lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dawid Weiss (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3867) RamUsageEstimator.NUM_BYTES_ARRAY_HEADER and other constants are incorrect
Date Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:13:38 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13231981#comment-13231981
] 

Dawid Weiss commented on LUCENE-3867:
-------------------------------------

The patch looks good. I don't know if decorating IdentityHashMap to be a set adds any overhead...
I was also thinking about doing a custom set impl. for this so that we know how much memory
we allocate during the checking itself, but it seems to be very specific to what I need, so
no worries.

One thing:
{code}
(size % NUM_BYTES_OBJECT_ALIGNMENT);
{code}
Byte alignment will be a power of 2 (that option to change it even enforces it when you start
the JVM) so you can do a bitmask instead of modulo - should be slighly faster.
                
> 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: 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, 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