lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-2056) Should NIOFSDir use direct ByteBuffers?
Date Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:19:13 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2056:
---------------------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-2056.patch

Attached patch, creating a DirectNIOFSDirectory, using direct ByteBuffers for read (Indexinput)
and write (IndexOutput).

With some simple initial tests (a TermQuery, OR query, PhraseQuery), on CentOS 5.4, Java 1.6.0_17
64bit, it seems to be a bit (~1-3%) faster than NIOFSDirectory.

> Should NIOFSDir use direct ByteBuffers?
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2056
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Store
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-2056.patch
>
>
> I'm trying to test NRT performance, and noticed when I dump the thread stacks that the
darned threads often seem to be in {{java.nio.Bits.copyToByteArray(Native Method)}}... so
I wondered whether we could/should use direct ByteBuffers, and whether that would gain performance
in general.  We currently just use our own byte[] buffer via BufferedIndexInput.
> It's hard to test since it's likely platform specific, but if it does result in gains
it could be an easy win.

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


Mime
View raw message