[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7268?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15266900#comment-15266900
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-7268:
--------------------------------------
That is right for our TimSort too, my bad. I did the test with a max temporary
storage of array.length above, but it would work the same with a mamimum
temporary storage of about array.length/2, and it would still not merge in
place.
> Remove ArrayUtil.timSort?
> -------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7268
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7268
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-7268_mods.patch
>
>
> Is there some workload where our timSort is better than the JDK one? Should
> we just remove ours if its slower?
> Not that its a great test, but i switched Polygon2D edge sorting (just the
> one where it says "sort the edges then build a balanced tree from them") from
> Arrays.sort to ArrayUtil.timSort and was surprised when performance was much
> slower for an enormous polygon
> (http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/geobench/cleveland.poly.txt.gz)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
