lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Earwin Burrfoot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1607) String.intern() faster alternative
Date Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:40:47 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1607?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12701626#action_12701626
] 

Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-1607:
-----------------------------------------

I tried it out. Works a little bit better than simple cache (no stray interns must've paid
off), doesn't degrade at all.
I'd like to change starter value to something 256-1024, it works way better for 10-20 fields.

Why h >> 7? I understand that you're sacking collision-guilty bits, but why not exact
amount that was used (have to store it?), or a whole byte or two?

> String.intern() faster alternative
> ----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1607
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1607
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Earwin Burrfoot
>             Fix For: 2.9
>
>         Attachments: intern.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch, LUCENE-1607.patch,
LUCENE-1607.patch
>
>
> By using our own interned string pool on top of default, String.intern() can be greatly
optimized.
> On my setup (java 6) this alternative runs ~15.8x faster for already interned strings,
and ~2.2x faster for 'new String(interned)'
> For java 5 and 4 speedup is lower, but still considerable.

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


Mime
View raw message