Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of earwin@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.48 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=mBr86Q4RZpCGENKbeQj85r2U7RfxxIAUnwYsN8GGfoSJeoyMADHRjqFb7HhQ/CIAkY
         WWcwCaOkRK9e0i1kp2Kxt9Ux1HYib4PH6MZ/N95MQkQDtj0c1gK5nFM9X289O9c3ZEQO
         f7D0s+2TpQGDliOyAT8V8HTUOfitK4eEPK1co=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimwPXTlUIm9Yjv6YjNNedKn249aKTo8dsoQzIEY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinIHwqvxv-Jy7G-4nm0umXuBLCHSQ3Z-bH7jQgC@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinCpcj-CCwfUptBUGwR-fdNHyGRcWzSMk71Qh1l@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikXjxt4scoT7eoO74sUkvPC6jEYj1H7_Vgs3qgo@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim45o9H5QKNtnGJCTufIFqN-3-Mv81IdWDcq7YY@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTilb21p7kOdnlDsqLC_Qtb8q9snOjS82_KLgTJDy@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinMAZw31ixegF2TcRR6hpENbi5ZKbTSdfnJMwv5@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinz0iRJYCnBIkMU-wY4AF-qPMhcG9jmP63P938S@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTilX0ciOcorCvAyxphC83N9MqxhVxhtjC6DLKYiE@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimiydS-MA6Hk-t0DWDY3aPfPdZoLtDSXaPdtfNo@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTilYax03jtMbztldyyRQrr0LhsrZPcXXItgeXoIq@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikYfifeAkHNZ_yUtWxP2Q4RMmFFOp5OdlDUazWX@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimbotk3Q09BUalUEfAkp5x19xPmeDotvt0ucQgc@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimy6Qww9nEiXnKIsHrw0vgOK0mQOv8V6W5w3zEp@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimwPXTlUIm9Yjv6YjNNedKn249aKTo8dsoQzIEY@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:35:23 +0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinzcxPN7ynFvFnkTyqqmdvarf5hSXdp9icIqp6Y@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Scorer api change
From: Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Lies, lies, lies :)
I mean, Sun JIT is overrelied on. Especially in regards to inlining.

But, there are some cases when you can trust it. I.e. if you call a
virtual method and this exact call-site gets refs to different objects
at runtime (meaning here - you wrap different Queries in your
WrapperQuery) - you can definetly rely on a call not being inlined.

So, I agree with John on his /rough/ overhead estimates, on the part
that it exists, and it's detectable. I don't agree on allowing
arbitrary doc scoring. People who really need this for some strange
applications, can emulate this now - by advancing() scorer to needed
doc, and calling score(). But for most people it's unnecessary, and as
I said - will lead to scaaary code.

If you really think that one or two method calls in a loop are
neglible, I ask you to join my holy crusade and erase
Scorer.score(Collector) set of methods :) they exist there for the
sole purporse of cutting on a few method calls, and are really,
really, really confusing.


2010/6/9 Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>:
> I don't think the method call is an overhead John. You don't need to
> reiterate it. The compiler does make optimizations and inlines such
> code/calls if it can. More than that, the query processing involves so mu=
ch
> method calls, that I do think that's insignificant.

Woohoo! Mexican standoff! :)

--=20
Kirill Zakharenko/=D0=9A=D0=B8=D1=80=D0=B8=D0=BB=D0=BB =D0=97=D0=B0=D1=85=
=D0=B0=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=BA=D0=BE (earwin@gmail.com)
Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
ICQ: 104465785

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