[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7122?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15206468#comment-15206468
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-7122:
--------------------------------------
bq. +1, can you open a new issue?
LUCENE-7129
bq. "Mike" is not using it. Names should not be attached to our source code
Peace. I meant that if Rob needs someone to vouch for the value of the
efficiencies, he need not look any further than you specifically.
bq. Hmm but the only valid reason to use BytesRefArray instead of BytesRef[] is
efficiency?
Fair point.
> BytesRefArray can be more efficient for fixed width values
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7122
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7122
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: master, 6.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-7122.patch, LUCENE-7122.patch
>
>
> Today {{BytesRefArray}} uses one int ({{int[]}}, overallocated) per
> value to hold the length, but for dimensional points these values are
> always the same length.
> This can save another 4 bytes of heap per indexed dimensional point,
> which is a big improvement (more points can fit in heap at once) for
> 1D and 2D lat/lon points.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
