Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 26094 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2010 09:30:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 16 Jun 2010 09:30:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 18115 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2010 09:30:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 17466 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jun 2010 09:30:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 17457 invoked by uid 99); 16 Jun 2010 09:30:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:30:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.22] (HELO thor.apache.org) (140.211.11.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:30:45 +0000 Received: from thor (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thor.apache.org (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5G9UN9A022110 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:30:23 GMT Message-ID: <13451199.26511276680623483.JavaMail.jira@thor> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:30:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael McCandless (JIRA)" To: dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2056) Should NIOFSDir use direct ByteBuffers? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12879290#action_12879290 ] Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2056: -------------------------------------------- Thanks Steven! Was this with the above alg (ie, 4 threads doing searching)? Could you also try the search using NIOFSDirectory? Also, if possible, it'd be better to test against a larger index -- such super-fast queries allow the query init cost to unduly impact that results (eg, allocating a direct buffer is more costly than allocating a non-direct buffer). > 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