lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Elschot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1410) PFOR implementation
Date Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:24:05 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1410?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12839509#action_12839509
] 

Paul Elschot commented on LUCENE-1410:
--------------------------------------

bq. I thought that removing the IntBuffer and working directly with the byte array will be
faster ...

When the int values are in processor byte order, a call to  IntBuffer.get() may be reduced
by the JIT to a single hardware instruction. This is why the initial implementation uses IntBuffer.
Also, the index bound checks need only be done once for the first and last index used.

I have no idea why a 64 bit OS would be slower than a 32 bit OS.

> PFOR implementation
> -------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1410
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1410
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Other
>            Reporter: Paul Elschot
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: autogen.tgz, for-summary.txt, LUCENE-1410-codecs.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1410b.patch,
LUCENE-1410c.patch, LUCENE-1410d.patch, LUCENE-1410e.patch, TermQueryTests.tgz, TestPFor2.java,
TestPFor2.java, TestPFor2.java
>
>   Original Estimate: 21840h
>  Remaining Estimate: 21840h
>
> Implementation of Patched Frame of Reference.

-- 
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