, karl wettin wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 03:28 -0400, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> On May 6, 2006, at 2:29 AM, karl wettin wrote:
>>
>>> There are a couple of Vector:s in the code. Is it really  
>>> necessary to
>>> use this expensive thread safe artifact from the dark ages?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Does anyone have any numbers on the performance differences on such a
>> refactoring?  I reckon it wouldn't be that hard to put together a
>> reasonably representative dataset and test before/after.  Who's game?
>
> I'm already at it, but in my branch. Can patch up the SVN version with
> my changes. I'll leave the test to someone else :)
>
> The question is what needs and not needs to be synchronized. I take it
> nothing needs to, but I'm not sure.

Well, we used to have this hot shot committer named Brian Goetz, but  
he's too busy being an expert on synchronization and low-level Java  
details that personally make my head hurt.  Maybe he could find it an  
interesting case study to do a little nuts and bolts analysis of the  
Lucene codebase and see what tweaks make sense and just get a test  
suite going to hammer it on all our before/after scenarios.

Whatcha think, Brian?! :)

	Erik


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org