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 is incorrect
Date Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:35:40 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13230994#comment-13230994
] 

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

Interestingly the ARRAY header seems to be much bigger on 64 bit platforms without compact
refs, so I have the feeling that somehow thre is still some space needed for an object ref,
so the original definition of the size was more correct? https://gist.github.com/2038305

Using the original definition:
{code:java}
public final static int NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER = NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_HEADER + NUM_BYTES_INT +
NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_REF;
{code}

This looks much more like the above size, aligned to 8 bytes.

bq. Did you try running with Instrumentation (an agent)? What does it say about object/ array
sizes?

Have to try out and set this up first.
                
> RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER is 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: Shai Erera
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 3.6, 4.0
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-3867-compressedOops.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