On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Jason Rutherglen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Breaking up RT patches into baby steps would be great :) >> Actually is the RT branch active (I haven't seen commits going >> in). > > From what we discussed, my impression is that the RT changes > will be substantial and the sequence ids seem to be something > that can be implemented now in trunk, then at least a small > piece of RT would be implemented and tested. A small isolated > improvement.
I agree. >> The biggest downside of sequence IDs is increase RAM usage >> right? > > Yes, however the garbage collection would decrease. Right, much less GC if app frequently reopens. But a 32X increase in RAM usage is not trivial; I think we shouldn't enable it by default? > We should make seq id deletes pluggable. +1 -- make the deletes impl pluggable (ie one impl is sequence IDs; another is BitVector). >> Then, checking if a doc is deleted becomes an int compare >> instead of a bit lookup, right? > > Right it'd be an int compare, I think this'd be ok? Yeah maybe even more than OK; could be this is faster than looking up a bit! (Though it's much more traffic on the memory bus). Apps may want to use this even outside of NRT. Have you tested? Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
