lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3867) RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER and other constants are incorrect
Date Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:04:22 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13235500#comment-13235500
] 

Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-3867:
---------------------------------------

Thanks for the insight.

When thinking about the reordering, I am a littel bit afraid about the "optimization" in the
shallow sizeOf(Class<?>). This optimiaztion does not recurse to superclasses, as it
assumes, that all field offsets are greater than those of the superclass, so finding the maximum
does not need to recurse up (so it early exits).

This is generally true (also in the above printout), but not guaranteed. E.g. JRockit does
it partly (it reuses space inside the superclass area to locate the byte from the subclass).
In the above example still the order of fields is always Super-Sub-SubSub, but if the ordeing
in the JRockit example would be like:

{noformat}
@ 8  1 Super.superByte
@ 9  7 Sub.subByte
@16  8 Super.subLong
@24  8 Sub.subLong
@32  8 SubSub.subSubLong
@40  8 SubSub.subSubByte
@48    sizeOf(SubSub.class instance)
{noformat}

The only thing the JVM cannot change is field offsets between sub classes (so the field offset
of the superclass is inherited), but it could happen that *new* fields are located between
super's fields (see above - it's unused space). This would also allow casting and so on (it's
unused space in superclass). Unfortunately with that reordering the maximum field offset in
the subclass is no longer guaranteed to be greater.

I would suggest that we remove the "optimization" in the shallow class size method. It's too
risky in my opinion to underdetermine the size, because the maximum offset in the subclass
is < the maximum offset in the superclass.

I hope my explanation was understandable... :-)

Dawid, what do you thing, should we remove the "optimization"? Patch is easy.
                
> RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER and other constants are incorrect
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-3867
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3867
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: core/index
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 3.6, 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-3867-3.x.patch, LUCENE-3867-compressedOops.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch,
LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch,
LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch,
LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch, LUCENE-3867.patch,
LUCENE-3867.patch
>
>
> RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER is computed like that: NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_HEADER
+ NUM_BYTES_INT + NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_REF. The NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_REF part should not be included,
at least not according to this page: http://www.javamex.com/tutorials/memory/array_memory_usage.shtml
> {quote}
> A single-dimension array is a single object. As expected, the array has the usual object
header. However, this object head is 12 bytes to accommodate a four-byte array length. Then
comes the actual array data which, as you might expect, consists of the number of elements
multiplied by the number of bytes required for one element, depending on its type. The memory
usage for one element is 4 bytes for an object reference ...
> {quote}
> While on it, I wrote a sizeOf(String) impl, and I wonder how do people feel about including
such helper methods in RUE, as static, stateless, methods? It's not perfect, there's some
room for improvement I'm sure, here it is:
> {code}
> 	/**
> 	 * Computes the approximate size of a String object. Note that if this object
> 	 * is also referenced by another object, you should add
> 	 * {@link RamUsageEstimator#NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_REF} to the result of this
> 	 * method.
> 	 */
> 	public static int sizeOf(String str) {
> 		return 2 * str.length() + 6 // chars + additional safeness for arrays alignment
> 				+ 3 * RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_INT // String maintains 3 integers
> 				+ RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER // char[] array
> 				+ RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_HEADER; // String object
> 	}
> {code}
> If people are not against it, I'd like to also add sizeOf(int[] / byte[] / long[] / double[]
... and String[]).

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

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


Mime
View raw message