[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2056:
---------------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-2056.patch
Attached patch, creating a DirectNIOFSDirectory, using direct ByteBuffers for
read (Indexinput) and write (IndexOutput).
With some simple initial tests (a TermQuery, OR query, PhraseQuery), on CentOS
5.4, Java 1.6.0_17 64bit, it seems to be a bit (~1-3%) faster than
NIOFSDirectory.
> Should NIOFSDir use direct ByteBuffers?
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2056
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-2056.patch
>
>
> I'm trying to test NRT performance, and noticed when I dump the thread stacks
> that the darned threads often seem to be in
> {{java.nio.Bits.copyToByteArray(Native Method)}}... so I wondered whether we
> could/should use direct ByteBuffers, and whether that would gain performance
> in general. We currently just use our own byte[] buffer via
> BufferedIndexInput.
> It's hard to test since it's likely platform specific, but if it does result
> in gains it could be an easy win.
--
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
