Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <13735876.58701280364864967.JavaMail.jira@thor>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:54:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1799) Unicode compression
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1799?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12893456#action_12893456 ] 

Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1799:
--------------------------------------

Hmmm, interesting.  I'm sure my JVM is 64 bit, and I just double-checked that the IDE is using that to launch the benchmark.  The differences we see might be down to CPU?

Here's my 64 bit JVM I'm using:
java version "1.6.0_21"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_21-b06)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 17.0-b16, mixed mode)

And I just tried a 32 bit one (also -server) I had laying around:
java version "1.6.0_18"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_18-b07)
Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 16.0-b13, mixed mode)

32 bit results:
ret=713832704 UTF-8 encode: 35895
ret=713832704BOCU-1 encode: 55855

> Unicode compression
> -------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1799
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1799
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Store
>    Affects Versions: 2.4.1
>            Reporter: DM Smith
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: Benchmark.java, Benchmark.java, Benchmark.java, LUCENE-1779.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799.patch, LUCENE-1799_big.patch
>
>
> In lucene-1793, there is the off-topic suggestion to provide compression of Unicode data. The motivation was a custom encoding in a Russian analyzer. The original supposition was that it provided a more compact index.
> This led to the comment that a different or compressed encoding would be a generally useful feature. 
> BOCU-1 was suggested as a possibility. This is a patented algorithm by IBM with an implementation in ICU. If Lucene provide it's own implementation a freely avIlable, royalty-free license would need to be obtained.
> SCSU is another Unicode compression algorithm that could be used. 
> An advantage of these methods is that they work on the whole of Unicode. If that is not needed an encoding such as iso8859-1 (or whatever covers the input) could be used.    

-- 
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