ioeric added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/index/dex/Dex.cpp:251 Bytes += InvertedIndex.getMemorySize(); - for (const auto &P : InvertedIndex) - Bytes += P.second.bytes(); + for (const auto &TokenToPostingList : InvertedIndex) + Bytes += TokenToPostingList.first.Data.size() + ---------------- kbobyrev wrote: > ioeric wrote: > > Would `InvertedIndex.getMemorySize()` be a better estimate? > IIUC this is only precise for the objects which do not make any allocations > (e.g. `std::vector` and `std::string` memory estimate would not be "correct"). > > From the documentation > > > This is just the raw memory used by DenseMap. If entries are pointers to > > objects, the size of the referenced objects are not included. > > I also have `Bytes += InvertedIndex.getMemorySize();` above, so the purpose > of this code would be to take into account the size of these "reference > objects". > > However, since `PostingList::bytes()` also returns underlying `std::vector` > size, this code will probably add these `std::vector` objects size twice (the > first one was in `InvertedIndex.getMemorySize()`). I should fix that. > `If entries are pointers to objects, the size of the referenced objects are > not included.` This applies to *pointers* to objects, but the `PostingList`s in InvertedList are not pointerd? So it seems to me that `InvertedIndex.getMemorySize()` covers everything in the `InvertedIndex`. One way to verify is probably check the size calculated with loop against `InvertedIndex.getMemorySize()`. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52503 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
