[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6199?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14299752#comment-14299752
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-6199:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
But net/net, no, I don't think these changes are scary: they look low risk to
me, and they give an enormous reduction on per-indexd-field RAM used.
{quote}
First of all, no: the changes do not give even a noticeable reduction of RAM
for 99.9% of users. Thats my number one problem.
Second, I am disappointed that you see this as low-risk. Perhaps the biggest
risk of all is doing this with a shitty risk-reward. The reward is nothing,
since it only impacts abuse cases.
But ill stay out of the way. This kinda stuff is why the codebase gets so damn
complicated, because, without any reservations at all, we'd greatly
overcomplicate very central core classes to lucene for use cases that flat out
do not exist.
> Reduce per-field heap usage for indexed fields
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6199
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6199
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: Trunk, 5.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-6199.patch
>
>
> Lucene uses a non-trivial baseline bytes of heap for each indexed
> field, and I know it's abusive for an app to create 100K indexed
> fields but I still think we can and should make some effort to reduce
> heap usage per unique field?
> E.g. in block tree we store 3 BytesRefs per field, when 3 byte[]s
> would do...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
