[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7966?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-7966:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-7966.patch
Updated patch. I fixed the fallout better (don't encode wasteful bytes for the
first term, no bytes need to be written) from detecting out-of-order
comparisons in prefix-coding methods, this annoyingly was always related to the
empty string: happened with bytesDifference([], [])/sortKeyLength([], []).
To me it makes sense to detect the malfunction (-1 return from mismatch) rather
than just leniently doing something strange for duplicate terms, it may detect
bugs.
> build mr-jar and use some java 9 methods if available
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7966
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7966
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: general/build
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-7966.patch, LUCENE-7966.patch
>
>
> See background: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/238
> It would be nice to use some of the newer array methods and range checking
> methods in java 9 for example, without waiting for lucene 10 or something. If
> we build an MR-jar, we can start migrating our code to use java 9 methods
> right now, it will use optimized methods from java 9 when thats available,
> otherwise fall back to java 8 code.
> This patch adds:
> {code}
> Objects.checkIndex(int,int)
> Objects.checkFromToIndex(int,int,int)
> Objects.checkFromIndexSize(int,int,int)
> Arrays.mismatch(byte[],int,int,byte[],int,int)
> Arrays.compareUnsigned(byte[],int,int,byte[],int,int)
> Arrays.equal(byte[],int,int,byte[],int,int)
> // did not add char/int/long/short/etc but of course its possible if needed
> {code}
> It sets these up in {{org.apache.lucene.future}} as 1-1 mappings to java
> methods. This way, we can simply directly replace call sites with java 9
> methods when java 9 is a minimum. Simple 1-1 mappings mean also that we only
> have to worry about testing that our java 8 fallback methods work.
> I found that many of the current byte array methods today are willy-nilly and
> very lenient for example, passing invalid offsets at times and relying on
> compare methods not throwing exceptions, etc. I fixed all the instances in
> core/codecs but have not looked at the problems with AnalyzingSuggester. Also
> SimpleText still uses a silly method in ArrayUtil in similar crazy way, have
> not removed that one yet.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
