lucene-dev mailing list archives

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


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:
>             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,,,
>   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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message