lucene-dev mailing list archives

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


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:
>             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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message